Introduction
In response to the ongoing permacrises, the European Union (EU) has demonstrated remarkable flexibility in adapting to the new geo-economic and political realities; EU institutions are adjusting their internal functioning and decision-making processes. Interinstitutional relations are being redefined by informal agreements and through the day-to-day operations of EU policymaking. Understanding decision-making in the EU is often challenging, even for experienced stakeholders. Yet, recent trends and developments have elevated the need for all professionals of EU affairs to gain additional insights and practical knowledge about the functioning of the EU today.
This blog post highlights several of these developments in view of our upcoming course on EU decision-making.
What are some of the key trends EU affairs professionals should be aware of?
Extraordinary measures
The frequent use of emergency measures based on Article 122 TFEU, off-budget instruments such as the European Peace Facility and differentiated integration as the only way forward in key strategic areas, such as support for Ukraine, redefine interinstitutional relations. In the European Commission’s Political Guidelines 2024–2029, Commission President Von der Leyen promised to ensure that proposals based on Article 122 TFEU, which are adopted solely by the Council with no involvement of the European Parliament, are tabled ‘only in exceptional circumstances’ and that the Commission ‘will fully justify the use’. Yet, in the face of existential geopolitical crises, the swift adoption of such measures can be of strategic importance irrespective of the ensuing interinstitutional frictions. The European Parliament’s decision to challenge the adoption of the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) Regulation (Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1106) to the Court of Justice of the European Union is a case in point. While most political groups support the policy objectives enshrined in SAFE, relying once more on Article 122 TFEU is considered a ‘threat to the institutional balance’.
Interinstitutional relations
Accordingly, the revised Framework Agreement between the European Commission and the European Parliament includes, among other things, provisions to address Parliament’s concerns and thus the democratic legitimacy of EU crises response. Moreover, the agreement reinforces the commitment of the Commission to equal treatment of the Council and the Parliament, with several references to the principles of mutual sincere cooperation and institutional balance. For Member States, institutional balance means that due to several prerogatives and procedures as laid down in the treaties, the Parliament does not stand on an equal footing with the Council. The conflict over the Framework Agreement points to broader institutional questions that the EU will have to address to equip itself with the tools to pursue strategic objectives more effectively while ensuring democratic legitimacy, be it the revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making or the question of treaty change, which is currently sidelined in the Council.
Simplification
In a similar vein, the current priority of simplifying EU law, which is central to the EU’s competitiveness agenda, has significant implications for key legal principles such as subsidiarity and proportionality, shaping EU policies. The Draghi report, which is the blueprint for this agenda, links regulatory politics with the subsidiarity principle by stating that a stricter application of the principle, i.e. less EU intervention, reduces the regulatory burden for businesses. In recent years, the better regulation toolbox has been updated with the competitiveness check and the one-in-one-out approach. According to the Commission, the competitiveness check will ensure that assessing the impact of EU action on key indicators related to costs, trade, and innovation – with a particular focus on SMEs – does not lead to undue regulatory burden. The one-in-one-out approach aims to offset additional burdens introduced by new proposals by amending or repealing existing legislation. The practical implementation of these instruments and their effect on the quality of EU policies is subject to debate. Moreover, new forms of stakeholder consultation in the form of strategic dialogues and so-called reality checks have been introduced.
Following the intensive protests of farmers spreading across Europe in 2023–24, the Commission convened a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture, leading to the adoption of several derogations for the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy. Strategic dialogues feature in the implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal, which aims to bring together climate action and competitiveness under one roof, focusing on energy-intensive industries and the clean-tech sector. The Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the European Automotive Industry, launched in January 2025, was followed by a proposal introducing flexibilities for car makers in the implementation of the CO2 emission performance standards, which are key to the EU’s climate action as laid down in the European Climate Law. The reality checks, which aim to increase evidence on actual implementation on the ground, provide critical input to the Commission’s simplification agenda.
This agenda is largely implemented through so-called omnibus proposals, i.e. legislative proposals that bundle together amendments for multiple, often diverse, legal acts. In 2025, the Commission tabled ten omnibus packages in key policy areas, e.g. sustainability, SMEs, agriculture, the automotive industry, chemicals, and defence. These packages consist of almost 30 individual proposals amending more than 100 legislative acts. The measures in these amendments range from delaying the application of the act (‘stop the clock’) to limiting the scope of application and substantive changes, such as easing of reporting requirements. The extensive use of this legislative technique for substantive policy change, and arguably deregulation, has been criticised for disregarding procedural norms and instruments enshrined in better regulation. The omnibus packages were not based on fully-fledged evaluations or impact assessments, and established means of collecting stakeholder evidence through public consultation was largely replaced by targeted consultation in the form of strategic dialogues.
Decision-making in the European Parliament
The issue of legislative decision-making is also relevant regarding the use of simplified and urgent procedures invoked by the European Parliament to an unprecedented extent during the ninth legislative term 2019–2024. The use of these procedures is directly linked to EU responses to the permacrises given that decisions on key matters, such as Covid-19 or support for Ukraine, had to be taken swiftly. In doing so, the Parliament has also positioned itself as a credible partner, which enabled the EU to manage these crises effectively. Nevertheless, the reliance on these procedures with a view to efficient decision-making raises questions about the democratic legitimacy of the underlying decision-making processes. Under the urgency procedure, the possibilities for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to introduce and negotiate amendments is severely restricted, which limits the possibility for broad deliberation and concentrates power in the hands of a select group of MEPs in key positions. Hence standard operating procedures, both within the Parliament when examining Commission proposals and in the context of informal interinstitutional negotiations, often substitute for trilogues for urgent files, are severely affected by the expediting of decision-making processes.
Political fragmentation
Urgent procedures are also commonly used during European Parliament’s current 10th term, for instance for the adoption of important omnibus proposals. At the same time, the political fragmentation in the European Parliament renders decision-making increasingly unpredictable. While the informal coalition of centrist political groups generally supports the Commission, on several occasions alternative majorities emerged that have altered the outcome of decision-making processes.
The Parliament’s report on the proposal amending the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, as part of Omnibus I, was initially endorsed by a broad majority in the responsible committee, which included the European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats Group, and Renew Europe. However, the plenary rejected the report with a small majority that must have included MEPs from this informal coalition. Following the rejection, the plenary then adopted an amended report with the votes of the EPP and, primarily, the political groups on the right, the so-called Venezuela coalition. Likewise, the Parliament’s position on the deforestation regulation, introducing amendments easing requirements, was supported by the political right. In view of such fragmentation, politically salient and sensitive files for instance on migration, digital markets, or citizenship, entail additional uncertainties regarding the power dynamics in the Parliament in the coming months and years.
Summing up
Each of the developments mentioned in this blog post provide specific challenges for EU affairs professionals when dealing with certain institutions or policy areas. In conjunction, these developments not only confound and exacerbate these challenges, but also indicate profound changes in the EU institutional system and decision-making.
If you want to know more, enrol in our upcoming course on EU decision-making. The course will provide you with a thorough understanding of the legal principles and procedures underpinning decision-making in the EU. In addition to an introduction to general principles and formal procedures, the course offers an update on legal and political challenges to these principles, the increasing linkages between policy instruments for pursuing strategic objectives on the EU agenda, and the changing constraints and opportunities for stakeholders engaging with EU institutions. By covering formal and informal interinstitutional relations, participants will be enabled to navigate the institutional system of the EU and effectively contribute to decision-making processes.
