On February 10, the European Parliament endorsed the issuance of a digital euro in both online and offline modes, aligning with the European Central Bank’s approach and increasing the likelihood of solidifying this model ahead of key discussions in the ECON committee. In its statement, the Parliament noted that the digital euro is “essential to strengthening EU monetary sovereignty, reducing fragmentation in retail payments, and supporting the integrity and resilience of the single market.” The Parliament also warned that leaving payment digitization solely to “private and non-European actors” could lead to new forms of exclusion for both users and merchants.

The decision overturns an earlier proposal by Fernando Navarrete from October 2025, who suggested creating only an offline version and allowing online access only in the absence of a private solution. ECB representatives, led by Piero Cipollone, emphasize that the two modes complement each other and bring the digital currency closer to cash. If national governments and the European Parliament agree on the necessary legislation by 2027, the ECB could launch a pilot program, with a full rollout planned for 2029.

This initiative is developing amid growing concerns over Europe’s reliance on American payment systems. In early February, European Payments Initiative CEO Martina Weimert urged for urgent action to reduce dependency on Visa and Mastercard, which control about two-thirds of transactions in the euro area. Thirteen EU countries do not even have national alternatives to international card schemes. The EPI consortium, which includes BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank, has launched the Wero payment service. It has already attracted tens of millions of users and is expected to expand into the online market by 2027.

The banking sector views the digital euro with caution, fearing that a state-backed digital currency could duplicate the functions of private solutions like Wero and undermine incentives for innovation in the payments business. Nonetheless, the ECB considers the project a structural response to geopolitical risks and potential pressure from Washington due to the dominance of American payment operators.