Published on: June 27, 2025 / Updated on: June 27, 2025 – Author: Konrad Wolfenstein
Institutional dispute over Europe's arms program: 150 billion euro arms program SAFE (Security Action for Europe) – Image: Xpert.Digital
EU Parliament files lawsuit against €150 billion SAFE arms program
Historic legal dispute: EU Parliament demands a halt to the SAFE arms program
The European Union finds itself embroiled in one of the most significant institutional legal disputes in recent history: The European Parliament has filed an action for annulment against the €150 billion SAFE (Security Action for Europe) defense program before the European Court of Justice. The dispute raises fundamental questions about democratic legitimacy and the institutional balance within the EU.
More about it here:
The controversial arms fund
The SAFE program was adopted 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 will provide member states with low-interest loans for arms purchases. The funds can be used for air defense systems, artillery systems, ammunition, and drone defense systems.
The program is part of the even broader “ReArm Europe” initiative, which aims to mobilize a total of €800 billion for defense investments by 2030. From the outset, Ukraine was also intended to be a beneficiary, meaning the program is designed to benefit both the European defense industry and support Ukraine.
Suitable for:
The constitutional controversy
The core of the conflict lies in the legal basis of the program. The European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen relied on Article 122 of the EU Treaty, an emergency clause that allows measures to be adopted in crisis situations without the involvement of Parliament. This provision was originally intended for serious supply crises or economic emergencies.
The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee unanimously rejected this application. René Repasi, SPD MEP and lead representative for Parliament's legal actions before the European Court of Justice, criticized: "The European Commission failed to convincingly explain why it is not resorting to another legal basis that involves Parliament.".
Systematic circumvention of parliament?
The criticism goes beyond this specific case. Repasi sees a systemic pattern: “This is not an isolated incident. During President von der Leyen’s second term, parliament was increasingly treated not as a democratic partner, but as an obstacle.” Decisions are being made more and more often in small circles, and democratic processes are degenerating into mere formalities.
Ana Catarina Mendes, S&D Vice President for Strong Democracy and the Rule of Law, described this as a “dangerous trend” that jeopardizes trust between EU institutions. Repasi sees it as “a clear strategy of consolidating power within the EU executive”.
As early as 2023, the European Parliament proposed abolishing Article 122 TFEU entirely, as the emergency clause had been increasingly applied since the Covid-19 pandemic. The clause served as the legal basis for the recovery fund and as an instrument for responding to the energy crisis.
Von der Leyen's defense
The Commission President rejected the accusations, stating that the application of the clause was justified and represented “an exceptional and temporary response to an urgent and existential challenge.” She argued that “extraordinary times” required “extraordinary measures.”.
Von der Leyen emphasized that the SAFE program was designed as an “extraordinary and temporary response to an urgent and existential challenge.” Its aim was to provide financial assistance to member states facing “the most severe threats beyond their control.”.
Security policy justification
The defense fund was initiated in light of the current security situation in Europe. Intelligence agencies assume that Russia will likely be militarily capable of launching another war by 2030 at the latest. BND chief Bruno Kahl warned that Russian armed forces will likely be able to "carry out an attack on NATO" "by the end of this decade at the latest.".
These assessments also formed the basis for the historic NATO summit in The Hague, where the alliance 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 member states already intend to use the new EU exemption clause from the debt rules to increase their defense spending.
Possible consequences
Should the European Court of Justice uphold Parliament's complaint, the SAFE program would be legally invalid. In that case, the member states would have to relaunch the program in accordance with the court's ruling – possibly with greater involvement of the European Parliament.
The case could have far-reaching implications for the institutional balance of the EU. Parliament President Roberta Metsola, normally a close ally of von der Leyen, had already announced legal action early on, underscoring the significance of the conflict.
Criticism from various sides
The criticism is not limited to the Social Democrats. Sharp accusations are also coming from the right: Marine Le Pen of the French National Rally accused von der Leyen of "assuming powers that do not belong to her." RN leader Jordan Bardella added: "Ursula von der Leyen has neither the authority nor the mandate to entrust herself with the defense.".
Liberal FDP MEP Moritz Körner warned of the legal risks: “All steps must be legally sound and transparent to avoid later legal challenges. A defense policy based on shaky legal ground would be a gift to Putin.”.
The ECJ ruling on the €150 billion SAFE program could permanently change the EU power structure
Democracy versus security? Commission versus Parliament: The power struggle over Europe's largest arms program
The dispute over the SAFE program reflects a deeper crisis within EU institutions. While the security policy necessity for increased defense spending is largely undisputed, the question arises whether democratic procedures must be upheld even in times of crisis. The European Court of Justice's decision will not only determine the future of the €150 billion program but could also shape the relationship between the Commission and Parliament going forward.
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:
