Image Credit: Thierry Monasse / Contributor / Getty 
The European Parliament is moving ahead with its threat to hold the von der Leyen Commission legally accountable for unlawfully circumventing MEPs to fast-track the adoption of the €150 billion SAFE initiative—the joint loan-backed arms procurement program touted as the backbone of the giant €800 billion ReArm Europe scheme.
On Tuesday, June 24th, members of the Parliament’s legal affairs (JURI) committee voted almost unanimously—with the support of 20 out of 23 MEPs—to launch a lawsuit against the Commission at the EU Court of Justice (ECJ), the only court where the EU executive can be attacked.
The vote was done via a secret ballot, but we know that no one voted against the legal action; the three remaining MEPs abstained. The final decision now lies in the hands of Parliament President Roberta Metsola to formally launch the lawsuit, but she has indicated before that she’s ready for the confrontation.
As we wrote before, the Commission, pointing at the alleged threat of Russian aggression, invoked an emergency clause when submitting its proposal for SAFE (Security and Action for Europe), which allows it to sidestep the Parliament in the legislative process and send the file straight to the Council for approval from the member states, who already greenlit the plan at ministerial level last month.
Naturally, MEPs—including Metsola, who’s normally a key ally of von der Leyen—pushed back against the plan, arguing that the emergency procedure is unjustifiable when talking about a long-term rearmament plan that will be accessible for member states for years.
Despite Metsola warning von der Leyen that the misuse of such emergency measures directly undermines democratic principles and leaves no other option for the Parliament than to challenge it in court, the Commission president remains steadfast in her initial plan.
According to von der Leyen’s reply to Metsola earlier this month, invoking the emergency clause was “fully justified,” because SAFE is “an exceptional and temporary response to an urgent and existential challenge.”
The last time this clause was invoked, the Commission used it to fast-track the joint vaccine procurement during the COVID pandemic without parliamentary oversight, and we all know how that ended, with billions of euros worth of redundant and expired vaccines ending up in landfills.
Therefore, the core criticism of MEPs against von der Leyen is about her political overreach by circumventing the only directly elected EU institution. It’s somewhat ironic, given that in most cases the Parliament is instrumental in the Commission’s overreach against member states.
In fact, the EU Parliament has only ever sued the Commission twice throughout its history, and both times for not being tough enough on Hungary and Poland over their alleged rule-of-law violations.
Now, the tables have turned, it seems, but it remains to be seen whether the Court will affirm von der Leyen’s or the Parliament’s position, or if the ruling will make any difference in the end.
EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS: President Trump Wakes Up To The Fact That He’s Being Sucked Into War With Iran
