Published on: June 27, 2025 / update from: June 27, 2025 - Author: Konrad Wolfenstein
Institutional dispute over Europe's armaments program: 150-billion-euro armor-euro armor program Safe (Security Action for Europe)-Image: Xpert.digital
EU Parliament complains against 150-billion-euro armor-euro armoring program Safe
Historical legal dispute: EU Parliament calls for stopping the Safe armor program
The European Union sees itself in one of the most important institutional legal conflicts in recent history: The EU Parliament has submitted a lawsuit against the 150-billion euro armor program Safe (Security Action for Europe) to the European Court of Justice. The dispute raises fundamental questions about democratic legitimation and institutional balance in the EU.
More about it here:
The controversial armaments fund
The safe program was decided by the 27 EU member states at the end of May 2025 and represents the largest defense financing instrument in the history of the Union. The program is to be financed through EU bonds and provide interest-bearing loans for armaments purchases to the Member States. The funds can be used for air defense systems, artillery systems, ammunition and drone defense systems.
The program is part of the even more comprehensive initiative “Rearm Europe”, which is to mobilize a total of 800 billion euros for defense investments by 2030. From the beginning, Ukraine was also intended as a beneficiary, which is intended to serve the program of both the European armaments industry and the support of Ukraine.
Suitable for:
The constitutional controversy
The core of the conflict lies in the legal basis of the program. The EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen was based on Article 122 of the EU Treaty, an emergency clause that enables measures to be decided in crisis situations without the participation of the parliament. This provision was originally intended for serious care crises or economic emergencies.
However, the EU Parliament's legal committee unanimously rejected this application. René Repasi, SPD European Member and responsible for complaints from Parliament before the ECJ, criticized: "The EU Commission could not convincingly explain why it does not use another legal basis that the parliament incorporates".
Systematic bypass of Parliament?
The criticism goes beyond the specific case. Repasi sees a systematic pattern: "This is not an isolated case. During the second term of the President of Leyen, Parliament was increasingly not treated as a democratic partner, but as an obstacle". Decisions would be made more and more in small circles and democratic procedures are becoming mere compulsory exercises.
Ana Catarina Mendes, S&D Vice President of Strong Democracy and the rule of law, described this as a “dangerous trend” that jeopardizes the trust between the EU institutions. Repasi sees “a clear strategy of power consolidation within the EU Executive”.
As early as 2023, the EU Parliament had proposed to abolish Article 122 TFEU, since the emergency clause has been increasingly applied since the Covid 19 pandemic. The clause served as a legal basis for the reconstruction and as an instrument for reaction to the energy crisis.
From Leyen's defense
The Commission President rejected the allegations and stated that the application of the clause was justified and "an extraordinary and temporary reaction to an urgent and existential challenge". She argued that "extraordinary times" required "extraordinary measures".
The Leyen emphasized that the Safe program was designed as a “extraordinary and temporary answer to an urgent and existential challenge”. The aim is to help the Member States financially, which "exposed to the strongest threats outside of their own control".
Security policy justification
The arms fund was initiated against the background of the current security situation in Europe. Secret services assume that Russia should be able to start a further war at the latest in 2030. BND boss Bruno Kahl warned that Russian armed forces should be able to “make an attack on NATO at the end of this decade” at the latest.
These assessments also formed the basis for the historical NATO summit in the Haag, in which Allianz decided to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP plus 1.5 percent for security-related areas-a total of five percent. Germany and 15 other EU countries already want to use the new EU exception clause from the debt rules to increase their defense expenditure.
Possible consequences
Should the ECJ take the lawsuit of parliament, the safe program would be legally ineffective. In this case, the Member States would have to put the program on the program in compliance with the judicial requirements-possibly with a greater participation of the EU Parliament.
The case could have far -reaching effects on the institutional balance of the EU. Parliamentary President Roberta Metsola, usually a close ally from Leyens, had announced legal steps early on, which underlines the scope of the conflict.
Criticism from different sides
The criticism is not limited to the Social Democrats. There are also sharp allegations from the right: Marine Le Pen from the French racial nationally accused Leyen of "having powers who are not entitled". RN chairman Jordan Bardella added: "Ursula von der Leyen has neither the authority nor the mandate to transfer himself to defense".
The liberal FDP MEP Moritz Körner warned of the legal risks: "All steps must be legally flawless and transparent in order to avoid later legal challenges. A defense policy based on a shaky legal basis would be a gift to Putin".
ECJ decision about 150 billion-safe program could change EU power structure permanently
Democracy against security? Commission against Parliament: The power struggle for Europe's largest arms program
The dispute over the safe program reflects a deeper crisis in the EU institutions. While the security -political necessity for increased armaments efforts is largely undisputed, the question arises as to whether democratic procedures must also be maintained in times of crisis. The decision of the ECJ will not only decide on the future of the 150-billion euro program, but could also shape the relationship between the Commission and Parliament for the future.
Suitable for:
- European military logistics according to the US model? Strategic teaching and a timetable for European defense logistics
- Think of defense again: What Europe and NATO can learn from China's global military logistics and AI use
Advice - planning - implementation
Markus Becker
I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.
Head of Business Development
Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group
Hub for security and defense - advice and information
Hub for security and defense - Image: Xpert.digital
The hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.
Suitable for:
