What changed

03.12.2025

PA_LegEvaluation

Mr Borys Budka

BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

Chair

for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2021/694, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697, (EU) 2021/1153, (EU) 2023/1525 and 2024/795, as regards incentivising defence-related investments in the EU budget to implement the ReArm Europe Plan

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

(COM(2025)188 – C100070/2025 – 2025/0103 (COD)

BRUSSELS

The Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:

Subject: Opinion on the legal basis of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2021/694, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697, (EU) 2021/1153, (EU) 2023/1525 and 2024/795, as regards incentivising defence-related investments in the EU budget to implement the ReArm Europe Plan (COM(2025)0188 – C100070/2025 – 2025/0103(COD))

A. whereas there is an urgent need for a substantial and sustained increase in European defence investments to strengthen European strategic autonomy, develop the necessary European defence capabilities and military readiness, and credibly deter armed and hybrid aggression – notably in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which is creating increased pressure, in particular on the eastern Member States; whereas such increased defence spending is essential to build a true European Defence Union able to efficiently protect the EU and its citizens;

Dear Mr Chair,

B. whereas the proposal does not modify existing budgetary commitments and remains within the limits of the overall allocations for the period 2021-2027, and is therefore budgetary neutral; whereas the proposal is to be implemented using existing human resources;

By letter of 13 November 2025, the Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) requested the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), pursuant to Rule 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to provide an opinion on the appropriateness of the legal basis for the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2021/694, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697, (EU) 2021/1153, (EU) 2023/1525 and 2024/795, as regards incentivising defence-related investments in the EU budget to implement the ReArm Europe Plan (hereinafter “the proposal”).

C. whereas the proposal establishes a fourth strategic sector for defence-related technologies under the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), which extends the scope of the programmes included in STEP;

The JURI committee considered the above question at its meeting on 3 December 2025.

D. whereas the proposal complements the mid-term review of cohesion policy by allowing investment in the manufacturing and development of critical technologies, including investment in the skills needed in this sector, which is to be made through the European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF) and European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) within the framework of the STEP regulation; whereas for this new sector Member States could benefit from a 30 % pre-financing of the amounts programmed under cohesion policy funds and the possibility of applying Union financing of up to 100 %; whereas the Connecting Europe Facility regulation (CEF) allows the transfer of part of the resources allocated to Member States under shared management to the CEF; whereas the proposal also introduces the possibility for the Member States to transfer resources allocated to them in shared management to the CEF for projects supporting military mobility to benefit from the same rates; whereas disbursements under the cohesion programmes are subject to the fulfilment of the horizontal and thematic enabling conditions defined in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR);

I - Background

E. whereas the proposal to amend Horizon Europe will enable support for technologies with potential dual-use applications under the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator, as well as support for defence technologies under the EIC STEP scale-up; whereas the unused amount and potential returns from investment made by the EIC Fund during the pilot phase under Horizon 2020 should be made available for this purpose; whereas they are estimated at EUR 210 million;

In April 2025, the Commission presented the proposal with targeted amendments to several Union programmes - including the Digital Europe Programme (DEP), Horizon Europe, the European Defence Fund (EDF), the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and cohesion policy regulations - with the overarching objective to recalibrate them in order to incentivise defence-related investments through the Union budget. The proposal formed part of the Commission’s legislative package to operationalise the ReArm Europe Plan.

F. whereas the proposal extends the scope of the Digital Europe Programme to include dual-use projects and extends the objective of the CEF to include the deployment and operation of digital capacities such as AI Factories and new generation AI Gigafactories;

The proposal also included extending the Regulation on supporting ammunition production (hereinafter “ASAP”) and permitting Member States to transfer cohesion policy funds to the EDF, ASAP and the CEF.

G. whereas the inclusion of a new strategic sector under STEP entails significant flexibility in the allocation and use of Union resources; whereas it is essential to ensure that such flexibility does not result in a loss of budgetary accountability;

The Commission based the proposal on a series of TFEU Articles corresponding to the legal bases of the basic acts which were being proposed to be amended, namely Articles 114, 164, 172, 173, Article 175, third paragraph, Articles 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 188 and Article 192(1).

Conclusions of the budgetary assessment

In their respective mandates, the co-legislators both deleted the proposed extension of ASAP. This deletion was provisionally agreed upon in the subsequent inter-institutional negotiations, together with a corresponding removal of the reference to Article 114 TFEU as the legal basis.

1. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the multiannual financial framework (MFF), in particular the payments ceiling and the system of own resources; notes that the proposed measures do not involve any topping up of the EU budget;

In addition, the co-legislators provisionally agreed to explicitly reference the relevant paragraphs of Article 173(3) TFEU (industrial policy, relating to DEP, Horizon Europe, EDF, ASAP and Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP)), Article 182(1) and (4) (research and technological development, relating to Horizon Europe, EDF and STEP) and Article 188, second paragraph, TFEU (research and technological development, relating to EDF), as well as to remove the reference to Article 176 TFEU.

2. Notes that, according to the Commission, the proposal does not require additional use of human resources; stresses that the assessment and implementation of defence sector programmes, particularly in the areas of dual-use technologies, require a specific skill set that the Commission might lack; expresses doubts whether the Commission’s assessment of human resources needs took into consideration the scenario in which the Member States would make extensive use of the possibility to transfer cohesion funds to programmes implemented by the Commission; is therefore concerned about the possible lack of funding for human resources in the Commission’s proposal; recalls that the margins under Heading 7 are fully exhausted and that this heading relies on the support of special instruments to meet its commitments; calls on the Commission to keep the budgetary authority duly informed of any potential negative impacts on Heading 7 within the framework of the annual budgetary procedure;

In light of the foregoing and in line with Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure, the ITRE committee requested the JURI committee to provide an opinion on the changes to the legal bases as provisionally agreed during the interinstitutional negotiations.

3. Deplores the fact that the Commission did not perform an impact assessment of the proposal; highlights that this makes it impossible to comment on the possible consequences of redirecting funds towards the new priority; regrets that the legislative financial statement accompanying the proposal does not provide any estimate of the impact of the introduction of a fourth strategic sector under STEP and of the increase in the pre-financing and co-financing rates for investment in military mobility financed from cohesion funds transferred to the CEF; recalls the importance of preventing double financing in this area too; emphasises the importance of providing clarity to enable willing Member States to fully seize the opportunity offered by cohesion funds to strengthen European defence readiness;

II - The relevant Treaty Articles

4. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the budgetary principles laid down in the Financial Regulation; welcomes the derogation from Article 212(3) enabling the repayments, including reimbursed advances, revenues and unused amounts net of fees and costs of EIC blended finance of the EIC pilot under Horizon 2020, to be considered internal assigned revenues; recalls, in the light of the introduction of the option of 100 % Union co-funding, the general principle whereby grants must involve co-financing such that full financing from the EU budget must remain an exception and must not undermine the existing limited financing; points out that introducing such flexibility at this time in the MFF could be perceived as penalising the most advanced Member States in the implementation of the cohesion programmes; calls for safeguards to ensure that national co-funding is encouraged wherever feasible;

Chapter 3 of Title VII of Part three TFEU, on “Approximation of laws” reads, inter alia:

Recommendations for budget implementation

Article 114

5. Welcomes the aim of the proposal to increase EU budgetary support to European defence investment without jeopardising the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union; acknowledges that the potential efficiency andbudgetary gains from providing defence capabilities at the European scale rather than depending primarily on fragmented national spending are significant, while ensuring interoperability; regrets, however, that in the absence of fresh resources, existing priorities and long-term investments under the amended programmes will face further budgetary pressure, exacerbated by the limited annual EU budget margins and flexibility available in the final years of the 2021-2027 MFF, in particular for military mobility under the CEF transport envelope; reiterates in this sense the importance of paving the way for the adoption of new own resources to ensure stable and genuine funding for the EU budget, not only to enable repayment of NextGenerationEU borrowing, but to cover its higher spending needs, including those for financing common defence programmes; underlines the importance of including a clear definition of ‘defence technologies’ in the STEP Regulation to ensure that it remains focused on strategic, rather than general-purpose, defence expenditure, as well as a clear definition of dual-use in the Horizon Europe and Digital Europe regulations; notes the need to ensure that the reallocation of funds from existing programmes to defence-related investments is properly balanced in order to prevent de-prioritisation of existing programmes and minimise the risk of oversubscription of the available funds on account of an unclear scope, which might also lead to unnecessary overlaps with other existing schemes; acknowledges, however, that investments in defence-related technologies can also contribute to regional innovation and industrial capacity, thus helping create and retain a skilled workforce and support cohesion objectives through new types of strategic economic activity; draws attention also to availabilities under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); notes in this regard, the Commission’s proposal to issue guidance incentivising the use of the RRF for common defence projects, particularly under the European Defence Industry Programme;

(ex Article 95 TEC)

6. Recalls that the EU spent only 2.24 % of its GDP on research and development (R&D) in 2022, having failed for the last two decades to reach the 3 % target; notes that, representing less than 7 % of the total, the EU budget’s contribution to R&D spending constitutes only a minor share of the overall public spending on R&D in the EU; stresses, in this regard that opening up the Horizon Europe Programme to defence-related aspects should not compromise the programme’s principles of openness, accessibility, innovation, transparency and proper control and auditing mechanisms, and that full protection of the Union’s budget and financial interests must be ensured; stresses that the excellence-driven approach to implementing the programme needs to be maintained, ensuring that defence-related funding does not undermine other financing objectives of the Horizon Europe Programme, particularly for civilian use;

1. Save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

7. Requests that the Commission provide traceable information in the form of timely reports on the transfers referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 to make the impact of the proposal clearly identifiable for the budgetary authority; calls on the Commission to carry out an ex post budgetary and operational evaluation of the implementation of the amended programmes by the end of the current MFF, and to submit a comprehensive report to the budgetary authority assessing the efficiency, added value and absorption rate of redirected resources towards defence-related objectives of the underlying investment, as well as the impact of the redirection on the EU’s overall strategic objectives;

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to fiscal provisions, to those relating to the free movement of persons nor to those relating to the rights and interests of employed persons.

8. Underlines that rule-of-law conditionality is a fundamental principle that must apply to all EU funds without exception; calls on the Commission to maintain consistency in applying conditionality across the EU budget, and to reject any reallocation of cohesion funds that would lead to circumvention of the existing decisions taken in accordance with rule-of-law requirements established in the CPR, as the re-allocation or reshuffling of frozen appropriations to other programmes or objectives would signal to non-compliant governments that losses can be offset elsewhere;

3. The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective.

9. Concludes that the proposal is compatible with the elements referred to in Rule 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

4. If, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.

AMENDMENT

5. Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.

As part of its budgetary assessment, the Committee on Budgets also submits the following amendments to the proposal:

6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.

Amendment 1

In the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been approved.

Proposal for a regulation

When justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.

Recital [18] a (new)

7. When, pursuant to paragraph 6, a Member State is authorised to maintain or introduce national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, the Commission shall immediately examine whether to propose an adaptation to that measure.

Text proposed by the Commission

8. When a Member State raises a specific problem on public health in a field which has been the subject of prior harmonisation measures, it shall bring it to the attention of the Commission which shall immediately examine whether to propose appropriate measures to the Council.

Amendment

9. By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 258 and 259, the Commission and any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice of the European Union if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this Article.

([18]a) This Regulation has implications for the Union budget. Accordingly, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets adopted a budgetary assessment, which forms an integral part of Parliament’s mandate for negotiations.

10. The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 36, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Title XVII of Part three TFEU on “Industry”, reads, inter alia:

The rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his budgetary assessment input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

Article 173

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

(ex Article 157 TEC)

Title

1. The Union and the Member States shall ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Union's industry exist.

Amending Regulations (EU) 2021/694, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697, (EU) 2021/1153, (EU) 2023/1525 and 2024/795, as regards incentivising defence-related investments in the EU budget to implement the ReArm Europe Plan

For that purpose, in accordance with a system of open and competitive markets, their action shall be aimed at:

References

– speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes,

COM(2025)0188 – C10-0070/2025 – 2025/0103(COD)

– encouraging an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings throughout the Union, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings,

Committee(s) responsible

– encouraging an environment favourable to cooperation between undertakings,

Date announced in plenary

– fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development.

ITRE

2. The Member States shall consult each other in liaison with the Commission and, where necessary, shall coordinate their action. The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote such coordination, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The European Parliament shall be kept fully informed.

16.6.2025

3. The Union shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives set out in paragraph 1 through the policies and activities it pursues under other provisions of the Treaties. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, may decide on specific measures in support of action taken in the Member States to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 1, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This Title shall not provide a basis for the introduction by the Union of any measure which could lead to a distortion of competition or contains tax provisions or provisions relating to the rights and interests of employed persons.

Budgetary assessment by

Title XVIII of Part three TFEU on “Economic, social and territorial cohesion”, reads, inter alia:

Date announced in plenary

Article 176

BUDG

(ex Article 160 TEC)

16.6.2025

The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help to redress the main regional imbalances in the Union through participation in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions.

Rapporteur for budgetary assessment

Title XIX of Part three TFEU on “Research and technological development and space”, reads, inter alia:

Date appointed

Article 182

Christian Ehler

(ex Article 166 TEC)

22.5.2025

1. A multiannual framework programme, setting out all the activities of the Union, shall be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure after consulting the Economic and Social Committee. The framework programme shall:

Discussed in committee

– establish the scientific and technological objectives to be achieved by the activities provided for in Article 180 and fix the relevant priorities,

24.6.2025

– indicate the broad lines of such activities,

Date adopted

– fix the maximum overall amount and the detailed rules for Union financial participation in the framework programme and the respective shares in each of the activities provided for.

16.7.2025

2. The framework programme shall be adapted or supplemented as the situation changes.

Result of final vote

3. The framework programme shall be implemented through specific programmes developed within each activity. Each specific programme shall define the detailed rules for implementing it, fix its duration and provide for the means deemed necessary. The sum of the amounts deemed necessary, fixed in the specific programmes, may not exceed the overall maximum amount fixed for the framework programme and each activity.

+:

4. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the specific programmes.

–:

5. As a complement to the activities planned in the multiannual framework programme, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall establish the measures necessary for the implementation of the European research area.

0:

Article 188

23

(ex Article 172 TEC)

7

The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the provisions referred to in Article 187.

1

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the provisions referred to in Articles 183, 184 and 185. Adoption of the supplementary programmes shall require the agreement of the Member States concerned.

Members present for the final vote

III – CJEU case law on the choice of legal basis

Georgios Aftias, Rasmus Andresen, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Tomasz Buczek, Olivier Chastel, Tamás Deutsch, Angéline Furet, Thomas Geisel, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Andrzej Halicki, Monika Hohlmeier, Alexander Jungbluth, Fabienne Keller, Janusz Lewandowski, Giuseppe Lupo, Siegfried Mureşan, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Victor Negrescu, Matjaž Nemec, João Oliveira, Ruggero Razza, Karlo Ressler, Julien Sanchez, Hélder Sousa Silva, Joachim Streit, Carla Tavares, Nils Ušakovs, Lucia Yar

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has traditionally viewed the question of the appropriate legal basis as an issue of constitutional significance, guaranteeing compliance with the principle of conferred powers (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) and determining the nature and scope of the Union’s competence.

Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

According to well-established case law, the legal basis of a Union act does not depend on an institution's conviction as to the objective pursued, but must be determined according to objective criteria amenable to judicial review, including in particular the aim and the content of the measure.

Jaroslav Bžoch, Tiemo Wölken

If examination of a measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one of those is identifiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, that measure must be based on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component. Only exceptionally, if it is established that the act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, inextricably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, may such an act be founded on the various corresponding legal bases. This would however only be possible if the procedures laid down for the respective legal bases are not incompatible with and do not undermine the right of the European Parliament.

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

IV – Aim and content of the proposal

Key to symbols:

The Commission proposal seeks to adapt and reinforce a set of existing Union programmes in order to enhance and streamline funding possibilities for defence-related investments as part of the ReArm Europe Plan. The proposal was conceived as a horizontal adjustment to several legislative acts, with the objective of ensuring that the Union budget can more effectively support actions strengthening the European defence industrial and technological base.

To achieve this purpose, the Commission proposed targeted amendments to a broad range of Union instruments including the DEP, Horizon Europe, the EDF, the CEF and cohesion policy regulations. These adjustments sought to facilitate a more flexible mobilisation of Union funding for defence-oriented projects, reinforce strategic industrial capabilities, and improve coherence between the Union budget and defence-related needs.

The proposal as put forward by the Commission also included amendments to ASAP and a mechanism allowing Member States to transfer cohesion policy funds to programmes such as the EDF, ASAP and the CEF. These mechanisms were intended to increase financial agility and enable Member States to redirect funding towards urgent defence priorities under the ReArm Europe Plan.

The architecture of the proposal rested on a series of legal bases underpinning the instruments being amended, following standard legislative practice in amending acts. This structure ensured that the amendments were legally anchored in the objectives and competences underpinning each basic act.

During the interinstitutional negotiations, the co-legislators agreed to remove all amendments relating to ASAP, following its expiry and the decision not to extend its scope. Consequently, the text of the proposal as provisionally agreed by the co-legislators during the interinstitutional negotiations no longer includes the instruments or mechanisms linked to ASAP.

As a result, the proposed Regulation now focuses exclusively on the remaining programmes for which amendments are required to ensure that the Union budget can effectively incentivise defence-related investment. The act, as refined by the co-legislators, therefore centres on strengthening the Union’s ability to channel resources towards defence-industrial capacity, technological development and strategic preparedness in full coherence with the ReArm Europe Plan.

V – Analysis

Deletion of Article 114 TFEU

As regards the deletion of Article 114 TFEU, it must be recalled that that provision allows the Union to adopt harmonisation measures for the purpose of the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Initially, that Treaty provision was relied on in the proposal in respect of the amendments proposed to ASAP which was based on it. At the same time, none of the other acts amended by the proposal relied on Article 114 TFEU as the legal basis nor did they pursue objectives falling within the scope of that provision.

However, following the submission of the proposal and prior to the conclusion of the interinstitutional negotiations, the ASAP expired and accordingly, the co-legislators provisionally agreed to delete all amendments to it.

It follows from the above that reliance on Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis for the proposal is no longer justified given that the amendments to the only act in respect of which that legal basis was introduced are devoid of purpose. The deletion of Article 114 TFEU appears therefore appropriate.

Deletion of Article 176 TFEU

As regards the deletion of Article 176 TFEU, that Treaty provision does not contain a legal basis as it does not provide for the adoption of a legal act by the Union institutions. Instead, Article 178 TFEU is the relevant legal basis in that regard and that provision is indicated as the legal basis. The deletion of Article 176 TFEU is therefore appropriate.

Indication of the specific paragraphs in Article 173, 182 and 188 TFEU

The indication of the specific paragraphs of Articles 173, 182 and 188 TFEU is of a technical nature as it reflects the legal bases of the relevant amended acts. Such an indication appears appropriate in view of the requirement of precision stemming from the case-law. This is particularly relevant where, as is the case with those three provisions, the Treaty provision which confers the power to act to the Union provides for distinct legal bases.

Specifically, Articles 173, 182 and 188 TFEU all provide for more than one procedure for the adoption of legal acts and specifying the precise paragraph provides clarity in terms of the applicable procedure and the respective institutional powers (e.g. under Article 173(3), Article 182(1) and Article 188, second paragraph, measures are adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure while Articles 182(4) and 188, first paragraph, provide for the special legislative procedure and under Article 173(2) TFEU the Commission takes initiatives to promote cooperation between Member States).

In light of the above, the indication of the specific paragraphs of Articles 173, 182 and 188 TFEU is therefore legally sound and appropriate.

Lastly, the appropriateness of other Treaty Articles as legal bases for the proposal is not called into question and there is nothing in the text of the proposal as provisionally agreed during the inter-institutional negotiations that would put into doubt the legal bases in respect of those Treaty provisions.

VI – Conclusion and recommendation

At its meeting on 3 December 2025 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided, by 22 votes in favour, none against and two abstentions that the legal bases as modified in the text of the proposal as provisionally agreed by the co-legislators during the interinstitutional negotiations – namely the deletion of Articles 114 and 176, and precisions made as to Articles 173(3), 182(1) and (4) and 188, second paragraph – seem appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Ilhan Kyuchyuk