Brussels – A resounding rejection of von der Leyen’s European rearmament plan? Not yet. Despite the strong condemnation of the EU executive by parliamentary groups opposed to the centrist majority, the European Parliament has not declared the EU Commission’s ReArm Europe plan “illegal”, nor is there any legal action before the Court of Justice on the horizon. Something, however, has happened in a committee.
In the very early afternoon of today (April 23), comments began to multiply from patrols of Italian MEPs belonging to the opposite ends of the political spectrum, namely those who voted against the installation of the second College led by Ursula von der Leyen, with respect to a vote of the chamber’s Legal Committee (JURI).
From the Five Star Movement, Mario Furore spoke of a “historic vote” at the commission mentioned above, which would have “declared the twelve-star rearmament plan” illegal—strongly opposed by 5 Star MEPs—and “judged illegitimate its approval procedure” through the activation of Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFUE), which through an accelerated procedure effectively excludes the Europarliament from the consultation procedure.
“The urgency criteria are missing, the grounds for the use of Article 122 are lacking, and the principle of subsidiarity is not respected, taking into account that defence and political competencies are in the hands of the Member States,” continues the MEP, who concludes, “We are ready to take the case to the European Court of Justice denouncing the Commission’s abuse of power and lack of democratic control.”
Former allies of the M5s at the time of the yellow-green government also share the reading: The Parliament “rejects von der Leyen’s anti-democratic method,” say members of the Lega, who label the use of the TFEU provision in question as a “loophole.” A “political defeat,” the Lega delegation argues, “for those who, while others in the world work for peace, talk about weapons, ammunition, missiles, and tanks and accelerate military escalation.”
In reality, what happened is a little different. The Committee on Legal Affairs, JURI, adopted a non-binding recommendation in which the opinion of the House Legal Service on the recourse to Article 122 TFUE as a legal basis by the EU executive for the activation of the SAFE instrument, which is to support the rearmament efforts of member states, was unanimously approved (during a closed session). The ad hoc fund has a €150 billion allocation and was introduced as part of the broader ReArm Europe plan, proposed by von der Leyen in early March and approved by the EU Parliament itself a few days later, with a large majority (419 votes in favour, 204 against, and 46 abstentions).
According to the Parliament’s rules of procedure, MEPs today “voted to recommend that Article 122 of the TFUE is not the appropriate legal basis” for the proposed legislation in question and announced that they would communicate their determination to the Parliament’s chair, Roberta Metsola, “to consider further steps.” There would not be, according to the committee, the urgency requirements for the expedited procedure, which allow for a decision by the chancelleries without going through the Strasbourg hemicycle.
The point, as sources inside the institution confirmed to Eunews, is that it is up to the community executive—and not the Parliament or one of its committees—to choose the legal bases for its legislative proposals. Furthermore, the opinion issued by the JURI Committee refers to the internal rules of procedure of the chamber, to which no other institution is bound.
Now, if the MEPs wanted to take their claims all the way, they would have to take the matter to the Court of Justice of the Union (CJEU). On the legal dimension of the matter (i.e., whether the Commission has violated EU law), the judges of the highest EU court will ultimately have to rule. As for the political aspect, it is nothing particularly new: European parliamentarians are not happy about being bypassed by the twelve-star executive, and they are trying to make their voices heard, for once united between the majority and the opposition. The question is whether there will be anyone willing to listen.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
