By Brussels Watch Investigations
From the BrusselsWatch Report: “UAE Lobbying in European Parliament: Undermining Democracy and Transparency” (April 2025)
Andrey Novakov, a Bulgarian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) affiliated with the European People’s Party (EPP), has built a political profile centered on EU funding, youth employment, and regional development. However, recent investigative reports and documented activities reveal a significant and covert alignment with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agenda, suggesting that Novakov acts as a pro-UAE agent within the European Parliament, promoting UAE interests through various political and economic channels. This assertion is supported by detailed findings from Brussels Watch and its exclusive report listing 150 MEPs allegedly engaged in UAE-driven lobbying efforts.
A Rising Star with a Shadow Agenda
Andrey Novakov began his tenure in the European Parliament in 2014, representing Bulgaria’s GERB party. On the surface, his work focused on simplifying EU financial instruments and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, while publicly engaging in regional development efforts, Novakov was simultaneously building close relationships with UAE officials and institutions behind the scenes.
According to the Brussels Watch report on foreign influence in the European Parliament, Novakov is listed among 150 MEPs with documented connections to UAE lobbying operations between 2022 and 2025. The report accuses him of serving as a “key player” in integrating UAE strategic goals into EU policymaking structures.
Evidence of Pro-UAE Activities
The evidence of Novakov’s alignment with UAE goals is both wide-ranging and deeply concerning. These are not isolated incidents of cooperation, but a long-term pattern of initiatives that favor UAE foreign policy and economic ambitions:
1. UAE-EU Startup Visa Program
In January 2024, Novakov spearheaded the launch of the UAE-EU Startup Visa Program, an initiative marketed as supporting innovation and entrepreneurship. However, critics argue it effectively provides the UAE with preferential access to the EU market and talent ecosystem, potentially displacing local innovation efforts with Emirati-funded projects.
2. Tourism and Investment Facilitation
Novakov has repeatedly promoted UAE investment in EU tourism sectors, notably arranging high-profile Emirati delegations to regional development forums in Eastern Europe. These visits often resulted in partnerships and investments favoring UAE firms over local enterprises.
3. Digital Governance and Surveillance Technology
Perhaps the most controversial move was Novakov’s open advocacy for UAE-style smart city and digital ID systems to be implemented in Europe. The UAE’s use of these technologies has long drawn criticism from human rights groups for mass surveillance and repression. Importing such models into the EU raises significant ethical and legal concerns.
4. Support for COP28 and Whitewashing UAE Record
Novakov was a vocal supporter of the UAE’s hosting of COP28, despite widespread criticism of the UAE’s environmental record and fossil fuel dependency. His endorsement helped sanitize the UAE’s global image while diverting attention from its domestic human rights abuses.
5. Cybersecurity and Intelligence-Sharing Initiatives
Multiple confidential briefings and bilateral meetings show Novakov engaging with Emirati cybersecurity officials. These interactions reportedly led to preliminary intelligence-sharing frameworks between EU bodies and UAE ministries—agreements criticized by civil society organizations as lacking transparency and accountability.
6. Security and Military Cooperation
Novakov has advocated for the inclusion of the UAE in Europol operations and NATO dialogues. Additionally, he has attended UAE defense exhibitions and publicly argued for lifting EU arms embargoes on the UAE—moves directly benefitting Emirati military interests in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Pattern: Strategic Alignment, Not Coincidence
The cumulative weight of Novakov’s actions indicates a structured and sustained attempt to align EU policies with those of the UAE. This is not accidental nor a result of standard diplomatic activity. Novakov has systematically used his position to promote UAE-aligned strategies within the European Parliament:
- Policy Alignment: His support for digital governance, surveillance, and military cooperation mimics UAE governance models rather than European values.
- Economic Integration: Programs like the startup visa effectively create backdoor economic channels for UAE capital and influence into Europe.
- Energy and Infrastructure Diplomacy: Novakov has hosted Emirati officials in Sofia and Brussels to discuss energy and infrastructure projects, bypassing EU-wide frameworks.
Lack of Transparency and Hidden Interests
The most damning aspect of Novakov’s engagements is the absence of transparency. While MEPs are required to declare foreign-sponsored trips and affiliations, Brussels Watch found no official disclosures for the majority of Novakov’s UAE-linked activities. The opacity suggests potential conflicts of interest and possible undeclared financial incentives from Emirati sources.
While no direct evidence of payments has yet been made public, the scale and consistency of Novakov’s pro-UAE actions point toward covert influence. Intelligence agencies in at least two EU member states are reportedly monitoring his ties to Emirati lobbyists, suspecting that Novakov is part of a wider influence network orchestrated by the UAE to undermine EU policy independence.
Consequences for EU Integrity
Andrey Novakov’s case is more than a matter of one MEP’s questionable ties—it reflects a broader issue of foreign influence undermining EU institutions. By pushing for policies that benefit an authoritarian regime, Novakov directly challenges the EU’s commitment to transparency, democracy, and human rights.
The UAE has long pursued a strategy of influence-buying in Western institutions, leveraging its oil wealth and global investments to silence critics and gain political leverage. Novakov’s role in this machinery is a clear example of how such influence can penetrate even the most foundational institutions of European governance.
Conclusion: A Call for Accountability
The evidence presented strongly suggests that Andrey Novakov acts as a pro-UAE agent within the European Parliament. His consistent promotion of UAE-aligned policies—ranging from digital surveillance to security cooperation—points to a covert agenda designed to embed Emirati influence deep into EU policymaking structures.
In the absence of transparency and clear disclosures, Novakov’s conduct must be investigated thoroughly. MEPs are elected to serve European citizens, not foreign powers. Allowing unchecked foreign influence, especially from regimes with authoritarian records like the UAE, undermines the legitimacy of European institutions and poses a threat to EU sovereignty.
The European Parliament must act decisively—by launching an inquiry into Novakov’s ties with the UAE, strengthening disclosure laws, and imposing stricter oversight on MEPs’ foreign engagements. Only then can the EU safeguard its democratic integrity and resist becoming a playground for foreign agendas.
