euractiv.de
euractiv.fr
euractiv.es
euractiv.it
euractiv.pl
euractiv.cz
euractiv.gr
euractiv.ro
euractiv.sk
Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee has voted in favour of legal action at the EU's top court over the European Commission's €150 billion defence loan scheme, escalating a row over MEPs' lack of scrutiny over the plan.
In a secret vote, 20 out of 23 MEPs backed launching a legal challenge at the Court of Justice of the EU against the Council of the EU. The other three MEPs abstained.
The action concerns the Commission's SAFE programme, a €150 billion loan scheme designed to boost joint procurement of weapons. Ursula von der Leyen bypassed MEPs entirely by invoking an emergency procedure from the EU's treaties to fast-track the law. The procedure had previously been used to coordinate vaccine purchases during the Covid-19 pandemic, for example.
Last month, EU ministers at the Council approved the plan without parliamentary input. While the Parliament's gripe is with the Commission and its actions, their legal recourse is to sue the Council, who approved the law under what the Parliament deems a questionable legal basis.
The final decision now rests with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, who would launch the case on MEPs' behalf. The deadline to bring the case is 21 August. A vote among all MEPs is not required to launch the action.
Top Parliament officials had previously indicated their intention to bring legal action last month, as first reported by Euractiv.
German Social Democrat René Repasi, the lead MEP for the Parliament’s legal actions, called the court referral “necessary to send a clear message” to the Commission.
Prior to SAFE's adoption by ministers, Parliament President Roberta Metsola had warned that the Commission's misuse of emergency powers undermined democratic scruntiny, in a letter to von der Leyen.
Von der Leyen rejected Metsola's arguments in a reply seen by Euractiv earlier this month, arguing that using the emergency clause is “fully justified” as SAFE is “an exceptional and temporary response to an urgent and existential challenge".
Metsola's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anupriya Datta contributed reporting.
