European Commission Evades Two Censure Motions: Political Implications Dissected

European Parliament Fails to Censure European Commission in Key Votes

october 9, 2025

Brussels, Belgium – The European Parliament has rejected two separate motions of censure targeting the European commission on Thursday, October 9th, 2025. The votes underscore a continuing struggle between differing political factions within the parliament and a persistent scrutiny of the Commission’s policies.

The first motion, submitted by the Patriots for Europe group, garnered 179 votes in favor, while 378 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted against it, with 37 abstentions. A subsequent motion, brought forward by the Left group, received 133 affirmative votes, opposed by 383 MEPs, and saw 78 abstentions.

A debate featuring European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took place earlier this week, on Monday, preceding the votes.This provided a platform for MEPs to voice thier concerns and challenge the Commission’s recent actions.

Understanding the Censure Process

Parliamentary regulations stipulate that a motion of censure requires the support of at least 72 MEPs – representing one-tenth of the chamber – to be formally presented.The voting process itself is conducted by a nominal roll call, ensuring clarity and accountability.

To succeed, a motion of censure must secure a two-thirds majority of all votes cast. Critically, it must also gain the support of a majority of the Parliament’s total membership. This dual requirement establishes a high threshold for removing the Commission from office.

Did You Know? Motions of censure are a powerful tool available to the European Parliament to hold the European Commission accountable, but historically, they rarely succeed.

Recent Context and Political Dynamics

The recent flurry of censure motions signals a growing trend of utilizing this parliamentary procedure to express dissatisfaction with the Commission’s policies, especially concerning trade agreements. The rejection of these motions does not necessarily indicate widespread approval of the Commission’s actions,but rather a lack of sufficient consensus to trigger a leadership change.

According to data from the European Parliament, only one Commission has ever been forced to resign following a censure vote – the Santer Commission in 1999, following allegations of mismanagement. The current political landscape is characterized by a fragmented Parliament, making it difficult to achieve the significant majorities needed for a accomplished censure motion.

Motion Presented By	Votes In Favor	votes Against	Abstentions
Patriots for Europe	179	378	37
The Left	133	383	78

Pro Tip: Understanding the voting dynamics within the European Parliament is crucial for interpreting the significance of these censure motions. Alliances and political groupings frequently enough play a decisive role in the outcome.

Is this a sign of growing discontent with the Commission’s leadership, or simply political maneuvering? And what impact will these votes have on the Commission’s future policy agenda?

The History of Censure Motions in the european Parliament

The power to censure the European commission is a fundamental aspect of the European Parliament’s oversight function. While relatively rare, motions of censure serve as a vital check on the executive branch, ensuring accountability and transparency. Historically, these motions have been triggered by a range of concerns, from allegations of financial mismanagement to disagreements over policy direction.

The Santer Commission’s resignation in 1999,following accusations of fraud and nepotism,remains the only instance of a successful censure motion. This event established a precedent for the use of this parliamentary tool and underscored the importance of ethical conduct within the Commission.As then, several other motions have been proposed, but none have garnered sufficient support to force a Commission resignation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Censure Motions

• What is a motion of censure? A formal proposal in the European Parliament to express disapproval of the European Commission’s actions, perhaps leading to its resignation.
• How many votes are needed to pass a censure motion? A two-thirds majority of votes cast, plus a majority of the Parliament’s total members.
• Who can present a motion of censure? At least 72 MEPs, representing one-tenth of the Parliament’s total membership.
• Has a motion of censure ever succeeded? Yes, the Santer Commission resigned in 1999 following a successful censure vote.
• What happens if a motion of censure passes? The entire European Commission is required to resign.
• What is the role of the Parliament President during a censure debate? The President facilitates the debate and ensures adherence to parliamentary procedure.
• Are censure motions common? While they are becoming more frequent, they remain relatively rare due to the high threshold required for success.

Share this article and let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

What specific allegations regarding interaction between Ursula von der Leyen adn Albert Bourla fueled teh censure motion related to COVID-19 vaccine procurement?

The Motions and Their Core Accusations

In a dramatic week for the European Union’s executive branch, the European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen, successfully navigated two separate censure motions brought forth by MEPs. These motions, while ultimately unsuccessful in forcing a vote of no confidence, highlight deep-seated tensions and raise critical questions about the Commission’s clarity and accountability.

The first motion, primarily driven by the far-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group, centered on accusations of political interference in the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, allegations focused on communications between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, suggesting preferential treatment and a lack of transparency in the negotiation process. Keywords: European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, censure motion, COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer, transparency.

the second motion, tabled by the Greens/EFA group, stemmed from the Commission’s handling of the rule of law conditionality mechanism linked to EU funding for Hungary. Critics argue the Commission was too slow to unlock funds despite concerns about democratic backsliding in Budapest, effectively rewarding Prime Minister viktor Orbán’s government. Keywords: rule of law, Hungary, EU funding, Viktor Orbán, conditionality mechanism, European Commission.

Breakdown of the Voting Results

Both censure motions failed to secure the required majority of 400 votes (out of 705 MEPs) to trigger a full parliamentary vote.

* COVID-19 Vaccine Motion: 315 votes in favor, 310 against. This narrow margin underscores the notable level of discontent within the European Parliament.

* Rule of Law Motion: 311 votes in favor, 323 against. The outcome here demonstrated a more cohesive defense of the Commission’s position,largely supported by the European People’s Party (EPP) and Renew Europe groups.

These results aren’t simply numbers; they represent a fractured political landscape within the EU and a growing distrust of the Commission’s decision-making processes. Keywords: European Parliament, voting results, political landscape, EU politics, EPP, Renew Europe.

Political Ramifications: A Weakened Commission?

while the Commission survived the votes, the close calls have undoubtedly weakened its political standing. Several key implications are emerging:

* Erosion of Trust: The motions, and the considerable support they garnered, signal a significant erosion of trust in the commission’s leadership. This impacts its ability to effectively negotiate and implement EU policies.

* Increased Scrutiny: Expect heightened scrutiny of the Commission’s actions from the European Parliament, particularly regarding procurement processes and the application of the rule of law mechanism. Keywords: political scrutiny, EU policies, Commission accountability.

* Strengthened Opposition: The far-right and Green groups will likely leverage this outcome to further amplify their criticisms of the Commission, possibly hindering future legislative initiatives.

* Impact on 2024 EU Elections: The controversy surrounding these motions could become a key talking point in the upcoming 2024 European Parliament elections, potentially influencing voter behavior and shifting the balance of power within the Parliament. Keywords: European elections 2024, voter behavior, EU Parliament composition.

The Vaccine Procurement Controversy: A Deeper Dive

The accusations surrounding the vaccine procurement process are particularly damaging. Critics point to deleted text messages between von der Leyen and Bourla as evidence of a lack of transparency. The European Ombudsman is currently investigating the handling of access to documents related to the vaccine negotiations.

Key questions remain unanswered:

1. Were other vaccine manufacturers given the same level of direct access to the Commission President?
2. Did the Commission adequately document its decision-making process during the critical early stages of the pandemic?
3. What safeguards are in place to prevent similar concerns from arising in future public health emergencies? Keywords: vaccine procurement, transparency concerns, European Ombudsman, public health emergency.

Hungary and the Rule of Law: A Standoff Continues

The Commission’s approach to Hungary has been criticized from both sides of the political spectrum. Some argue the Commission has been too lenient, allowing Orbán’s government to continue undermining democratic norms. Others contend that the Commission is unfairly targeting Hungary, while overlooking similar issues in other member states.

The ongoing dispute highlights the challenges of enforcing the rule of law within the EU, particularly when dealing with member states that actively resist external pressure. Keywords: rule of law enforcement, EU member states, democratic norms, hungary dispute.

The Role of Political Groups in the European Parliament

The outcome of these votes demonstrates the complex dynamics within the European Parliament.

* EPP (European People’s Party): largely supported the Commission,prioritizing stability and avoiding a political crisis.

* **S&D (Social