European lawmakers endorse Commission's plan for a worker radiation safety directive
NATO beefs up defenses in the face of potential Russian threat, but controversial EU defense fund sparks a legal battle
Get ready for a military buildup the likes of which NATO has never seen, as member states are set to approve this historic move, amid fears that Russia could target NATO countries next, following the attack on Ukraine. However, there's no concrete evidence of an imminent Russian attack at the moment.
While NATO ramps up its defenses, the EU is embroiled in a heated controversy over a massive military spending program. The 27 EU member states agreed to a €150 billion credit program, dubbed the SAFE defense fund, to finance military equipment back in May. But here's the catch – the European Parliament (EP) wasn't part of this decision, with the EU Commission relying on Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which allows for measures in emergency cases without parliamentary involvement.
Parliaments Pushback
The EP views this procedure as unlawful and has unanimously decided to take their case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). René Repasi, a SPD MEP, criticizes the Commission's inability to explain why it didn't choose a legal basis that would have involved the EP. Repasi and the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) argue that Article 122 is inappropriate in this context.
The ECJ is now examining whether the underlying legal act for the introduction of the program was properly adopted. If the court upholds the complaint, SAFE would be legally invalid – sending the member states back to the drawing board to re-establish the program in line with the court's guidelines, possibly with stronger involvement of the EU Parliament.
A Democratic Showdown
The situation has sparked a standoff between the Commission and the Parliament, with the latter arguing that their democratic legitimacy is being undermined. Repasi accuses the Commission of treating the Parliament as an obstacle, with decisions increasingly being made behind closed doors and democratic procedures reduced to mere formalities.
This controversy sheds light on tensions within EU institutional balance and questions about the appropriate legal basis for large-scale EU initiatives involving significant funds and policy impacts. It also underscores the importance of democratic oversight in the EU.Keep your eyes peeled for updates on this developing story!
Enrichment Insights:
- Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was first used during the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis, providing a legal basis for emergency measures.
- The Commission fast-tracked the SAFE defense fund by invoking Article 122, claiming an emergency basis to expedite its establishment.
- The European Parliament argues that the use of Article 122 bypasses their co-legislative rights and democratic control, and they have taken legal action against the Commission.
- The legal dispute centers on whether the emergency powers under Article 122 were legitimately invoked for a defense fund rather than an economic crisis.
- This controversy highlights tensions in EU institutional balance and raises questions about the appropriate legal basis for large-scale EU initiatives.
The general news sees a democratic showdown between the European Commission and the European Parliament, as the latter pushes back against the controversial EU defense fund, known as SAFE. This EP-initiated legal battle, now under ECJ examination, could render SAFE legally invalid if the European Court of Justice upholds the complaint, potentially leading to a reassessment of the program with stronger democratic oversight from the EU Parliament.
