Brussels, 14 May 2025 — In a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič faced robust calls from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) of the Spinelli Group to accelerate institutional reform ahead of the next wave of EU enlargement.
Chair Sven Simon (EPP) set the tone by urging the Commission to clarify its use of Article 122 TEU and to engage seriously with the Parliament’s longstanding demands for treaty reform. “We are witnessing an expansion of intergovernmental methods,” Simon said, warning that the European Parliament is being bypassed in critical areas. He emphasized the need for Parliament to have the right of initiative and inquiry as part of a broader effort to rebalance institutional powers.
Commissioner Maros Šefčovič acknowledged the concerns, noting that while the Commission supports treaty reform, initiating a Convention remains the prerogative of the European Council. He reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to transparency and stressed that Article 122 is used strictly in emergencies. Additionally, he confirmed ongoing negotiations to revise the interinstitutional Framework Agreement, which aims to enhance collaboration and legislative transparency.
Several MEPs Members of the Spinelli Group seized the opportunity to challenge the Commission on its readiness to prepare the EU for enlargement without undermining its functionality.
Sandro Gozi (Renew Europe) demanded a clear strategy for institutional reforms that must precede or accompany enlargement. “Without deep reforms, we risk enlarging a Union that can barely govern itself,” he argued, calling for stronger budgetary coordination and democratic accountability.
Gabriele Bischoff (S&D) criticized the normalization of emergency procedures under Article 122, urging the Commission to return to regular legislative processes and respect Parliament’s role. She also pressed for comprehensive reviews of the EU’s readiness for enlargement in terms of values, policies, budget, and institutional governance.
Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA) supported the ethics body’s creation and denounced political delays. He called on the Commission to move forward with transparency reforms and to take Parliament’s transparency register proposals seriously.
Fernando López Aguilar (S&D) stressed the importance of empowering the EU’s geopolitical role, especially in foreign and security policy. He called for institutional upgrades that would allow the Union to act more decisively on the global stage.
Laurent Vincze (EPP) – not member of the Spinelli Group – expressed frustration with slow progress, describing the Commission’s approach as a “work in progress” and demanding clear deadlines on institutional reform, especially on issues of legislative initiative and ethics oversight.
The meeting reflected growing consensus among Parliamentarians that treaty reform is essential to both deepen EU integration and prepare for a Union of 30+ Member States. While Commissioner Šefčovič promised continued dialogue, MEPs made it clear that institutional status quo is no longer sustainable.
As Europe heads toward a critical juncture in its evolution, the calls from Parliament are a clear signal: the time for bold institutional reform has come.
Watch the AFCO Committee here:
Why Article 122 is so important in this debate?
Article 122 TFEU – Solidarity Clause in Exceptional Situations
This article grants the Council of the EU the power to adopt temporary emergency measures in exceptional circumstances. It has two main paragraphs:
Article 122(1):
This allows the Council to act in solidarity with a Member State in case of severe difficulties:
“Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.”
✅ Use case: This paragraph is typically used for economic or supply crises, such as disruptions in energy or critical goods.
Article 122(2):
This authorizes financial assistance to Member States in difficulty:
“Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned.”
✅ Use case: This has been used as a legal basis for EU financial assistance, e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic and energy crisis.
⚠️ Why is it controversial?
- It bypasses the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore limits the role of the European Parliament.
- Critics (like several MEPs in your article) argue it is being overused, turning emergency powers into default governance tools.
- There are concerns it promotes intergovernmentalism, weakening democratic accountability and supranational oversight.