The Irish presidency’s informal meeting of EU justice ministers, Dublin Castle, 17 July 2026. Photo: Council of the EU, © European Union, 2026.
The note that prepared the ambassadors’ meeting of 23 September can now be read. Document 13158/26 of 18 September, “Preparation for the trilogue”, is marked LIMITE and is listed in the Council’s public register by title only. The former MEP Patrick Breyer has published it in full, and Agence Europe reported on it on 22 September. It runs to five pages and ends with three questions to the Permanent Representatives Committee “in preparation of the trilogue on 29 September 2026”.
The three questions
a) “Do you agree to establish (i) detection orders on publicly accessible content for known CSAM and (ii) own-initiative searches by providers on non-public content for known and new CSAM and the solicitation of children?”
b) “Do you agree in a spirit of compromise that own-initiative searches by providers on non-public content would require a search plan reviewed by a national judicial or independent administrative authority, and that providers would be obliged to make use of a database of indicators provided by the EU Centre?”
c) “If no compromise solution can be agreed providing at least for the same level of effectiveness as the current voluntary practice, would you accept to exclude own-initiative searches or detection orders on non-public content from the scope of this Regulation?”
Non-public content means, above all, private messages. The first question would write providers’ voluntary scanning of them, “own-initiative searches” in the note’s words, into the permanent law. The third asks what governments would accept if that fails.
What the note says about the negotiations
The trilogue “is dedicated to reaching general political agreement on detection obligations and own-initiative searches (Articles 7-11)”. Technical agreement has been reached on own-initiative searches by the EU Centre in publicly accessible content, with the possibility for national Coordinating Authorities to “delay the submission of notifications” that would interfere with investigations. If the trilogue confirms it, the presidency “next intends to launch the process for the establishment of the seat of the EU Centre”.
On private content, the presidency “has consistently communicated the need to establish an effective regime that allows maintaining the current level of reports through the providers’ voluntary searches”. It wants their scope “unchanged compared to the CSA Interim Regulation, that is, to cover known and new CSAM, and the solicitation of children”. The Parliament wants to limit searches to known material.
At a technical meeting on 18 September, the note records, the Parliament “indicated willingness to test an approach that would require providers to prepare search plans outlining the technologies used and other relevant safeguards subject to review by national judicial or independent administrative authorities”. It has also insisted on targeting searches and detection orders on private content. The presidency proposed to target searches “to specific parts of a service or, where possible, to individual users”, and states that “requiring that searches are targeted to specific users only would not generate any added value compared to the possibilities already existing under criminal law”. Detection orders on private content, it says, can be discussed “only once there is agreement on the parameters and the scope of the own-initiative searches”.
For public content the note is brief: “To avoid a general monitoring obligation, it is necessary that detection orders on publicly accessible content are limited to known CSAM”.
What the state of play of 10 September adds
The presidency’s earlier document 11956/26, published by Agence Europe, records the replies to the July reflection paper. “14 Member States replied”, and “most Member States responding are in principle opposed to the concept of targeting detection to specific users.” It also states the Council’s bottom line: “the Council does not want a permanent framework that achieves less than the voluntary regime.” Neither document names a country.
What leaving private messages out would change, and what it would not
It would leave private messages outside the permanent regulation: no detection orders for them, and no permanent basis in this regulation for providers’ voluntary scanning of them. The regulation would still cover public content and set up the EU Centre.
It would not end the scanning of private messages. Voluntary scanning is allowed by Regulation (EU) 2026/1881, the temporary derogation known as Chat Control 1.0, until 3 April 2028. After that date it would need the derogation to be extended again, as it has been twice, or a new legal basis.
And it is a question, not a decision. The governments’ answers are not public, and Coreper publishes no outcome for an item of this kind. What the ambassadors settled on 23 September will show in the position the presidency takes into the trilogue on Tuesday, 29 September.
What it changes in the record
The tracker now links the note itself rather than a report about it. No government’s position changes.
The note also shows the limit of the count this site has kept. Nine governments are on record against mandatory scanning of private messages, 32.9 % of the EU population, 2.1 points short of a blocking minority. But the Council’s own negotiating mandate of November 2025 already imposes no obligation on providers to scan; it makes voluntary scanning permanent instead. The questions put to the ambassadors are whether that voluntary scanning is written into the law, and whether it must be targeted at suspects. After the trilogue, this site will add that count to the governments page: for each government, the document behind its position, and “not known” where there is none.
Record notes are short, dated entries: the documents, what they say, what they change on this site. Sources: Council of the EU, “Preparation for the trilogue”, document 13158/26 of 18 September 2026, LIMITE, as published by Patrick Breyer, paragraphs 11 to 13. Council of the EU, “State of play and way forward”, document 11956/26 of 10 September 2026, LIMITE, as published by Agence Europe. Agence Europe, 22 September 2026. Regulation (EU) 2026/1881, Official Journal of 24 July 2026.
