The head of the European Parliament Robert Metsol requested the European Commission to amend the legal basis for the creation of a defence fund worth EUR 150 billion. Otherwise, she threatened to take legal action and mention the case to the EU Court.
In the opinion of the president of the European Parliament, the Commission has invoked an emergency clause to justify the establishment of a defence fund, in order to deprive Parliament of its influence on the decision to take joint debt by EU countries to finance the acquisition of military equipment in the EU.
In a letter addressed, inter alia, to the EC Head, Ursuli von der Leyen, Metsola called for a reconsideration of the usage of Article 122 of the EU Treaties in order to accelerate the implementation of the Rearm EU Plan.
The Emergency Clause is usually applied in emergency situations to push forward certain proposals, reducing the duration of negotiations with the European Parliament to a minimum.
However, in the case of the safety Action for Europe initiative (SAFE), which was presented in March this year under Article 122, it is simply a joint debt worth EUR 150 billion for joint procurement of defence equipment produced in the EU and the EC proposal does not meet the threshold of extraordinary rights.
In April, Parliament's legal committee agreed with a legal opinion rejecting the action of the European Commission. The European Parliament's legal service argued that the EC could not trust on an emergency clause for procedural reasons. In a secret vote, the European Parliament unanimously supported the legal opinion rejecting the Commission's effort to skip Parliament on setting up a defence fund. Although the Commission has full autonomy in the choice of legal bases for its proposals, the non-respect of Parliament's vote can make a wider organization conflict.
Article 122 allows for the omission of parliamentary negotiations and the referral of the proposal straight to the Council for the intent of negotiations and its adoption. The function of Parliament in this situation is limited only to suggestions and requests for debate.
Under the rules, in the current situation, the president of the European Parliament may convene a plenary debate, compose a formal letter to Ursula von der Leyen (which she has besides done) and yet mention the substance to the EU Court of Justice.
Von der Leyen has not chosen for the first time the alleged fast way of certain projects. She had previously bypassed the European Parliament's control of regulations on the alleged Covid-19 pandemic or on the emergence in energy prices. In March this year, she defended a fast way to the defence fund, talking about "urgency" and "the only possible path".
Euro MPs are frustrated by von der Leyen's expanding disregard of the European Parliament. She is even criticized by members of her own political family, the European People's organization (EPP).
The legal committee recommended Metsola to mention the case to the European Court of Justice.
The president of the European Parliament so wrote a letter to the Head of the EC and the president of the EU Council. António Costa warns against trying to bypass the standard procedure, which threatens to "distort democratic legitimacy by weakening Parliament's legislative and control functions".
She pointed out that "if the Council adopts this regulation, utilizing Article 122 TFEU as a legal basis, Parliament will examine its legality on the basis of regulation 155 of its Rules of Procedure". The next step will be to mention the case to the European Court of Justice, which will gotta give a ruling on whether the legal basis chosen is appropriate.
Source: euractiv.com
AS
