Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council : Parliament’s plenary debates on European Council conclusions.
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services
Subjects: European Council, European Parliament, added value, citizens' Europe, democracy, parliamentary debate, parliamentary vote, policymaking, political group

Interaction 
between the 
European 
Parliament and 
the European 
Council 
Parliament's 
plenary debates 
on European 
Council 
conclusions 

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Author: Ralf Drachenberg with Matthias Sabel 
European Council Oversight 
PE 740.216 – March 2023 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's plenary debates with the president of the European Council on the 
conclusions of European Council meetings are among the most visible and frequent interactions 
between Parliament and the European Council. These debates constitute a crucial element in the 
scrutiny activities of the European Parliament, and are the only place at EU level where the outcome 
of a European Council meeting is examined and scrutinised and the institution is held accountable. 

This EPRS analysis provides a unique overview of these interactions, by examining and assessing the 
reports by Charles Michel  to Parliament following European Council meetings in 2022,  and the 
subsequent interventions of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). It shows not only which 
topics  sparked particular interest for  MEPs,  but  also  how  MEPs  assessed the  activities of  the 
European Council. 

The paper goes on to outline the added value of these reports to plenary, and identifies potential 
ways to further increase the accountability of the European Council at EU level. 

AUTHOR(S) 

Ralf Drachenberg with Matthias Sabel, European Council Oversight Unit, EPRS 

This  paper  has  been  drawn  up  by  the  European  Council Oversight  Unit  of  the  Directorate for  Impact 
Assessment and European Added Value, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services 
(EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. 

To contact the authors, please email: EPRS-EuropeanCouncilOversight@ep.europa.eu   

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS 

Original: EN 

Manuscript completed in February 2023.  

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT 

This  document is prepared for, and  addressed to,  the Members and staff of the European Parliament as 
background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole 
responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official 
position of the Parliament. 

Reproduction  and  translation  for  non-commercial  purposes  are  authorised,  provided  the  source  is 
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. 

Brussels © European Union, 2023. 

PE: 740.216 
ISBN: 978-92-848-0229-6 
DOI: 10.2861/446528 
CAT: QA-07-23-107-EN-N 

eprs@ep.europa.eu  
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) 
http://epthinktank.eu (blog) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Executive summary 

The regular plenary debate with the President of the European Council on the conclusions of a 
European Council  meeting is  one  of  the  two  most visible  and  frequent interactions between 
Parliament and  the  European Council,  the  other being  the  President of  Parliament's opening 
remarks at European Council meetings. Plenary debates are important because they are the only 
EU-level forum where the European Council's results are examined and scrutinised, and where there 
is an attempt to hold the institution to account. Currently, the European Council could be said to 
lack accountability at European level and, given their increased role in EU policymaking, holding EU 
Heads of State or Government to account for their actions at EU level seems increasingly necessary. 

This study provides a unique overview of the European Parliament–European Council interaction, 
analysing the six plenary debates with the European Council's President, Charles Michel, following 
European Council  meetings  in  2022.  It  shows  that  144  different  Members  of  the  European 
Parliament (MEPs) commented in 245 contributions on the European Council conclusions adopted. 

The  analysis illustrates that,  along  with  the  main  topics  of  each  European Council  meeting, 
Charles Michel's statements to Parliament featured two recurring themes: EU unity and strategic 
autonomy. Compared with the debates in previous years, Michel has become less likely to make a 
closing statement, and consequently has not had time to respond to all the MEPs' questions. 

The paper shows that although, broadly speaking, MEPs speak to the individual issues covered by 
the main agenda points of the respective European Council meeting, they also address topics which, 
in their opinion, are missing from the meeting's agenda. The analysis identifies trends on topics and 
differences according to political group and/or nationality. 

The main added value of these debates is to give MEPs an opportunity to question the European 
Council President on the European Council's conclusions and activities. Their further added value is 
identified as: i) providing additional information on parts of the European Council conclusions that 
are not directly retrievable, ii) reporting on discussions that do not result in conclusions, and iii) 
presenting actions that occurred as a follow-up to the European Council meeting. 

The analysis confirms that MEPs do not simply rubber-stamp the conclusions and priorities set by 
the European Council, but are often critical of its activities and fulfil their scrutiny role in relation to 
the European Council's activities. The data show that MEPs' assessments vary between the different 
topics, with  some, such as  the  EU's response to Russia's war in  Ukraine, food security and EU 
membership applications, being seen more positively, while the European Council's conclusions on 
other topics, notably on the Conference on the Future of Europe, energy and economy are seen 
more critically. This again differs between political groups and/or nationalities. 

This  research confirms that regular exchanges between Parliament and  the  European Council 
President on European Council conclusions are important for EU democracy: they make EU policy-
making more transparent, they are a key aspect of Parliament's scrutiny role, and they allow MEPs 
to highlight the topics that matter for them and EU citizens.  

The findings highlight possible areas for improvement, to build on European Council accountability 
at EU level. These include: the European Council President remaining until the end of the debate, 
taking more specific questions from MEPs and answering them; increased use of resolutions to wind 
up debates on European Council conclusions; and the European Council President's attendance at 
pre-European Council plenary debates. The option of a non-binding vote on the president-elect of 
the European Council could also be considered. 

I 

 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table of contents 

1. Accountability of the European Council and its president__________________________ 2 

2. Plenary debates on European Council conclusions  _______________________________ 3 

2.1. Origin and development  ____________________________________________________ 3 

2.2. Format___________________________________________________________________ 4 

2.3. Objective_________________________________________________________________ 4 

2.4. Implementation and scope  __________________________________________________ 5 

3. Analysis of the plenary debates on conclusions of the European Council in 2022 ______ 5 

3.1. The interventions of the President of the European Council_________________________ 6 

3.1.1. The opening statements  ____________________________________________________ 6 

3.1.2. The closing statements  _____________________________________________________ 8 

3.2. Interventions of Members of the European Parliament_____________________________ 9 

3.2.1. Participation _____________________________________________________________ 9 

3.2.2. Topical focus of the plenary debates ___________________________________________ 12 

3.2.3. Political groups __________________________________________________________ 15 

3.2.4. By Member State _________________________________________________________ 17 

3.2.5. Assessment and interaction in the plenary debates ________________________________ 18 

3.2.6. Institutional aspects_______________________________________________________ 20 

3.2.7. Plenary working methods  __________________________________________________ 21 

4. Lessons learned ____________________________________________________________22 

4.1. Participation in the full debate _______________________________________________ 22 

4.2. Increased accountability to Parliament ________________________________________ 22 

4.3. Maximising MEPs' attendance at plenary debates________________________________ 22 

4.4. Pre-European Council plenary debates with the European Council President __________ 23 

4.5. Parliament resolutions on European Council meetings  ___________________________ 23 

5. Conclusions _______________________________________________________________23 

II 

Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Table of figures 

Figure 1 – European Council president's reports to Parliament following formal meetings_____ 5 

Figure 2 – European Council President's reports to Parliament following informal meetings ___ 5 

Figure 3  –  Comparison of average attention paid to topics in Charles Michel's speeches and in 
European Council conclusions ____________________________________________________ 6 

Figure 4 – Closing statements by Charles Michel during his tenure  _______________________ 8 

Figure 5 – Proportion of attention paid to topics in MEPs' speeches compared with attention paid in 
European Council conclusions ___________________________________________________ 12 

Figure 6 – Relative share of words dedicated to sub-topics of general Ukraine war theme in plenary 
debates on European Council conclusions__________________________________________ 15 

Figure 7 – Average ratio of topics per speech by national delegation_____________________ 17 

Figure 8 – Assessment of the European Council's action by political groups _______________ 18 

Figure 9 – Assessment of the European Council's action on different topics  _______________ 19 

Table of tables 

Table  1  –  Overview of  MEPs'  plenary interventions, by Member State of  election  and political 
group _______________________________________________________________________ 10 

Table 2 – Number of MEPs giving a speech per debate and political group ________________ 11 

Table 3 – Average ratio of topics per speech by political groups_________________________ 16 

III 

 
 
    
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Introduction 

Accountability is one of  the central democratic principles of the European Union. The European 
Parliament is accountable to the citizens of the EU via direct elections. It is itself the main democratic 
forum of the European Union to hold the European Commission as the EU's executive accountable, 
by exercising functions of political control and by approving and dismissing the Commission.  

EU Heads of State or Government gather in the European Council, which, having existed informally 
since  1975,  was institutionalised with the entry into force  of  the  Lisbon Treaty. The European 
Council's core role is to 'provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and 
define the general political directions and priorities'.1 The scope of its activity has rapidly evolved 
over the past decade and, today, the European Council's involvement in the EU policy cycle 2 is much 
broader, covering tasks from agenda-setting to scrutiny activities. In the context of the various crises 
the EU has had to face, the European Council has de facto assumed executive powers. However, 
while  the individual Heads of State or Government are accountable to their respective national 
parliaments and citizens,  the  accountability of  the  institution of  the  European Council  is  not 
specified in  the Treaties. This has sparked expressions of concern from academics and from the 
European Parliament. 

The main tool of political control in the hands of the European Parliament are plenary debates with 
the full-time  president of  the European Council. These take place  after each formal, and some 
informal, meeting of the European Council. This Treaty-based institutional exchange requires the 
president of the European Council to explain and justify the conclusions of the European Council to 
the plenary and enables Members of the European Parliament to comment on the conclusions and 
ask the president questions. These plenary debates are important because they are the only place 
at EU level where the outcome of European Council meetings is examined and publicly scrutinised 
,and an attempt is made to hold the European Council to account. While this interaction between 
the institutions has been widely commented on, no systematic analysis of these debates had been 
carried out previously. 

This  analysis  therefore  sets out  to  provide  an  overview of  this  interaction by  evaluating the 
objectives, and  analysing the dynamics of  the six  plenary debates with the European Council's 
President, Charles Michel, following the meetings of the European Council in 2022.  

Section one looks at the lack  of  the accountability of  the European Council and the  European 
Parliament's role in ensuring political control of the institution.  

Section two outlines the  origin, format, objectives and implementation of the interinstitutional 
exchange in the form of plenary discussions on European Council conclusions. 

In its third section, the paper examines contributions to the six plenary debates on European Council 
conclusions of 2022. This entails examination of the interventions of the European Council President 
in  opening and  closing statements and an evaluation of the  added value of his  appearance in 
plenary. It also identifies the key topics addressed by MEPs and clusters their statements based their 
political affiliation and nationality. Then it outlines the MEPs' main assessment of the results of the 
European Council meetings, both critical and supportive. 

1   Article 15(1), Treaty on European Union. 
2  

R. Drachenberg, The European  Council's role in the EU policy cycle, EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2019. 

1 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Finally, section four lists lessons to be learned in order to enhance Parliament's political control and 
increase the accountability of the European Council and its president. 

1. Accountability of the European Council and its president 

The European Council is the EU institution made up of EU Heads of State or Government together 
with its president and the president of the European Commission. Over the last decade, and notably 
fuelled by the various crises the EU has had to face, the European Council has expanded its influence 
over policy making, which some consider as 'legislative trespassing'.3 This development has been 
noted by Parliament:  

'under the pressure of the crisis, the European Council has considerably aggrandised its role, 
increasing the number of extraordinary meetings and raising to European Council level matters 
normally dealt with at Council of Ministers level; whereas in this respect the European Council 
has gone beyond the crucial Treaty injunction that it has no legislative functions'. 4 

This rise in influence has not necessarily increased the accountability of this EU institution. On the 
contrary, it has even  been  argued that, in  the context of  the  negotiations  on the multiannual 
financial framework (MFF), 'the European Council's dominance distorted the institutional balance 
laid down in the Treaties … and undermined the transparency and democratic accountability of the 
decision-making process … the role played by the EUCO is difficult to reconcile with the wording 
and spirit of the [Lisbon Treaty]' (Crowe, 2016, pp. 3, 23). 

In that context, a question arises: to whom is the European Council accountable? The Heads of State 
or Government are accountable to their national parliaments and electorates; the European Council 
president is accountable to the Heads of State or Government, but to whom is the institution as a 
collective  body  accountable?  Parliament  has  expressed  concern  about  accountability  and 
transparency regarding the work of the European Council and stressed in the past that 'under the 
Treaty of  Lisbon members of  the European Council  are accountable individually to  their  own 
national parliaments but accountable collectively only to themselves'. 5 

Academics have argued that in the EU's architecture, the European Parliament is the only institution 
that might be able to provide a forum for democratic oversight over the European Council as a 
collective entity. 6 Parliament has been given a general oversight function of the executive laid down 
in the Treaties (Article 14(1) TEU). However, in an EU framework that many observers describe as 
having a  'dual executive' split  between the European Commission and the European Council,7 
differing according to policy area, the Treaties provide the European Parliament with a number of 
instruments to hold the European Commission and its president accountable (e.g. censuring the 
Commission), but do not provide it with similar instruments to hold the European Council and its 
president  to  account.  One  possible  way  for  the  Parliament  to  hold  the  European  Council 

3   Dinan D.,  Relations between the European  Council and the European  Parliament, EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2018.  
4  

European Parliament, Resolution on relations between the European Parliament and the institutions representing the 
national governments, 2013. 

5  

European Parliament, Resolution on relations between the European Parliament and the institutions representing the 
national governments, 2013. 

6   M. van de Steeg, 'Public Accountability in the European Union: Is the European Parliament Able to Hold the European 
Council Accountable?',  European Integration online Papers, Vol. 13, 2009; Y.  Papadopoulos,  Political accountability in 
EU multi-level governance: the glass  half-full, SIEPS,  2021. 
P. Craig,  European Governance: Executive and Administrative Powers under the New Constitutional Settlement,  articles by 
Maurer Faculty,  2005; S.  Fabbrini,  The  dual  executive of the European  Union:  A comparative  federalism's  approach, 
EUSA  biennial conference, Miami, 4 May 2017; and  S. Fabbrini  'Who holds the elephant to account? executive Power 
Political accountability in the EU', Journal of European Integration, 2021. 

7  

2 

                                                             
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

accountable is  via  its  president, who  represents  the European Council  vis-à-vis  the  European 
Parliament. 8 

The Lisbon Treaty introduced the office of a full-time president of the European Council in 2009. 9 It 
replaced the previous rotating presidency of the European Council, held by the Head of State or 
Government of the Member State holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union. 
There were some hopes that the change from a rotating to a permanent European Council president 
would increase democratic representation and accountability.10 The role of the president is set out 
in Article 15(6) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). While it does not make the European Council 
president accountable to Parliament, it does specify that the president of the European Council has 
to present a report to the European Parliament after each of the [formal] meetings of the European 
Council (Article 15(6)(d). Herman Van Rompuy, the first full time president of the European Council, 
stressed that he  was  not  accountable  to  Parliament. While  making  a  point  of  informing the 
Parliament as much as possible, he avoided making commitments that would give the impression 
that the president of the European Council was accountable to Parliament.11 

2. Plenary debates on European Council conclusions 

As outlined before, the Treaties oblige the President of the European Council to deliver a report to 
the European Parliament after every formal meeting of the European Council. Plenary debates do 
also take place ahead of European Council meetings, but those are only attended by the rotating 
Council presidency and the president of the European Commission − and not by the president of 
the European Council. This section examines the origin, format and scope of the plenary debates 
following European Council meetings. 

2.1. Origin and development 

Although the European Council was not a formal institution at the time, the obligation to report to 
the European Parliament after each formal European Council meeting existed already prior to the 
Lisbon Treaty. Before becoming a Treaty-based obligation, reporting to Parliament after European 
Council meetings was an informal practice established in 1981. 12 This informal practice was then 
enshrined in the Solemn Declaration on European Union 13 in 1983 and codified in the Maastricht 
Treaty on European Union in 1992. Prior to the creation of the position of full time European Council 
president, it was the rotating Council presidency that carried out this duty. 

Research regarding the attendance of MEPs at plenary debates with the presidency of the European 
Council  prior  to  the  Lisbon  Treaty  showed  that  'the  EP  as  an  institution took  seriously the 
opportunity to enter into a debate with the Presidency on the previous Summit', and as 'these visits 

8   Article 5 of the Rules of Procedures of the European  Council. 

9  

For  an  in  depth  assessment  of  changes  to  the  European  Council  after  the  Lisbon  Treaty  see  S.  Anghel  and 
R. Drachenberg, The European  Council under the Lisbon  Treaty, EPRS,  European Parliament, 2019. 

10   B.  Crum,  'Accountability  and  Personalisation  of  the European  Council  Presidency',  Journal of European  Integration, 

Vol. 31(6), 2009. 

11   EPRS  event,  The  First Five  Years  of  Permanent  Presidency  of  the European  Council:  The  Van  Rompuy  Experience, 

15 May 2015. 

12   This practice was first introduced by Margaret Thatcher as president in office of the European  Council during the UK's 
rotating  presidency.  See T.  Bainbridge  and  A.  Teasdale,  (eds)  The  Penguin companion to  European  Union,  4th ed., 
Penguin, 2012. 

13   Solemn Declaration on European  Union, 19 June 1983. 

3 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

were  one  of  the  official  highlights of  the  parliamentary year, these sessions are  usually  well 
attended. 14 

2.2. Format 

Post-European  Council debates in  plenary  begin  with  a  statement from the  president of  the 
European Council. This is usually followed by a statement from the European Commission president, 
or by a Commission vice-president replacing her. Then, leading MEPs comment on the European 
Council conclusions on behalf of their political group, followed by interventions by other MEPs. At 
the end of the session, the president of the European Council has the chance to react to MEPs' 
statements in a  closing statement. The same opportunity is offered to the Commission. This is 
usually taken up by a Commission vice-president. During 2022, the year corresponding to the scope 
of  the  paper,  the  closing  statement was  always  delivered  by  Vice-President  Maroš  Šefčovič, 
Commissioner for  interinstitutional relations. There  have  been  occasions, notably  during  the 
mandate of  Herman Van  Rompuy as  European Council  President, when  the  report has  been 
delivered to the Parliament's conference of presidents (COP) 'open to all Members' and sometimes 
also in written format.15 

On occasions, Parliament issues a resolution on the European Council conclusions, following the 
plenary debate, however much less so in recent years. 

2.3. Objective 

The objective of the plenary debates are to enhance the transparency and scrutiny of the activities 
of the European Council. Former President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek remarked that 
by 'holding a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of political group leaders with the President 
of the European Council immediately after each summit, and holding a comprehensive discussion 
with  the  European Council President during  the  plenary session that follows',  Parliament can 
attempt to influence the workings of the European Council. 16 

Following the Treaty of Lisbon, observers have identified the European Parliament as an arena in 
which European Council and Council decision-making in new areas of EU activity is scrutinised and 
debated publicly. 17 

14   M. van  de Steeg, 2009. 
15   For example after the European Council of December 2013, the report was given in writing. 
16  

J.  Buzek,  'State of  the Union:  Three  Cheers for  the Lisbon  Treaty  and  Two  Warnings  for Political Parties', Journal of 
Common Market Studies, Vol. 49(s1), pp.  7–18, 2011. 

17   U. Puetter, The European Council and the Council, Oxford University Press, 2014. 
4 

                                                             
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

2.4. Implementation and scope 

Figure 
1 
president's 
following formal meetings 

– 
reports 

European  Council 
to  Parliament 

Michel

Tusk

Van
Rompuy

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: EPRS. 

Figure 2 – European Council President's 
following 
reports 
informal meetings 

Parliament 

to 

No report

10

12

6

Report

Tusk

Michel

2
3

Van
Rompuy

Source: EPRS. 

The  fulfilment  of  the  obligation  to  report  to 
formal  European  Council 
Parliament  after 
meetings has varied over time and  between the 
different  European  Council  presidents.  Charles 
Michel's engagement with Parliament during his 
first mandate 18 went beyond what is required by 
the  Treaties.  Compared  to  his  predecessors, 
Charles Michel has a higher ratio of reporting after 
than 
formal  European  Council  meetings 
Donald Tusk  and 
falls  only  slightly  below 
Herman Van Rompuy (see Figure 1).  

Depending on the European Council president, the 
scope  of  reporting  after  European  Council 
meetings can be interpreted more widely or more 
narrowly.  Under  Charles Michel,  the  scope  has 
been  widened  again  to  also  include  reports on 
informal meetings. Figure 2 shows that in the first 
3  years of  his tenure from 2019  to 2022,  he  has 
delivered the most reports of all European Council 
Presidents after informal meetings, while Donald 
Tusk never reported to the European Parliament 
on informal European Council meetings. 

3. Analysis  of  the  plenary  debates  on  conclusions  of  the 
European Council in 2022 

In 2022, six formal and three informal European Council meetings took place. As required by the 
Treaties, Charles Michel duly delivered a report to the plenary after the regular European Council 
meetings in March, June, October and December, and the special one in May. He did not appear 
after the special European Council meeting of 24  February, which took place on the day Russia 
launched its invasion of Ukraine. The President of the European Council did report to Parliament on 
the informal summit in Versailles in early March, but appeared neither after the informal meeting on 
17 February, nor after  the  summit in  Prague  in  early October. However,  none  of  those  three 
meetings produced conclusions or declarations that could have been discussed in  the plenary. 
Hence, in total, six plenary debates on conclusions of the European Council took place in 2022.  

This methodology in this paper is  based on a  content analysis of Charles Michel's interventions 
following  European Council meetings as well  as  the 245  contributions of 144  members of  the 

18   R. Drachenberg, Charles Michel as President of the European Council,  EPRS, European  Parliament, 2022. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

European Parliament in the six plenary debates relating to the European Council conclusions in 
2022. For every contribution, the coding process calculated the number of words dedicated to a 
certain topic. The result was then divided by the overall word count of the intervention to obtain 
the relative weight of a topic per contribution. Based on those individual ratios, average ratios were 
calculated showing the average weight of a topic in the speeches of the President of the European 
Council, for all MEPs as well as by political groups and by national delegations. 

The first sub-section focuses on Michel's statements in the plenary and evaluates the added value 
of his appearance. The second sub-section analyses the contributions of MEPs. 

3.1. The interventions of the President of the European Council 

The plenary debates on European Council conclusions generally involve two interventions by the 
president of the European Council. First, the president delivers an opening statement in which he 
outlines  the  conclusions  of  the  respective  European  Council  meeting.  Second,  he  has  the 
opportunity to close the debate by reacting to the MEPs' interventions or answering any questions. 

3.1.1. The opening statements 
Reporting on  the  2022  European Council  conclusions, Charles  Michel  dedicated  most of  the 
speaking time in his opening statements to summarising, explaining and justifying the decisions of 
the preceding European Council meeting. A systematic comparison of his opening statements with 
the European Council conclusions indicates that Michel indeed tends to focus on the main headlines 
of the conclusions, although the extent to which he elaborates on certain topics sometimes differs 
from the emphasis put on those topics in the text of the conclusions. 

Figure 3 – Comparison of average attention paid to topics in Charles Michel's speeches 
and in European Council conclusions 

0%

10%

20%

30%

Ukraine/Russia
Economy
Energy
External relations
Security and defence
Food security
Wider Europe
Western Balkans
Transatlantic relations
Membership applications
Migration
CoFoE/institutional reform

Source: EPRS. 

Charles Michel

Conclusions

As illustrated in Figure 3,  Russia's war in Ukraine, economic issues, the energy crisis and energy 
security, and defence  dominated the  agenda of  the  European Council in  2022,  and  therefore 
account for large parts of the President's opening statements. However, it is striking that Michel puts 
a  comparatively strong focus on economic issues and  external relations, whereas he refers to 
security and defence matters less than the conclusions do. Likewise, on transatlantic relations, wider 
Europe and migration Michel goes more into detail than do the conclusions. 
6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

When summarising the European Council's main conclusions of 2022, Charles Michel tends to resort 
to two recurring themes in his speeches to the European Parliament. The first recurrent theme is the 
unity of the 27 Member States. He emphasises this subject in his reports on the EU's humanitarian, 
economic and financial support to Ukraine and the measures taken to sanction Russia's aggression. 
Despite  visible  disagreements among EU  countries during  the  special  May  European Council 
meeting on certain restrictive measures, such as the extent of the oil embargo, which eventually led 
to exemptions for crude oil delivered by pipeline, Michel was keen to underline: 'that we are, and 
we remain, united and committed to piling the pressure on Russia'. Only once did Michel openly 
acknowledge disagreements  between  the Member States regarding measures to lower  energy 
prices; that was in the debate on the May conclusions.19 However, five months later, in the debate 
on the October European Council conclusions,20 he stressed that Member States had managed to 
overcome their initially diverging views and to decide on a set of measures. 

'And despite initial differing views, we overcame these differences and we agreed on a plan that 
covers the different paths of action.' 

The second recurring theme is strategic autonomy or European sovereignty,21 which was defined as 
a three-dimensional concept at the informal Versailles European Council meeting in March 2022, 
involving bolstering the EU's defence capabilities, reducing energy dependencies and building a 
more robust economic base. European sovereignty constituted Michel's main guiding principle in 
2022;  he  invoked it  in  nearly every  speech at  the  European Parliament when  presenting the 
conclusions on those three topics. Michel's first speech in 2023 on the December conclusions clearly 
indicated that European sovereignty and strategic autonomy would remain the guiding principles 
of the European Council President. For him, 'strategic autonomy, which some time ago was perhaps 
a theoretical debate, becomes an extremely real debate, with three key pillars that are at the heart 
of current European events'. 

Evidently, the European Council conclusions are already known to all parliamentarians at the time 
of the debate, which gives a certain degree of predictability to Michel's remarks. A mere summary 
of the discussions at the European Council would not carry any added value for the Parliament's 
oversight. By mentioning additional information on the conclusions that would not otherwise be 
directly retrievable, Charles Michel adds value to his appearance in the European Parliament. Two 
examples illustrate this additional substantive dimension. The conclusions of the formal October 
European Council indicated that a strategic discussion had taken place on China. At the plenary 
debate following the meeting, Michel outlined the main cornerstones of the debate: the assertion 
of  the EU's values, the  reduction of strategic dependencies vis-à-vis China and  cooperation on 
matters of global importance such as climate change. In a similar vein, the December European 
Council  conclusions reported on  a  debate  on  transatlantic relations. In  his  statement at  the 
subsequent plenary debate in January,22 Michel underlined his view on the Inflation Reduction Act, 
and subsequently sketched out his vision for the prospective European answer. 

As not all topics that have been discussed at the European Council appear in the conclusions, one 
element of added value of the opening statement is the report on those discussions that do not 
appear in the conclusions. At the June debate, Michel reported that discussions had taken place on 

19   European  Parliament debate on the conclusions  of the special European  Council meeting of 30-31 May 2022, 

8 June 2022. 

20   European  Parliament debate on the conclusions  of the European Council meeting of 20-21 October 2022, 

9 November 2022. 

21   S. Anghel, Strategic sovereignty for Europe, EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2020. 
22   European  Parliament debate on the conclusions  of the European Council meeting of 15 December 2022, 

18 January  2022. 

7 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

the completion of capital markets union and banking union, although there is no mention of this in 
the economic chapter of the conclusions. The statement on the December conclusions provided 
information on the substance of discussions on migration, which were not  the subject of  any 
conclusions. Inversely, some topics  do  appear  in  the  conclusions, but  are  not  the  subject  of 
discussions among the Heads of State or Government. In the debate on the June conclusions,23 
Michel reiterated that the European Council had taken into account the results of the Conference 
on the Future of Europe, but mentioned in plenary that no direct debate had taken place on this 
matter. The absence of debate on this topic was subsequently dismissed by MEPs as indicative of 
the lack of commitment of the European Council to the objectives of the conference (see below). 

Another element of added value of  the plenary debate can derive from the fact  that European 
Council meeting and European Parliament plenary weeks are scheduled independently. Plenary 
debates on the European Council conclusions sometimes take place up to one month after the 
meeting. In cases of a longer lapse of time between the two events, Michel has tended to reflect on 
actions that have been taken to follow-up on the European Council conclusions. In the debates on 
both  the  Versailles  Declaration 24  and  on  the  March  conclusions, 25  Michel  reported  on  the 
implementation of sanctions packages having been agreed after the European Council meeting. In 
the same debate, he commented on the outcome of the EU-China summit which had taken place in 
the  meantime. Another recurring theme in his  introductory statement are reports on his own 
political activities. Finally, Michel usually gives an outlook on the main topics that are going to define 
the next European Council meeting. 

3.1.2. The closing statements 

1

4

1

4

6

Figure  4  –  Closing  statements  by 
Charles Michel during his tenure 

A further important aspect of the added value of the 
European  Council  president's appearance  in  the 
plenary session of the European Parliament is the 
possibility  for  MEPs  to  ask  questions, which  the 
European  Council  president  then  answers  in  a 
closing statement. In his first term as President of 
the European Council, Charles Michel almost always 
used the opportunity to make a closing statement, 
missing it only once during a debate in 2020. In 2022 
however, Michel  delivered  a  closing statement in 
only two of the six debates (Figure 4). In his closing 
statement at the debate on  the  May  conclusions 
however, he did not answer any questions by MEPs 
and mainly repeated his preliminary remarks. Faced 
with criticism over the allegedly slow progress made 
by the European Council and the Council on energy files, such as the gas price cap, Michel used his 
closing statement in the debate on the October conclusions to put the blame on the European 
Commission, for not submitting the necessary legislative proposals in due time, and to stress once 
more the unity of the European Council. 

No closing statement

Closing statement

Source: EPRS. 

2019

2020

2021

2022

2

'You have the right, of course, to criticise energy ministers for not acting fast enough, but in 
order for them to act and take decisions, we need legislative proposals to bring into force this 
ambitious package of measures, for which political policy decisions have been expressed by the 

23   European  Parliament debate on the conclusions  of the European Council meeting of 23-24 June 2022, 6 July 2022. 
24   European  Parliament debate: debriefing of the European Council meeting in Paris on 10 March 2022, 23 March 2022. 
25   European  Parliament debate on the conclusions  of the European Council meeting of 24-25 March 2022, 6 April 2022. 
8 

                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

members of the European Council, who, contrary to what has been said, have forged their unity 
around it.' 

As  for  the  debate  on  the  October  European Council  conclusions, the  closing  statement was 
delivered in the middle of the plenary debate because Michel had to leave. This early departure 
denied the remaining speakers the possibility to address the President of the European Council in 
the  plenary  or  ask  potential questions. Michel's  absence  was  accordingly criticised  in  several 
speeches after his early departure. 

'Take a closer look: This symbolises the Council's attitude towards the House of Democracy here 
in Europe. At the debate on the European Council he is no longer present and apologises for 
having other commitments.' 

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). 

Those Members who did not have the opportunity to ask a question to Michel in the plenary had 
the possibility to submit a written question to the President of the European Council as determined 
by  Rule  138  of  the Rules  of  Procedure of  the  European Parliament,26 but only insofar as they 
concerned the President's own political activities, rather than the institution of the European Council 
as a whole. EPRS research27 shows that use of this channel to address the European Council President 
has decreased significantly over the years.  

In 2022 therefore, with the exception of the debate on the May conclusions, Michel decided in all 
cases to leave the  plenary session before the end of  the debate, or not to make a  concluding 
statement. 

3.2. Interventions of Members of the European Parliament 

3.2.1. Participation 
The  opening statements from the European Council president and the  European Commission 
president are followed  by leading  MEPs  commenting on the European Council conclusions on 
behalf of their political group. Then come the interventions of other MEPs. During the six plenary 
debates on European Council conclusions in 2022 a wide variety of MEPs addressed the plenary. In 
total, 144 members of Parliament gave 213 plenary speeches and 32 written statements. 

26   Rule 138 of the Rules of Procedure of the European  Parliament. 
27   R. Drachenberg, Charles Michel as President of the European Council,  EPRS, European  Parliament, 2022. 

9 

 
 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Table 1 – Overview of MEPs' plenary interventions, by Member State of election and political 
group 

Member State 

EPP 

S&D 

Renew  Greens 

ID 

ECR 

The Left 

NI 

Total 

Italy 

Germany 

Spain 

Poland 

France 

Portugal 

Romania 

Netherlands 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Ireland 

Greece 

Belgium 

Finland 

Austria 

Croatia 

Czechia 

Cyprus 

Slovakia 

Estonia 

Slovenia 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Bulgaria 

3 

7 

1 

1 

1 

3 

7 

2 

4 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

5 

4 

10 

4 

7 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

Luxembourg 

Total 

43 

1 

48 

Source: EPRS. 

1 

6 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

8 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

1 

12 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

3 

1 

4 

3 

2 

3 

4 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

2 

1 

7 

2 

27 

23 

22 

17 

16 

14 

13 

10 

10 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

24 

19 

18 

25 

17 

19 

213 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

One MEP, Beata Szydło (ECR, Poland; incidentally a former member of the European Council), spoke 
in every debate; seven speakers contributed to four debates and 17 speakers took part in half of the 
debates. 

Given the digressively proportional composition of the European Parliament, larger Member States 
are  represented by more Members, which  in  turn is  automatically reflected in  the  number of 
speakers for a given nationality. As visible in Table 1, most speeches were delivered by Members 
from Italy, Germany and Spain, whereas Members from Latvia and Malta  did  not give  a  single 
speech. Among the political groups, speaking time is distributed according to the d'Hondt system. 
Rule 171 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure28 (RoP) stipulates that a first fraction of 
speaking time is divided equally among political groups and a second fraction in proportion to the 
number of their members. This leaves larger political groups with more speaking time than relatively 
smaller groups. Political groups then define the number of speakers for a debate and allocate the 
speaking time among them. In  the  framework of the  catch-the-eye procedure, also based on 
Rule 171, the President may call on Members not allocated speaking time by their group to speak. 
This allows MEPs from smaller groups to take the floor more often. In the debates on the European 
Council conclusions, most speeches were delivered by members from the Parliament's second-
largest group, the S&D, followed by the EPP group, the ECR group, the Renew group, the Greens/EFA 
group, the ID group and The Left group. Non-affiliated members gave 18 speeches. 

Within those political groups, some nationalities were more represented in plenary debates on 
European Council conclusions than others. This largely reflects the size of their national delegation 
or  the  nationalities of  the  groups' main  spokespersons. This varying number of  interventions 
according to the national weight of the delegation in  the European Parliament differs from the 
situation at European Council meetings, at which every Head of State or Government has equal 
opportunities to address the public through press conferences and interviews. 

The number of MEPs participating in the plenary debates varied considerably in 2022. In the shortest 
debate  on  the  May  European Council  conclusions, only 20  MEPs  gave  a  speech,  whereas 49 
members addressed the plenary in the debate on the Versailles Declaration and the conclusions of 
the formal March European Council. The distribution of speaking time in the different debates also 
differed between the political  groups. In  some debates, smaller political  groups allocated their 
speaking time in such a way that they were represented by more speakers than relatively larger 
groups. Despite limited speaking time, debates on European Council conclusions certainly benefit 
from a diverse range of members taking the floor. However, in some cases, certain political groups 
were represented by one single speaker (Table 2). This was the case for the Renew group in the 
debate on the December conclusions, for the Greens/EFA group in the debates on the May and June 
conclusions and for The Left group in the debate on the June conclusions. 

Table 2 – Number of MEPs giving a speech per debate and political group 

EPP 

S&D 

Renew  Greens/EFA 

ID 

ECR 

The Left 

NI 

Total 

Versailles 

March 

May 

June 

October 

December 

11 

10 

4 

5 

7 

6 

9 

11 

3 

8 

10 

7 

6 

8 

3 

3 

3 

1 

7 

4 

1 

1 

4 

2 

3 

4 

2 

3 

4 

2 

5 

5 

3 

3 

5 

4 

4 

4 

2 

1 

2 

4 

4 

3 

2 

2 

5 

3 

49 

49 

20 

26 

40 

29 

28 Rules of Procedure of the European  Parliament, 9th parliamentary term, February 2023. 

11 

 
                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

Members who have not been allocated speaking time by their political groups or in the catch-the-
eye procedure and who wish to express their view on the European Council conclusions can still 
submit a written statement, in accordance with Rule 171 RoP. In 2022, Members from the S&D group 
made particular use of the opportunity to submit a written statement, accounting for more than half 
of the 32  written statements. Most of those written statements were submitted by Spanish S&D 
Members who  called  on the  European Council and the Council  to reach an agreement on the 
migration and asylum pact and on the taxation of energy companies' windfall profits, in eleven 
identical written statements on the conclusions of the special May European Council meeting. 

3.2.2. Topical focus of the plenary debates 
The European Council addressed a wide range of  topics in 2022.  These included the prominent 
topics  of  Russia's war in  Ukraine, the  energy  crisis  and  the  EU's economic  situation; but also 
membership applications,  security  and  defence  matters, institutional questions and  external 
relations. This provided MEPs with a large number of issues to comment on, but also the opportunity 
to point out the topics that were missing from the agenda. Figure 5 provides an overview of the 
topics addressed by MEPs' plenary speeches and written statements, and compares the average 
share of those topics to their corresponding weight in all the European Council conclusions of 2022.  

Figure  5  –  Proportion  of  attention  paid  to  topics in  MEPs'  speeches compared with 
attention paid in European Council conclusions 
0%

10%

40%

20%

30%

Ukraine/Russia
Energy
Economy
Membership applications
Rule of law
Security and defence
Migration
External relations
CoFoE/institutional reform
Food security
Western Balkans
Schengen enlargement
Transatlantic relations
Critical infrastructure
Wider Europe

Source: EPRS. 

MEPs

Conclusions

Like Michel, MEPs focused strongly on the year's three defining topics. Yet, the respective share of 
these topics still  varied between the debates. MEPs' speeches in  the first three debates on the 
Versailles, 29 March, 30 and May 31  conclusions mostly addressed the relatively recent invasion of 
Ukraine, notably including expressions of solidarity to Ukraine and demands for an extension of 
sanctions as well as acceleration of the deployment of humanitarian support. Speakers also called 

29   S. Anghel, Outcome of the informal European  Council in Versailles on 10-11 March 2022, EPRS,  European Parliament, 

2022. 

30   S. Anghel and R. Drachenberg, Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders, 24-25 March 2022, EPRS,  European 

Parliament, 2022. 

31   S. Anghel and R. Torpey, Outcome of the special European  Council meeting of 30-31 May 2022, EPRS,  European 

Parliament, 2022. 

12 

                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

for the quick assessment and proposal of measures to lower energy prices and to alleviate the 
consequences of the crisis for businesses and households. The debate on the Versailles Declaration, 
for instance, saw a  significant share of statements on security and defence; and it  was the only 
plenary debate in  which  security and defence  matters played an important role. The  Versailles 
Declaration  highlighted strategic autonomy in  the  area  of  security  and  defence  as  a  central 
cornerstone of European sovereignty, and subsequent European Council meetings followed up with 
conclusions on  security and defence.  In  the remaining debates however, security and defence 
matters tended to be discussed to a  lesser extent in  the plenary when compared to the space 
allocated to the topic in the European Council conclusions. MEPs have progressively given more 
priority to the energy and economic dimension of European sovereignty throughout the year. 

The debate on the June 32 conclusions diverged from the previous debates with a rather balanced 
distribution of topics reflecting the diverse issues discussed at the respective European Council 
meeting. MEPs notably voiced their opinion on the candidate status granted to Ukraine and the 
Republic of Moldova and the membership perspective for Georgia. There was however one topic to 
which MEPs devoted far more attention than did the European Council's conclusions: the outcome 
of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) (see below). The Western Balkan summit and the 
corresponding conclusions of the European Council also played a prominent role in MEPs' speeches.  

The debate on the October 33 conclusions was clearly dominated by the topic of energy, which was 
the focal point of the meeting: Heads of State or Government asked the Commission and the Council 
to fine-tune and decide on a joint purchasing platform for gas, improvements in the functioning of 
energy markets, a  temporary price  cap  for  gas  in  electricity  generation and energy  solidarity 
measures.  

The  debate  on  the  December 34  conclusions, which  took  place  in  January 2023,  was  in  turn 
dominated  by  economic  issues.  MEPs  concentrated  on  measures  to  enhance  the  EU's 
competitiveness, but they also reminded the  European Council and the  Commission to devise 
measures to tackle the cost of living crisis. The issue of the enlargement of the Schengen area to 
Bulgaria and Romania found more space in the speeches of MEPs than in the European Council 
conclusions. The issue had not been intended to be discussed by EU Heads of State or Government, 
but the day before the European Council meeting, the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 
8 December 35 gave a negative decision on full Schengen membership for Romania and Bulgaria. 
This issue was subsequently raised at the European Council meeting, notably by the President of 
Romania, Klaus  Iohannis. 36 Michel  reported 37 on  the  political  debate  between  EU  leaders  on 
Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to the Schengen area, and expressed optimism that a decision 
on that matter could be taken in the course of 2023. 

On average, MEPs refer to two or three topics in their speeches. The relatively limited range of topics 
discussed in the plenary debates tends to indicate that MEPs stick to the agenda and address the 

32   S. Anghel and R. Drachenberg, Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders on 23-24 June 2022, EPRS,  European 

Parliament, 2022. 

33   S. Anghel and R. Torpey, Outcome of the European  Council meeting of 20-21 October 2022, EPRS, European 

Parliament, 2022. 

34   S. Anghel and R. Drachenberg, Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders on 15 December 2022, EPRS,  European 

Parliament, 2022 

Justice and  Home Affairs Council meeting, 8-9 December 2022. 

35  
36   National briefing by Klaus  Werner Iohannis, President of Romania,  at the European  Council taking place on 

15 December 2022 in Brussels. 

37   Preliminary remarks by Charles Michel, President of the European  Council, during the press conference following 

the European  Council on 15 December 2022 in Brussels. 

13 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

issues discussed at the European Council meeting. Nevertheless, the speeches' topical focus tends 
to  be  skewed  towards  the  main  headline  topic  of  the  previous European  Council  meeting. 
Presumably, given the limited speaking time for ordinary MEPs, they prefer to elaborate on the main 
topics of the European Council meeting, rather than addressing the full range of issues that were 
subject to deliberations. This notwithstanding, MEPs also use the opportunity to mention specific 
issues, which in their view, should have been raised by the European Council or ought to be put on 
the  agenda at  the  up-coming  meeting. This  is  also  a  way  of  holding  the  European Council 
accountable. For instance, the conclusions of the special May European Council did not address 
economic issues, but this still  constituted the second most addressed topic in  the  subsequent 
plenary debate with MEPs, urging the President of the European Council to address the internal 
repercussions of the war for the citizens in light of soaring inflation. 

'Here I want to ask the President of the Council to consider putting another item on the agenda 
of the next European Council, because, for the moment, we speak a  lot about  the external 
dimension but we do not speak so much about the concerns of our citizens, and that is about 
inflation, that is about the interest rates going up in the next few months.' 

Manfred Weber (EPP) 

Two further topics, which never appeared in the 2022 European Council conclusions, did however 
appear regularly in plenary debates. The first was the state of the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, 
which was the subject of numerous contributions by MEPs. The second was migration, in the context 
of growing numbers of refugee arrivals, which has been taken up regularly by MEPs. The latter topic 
was not the subject of any conclusion in 2022, but it featured prominently on the agenda of the 
special European Council on 9-10 February 2023. 

Russia's war in Ukraine as the main topic of the plenary debates 
As Russia's war in Ukraine constitutes by far the most frequently mentioned topic, it is worthwhile 
breaking it up into several sub-topics, to identify Members' priorities in debates on conclusions of 
the European Council. To this end, seven sub-categories have been created: general views on the 
war, including messages of solidarity to Ukraine or condemnations of Russia's attacks and atrocities; 
diplomatic support; international justice; sanctions; humanitarian, financial and economic support; 
military support; and impact on neighbouring countries (Figure 6).  

In the first half of 2022, the EU's sanctions packages were the most widely mentioned dimension of 
the war. In line with Parliament's resolution 38 on the conclusions of the formal European Council in 
March, the majority of MEPs called for an extension of sanctions to a full embargo of Russian fossil 
fuel imports. When the war began, the accommodation of refugees was a major focus of attention 
for MEPs, whereas later macro-financial support for Ukraine became prominent and was a defining 
topic of the debate on the October conclusions. Overall, these non-military support measures were 
a greater focus for MEPs than the delivery of weapons, except for in the last debate, following the 
December  European  Council.  In  general,  with  strictly  military  aspects  of  the  war  playing  a 
progressively less prominent part in the debates, the EU's approach to the Russian war in Ukraine 
became less controversial among MEPs and general messages of solidarity prevailed. Calls for peace 
initiatives are regularly voiced by MEPs who are not satisfied with the general EU approach to the 
war; this was particularly the case in the debate on the October conclusions. 

38   European  Parliament resolution of 7 April 2022 on the conclusions of the European  Council meeting of 

24-25 March 2022, including the latest developments of the war against Ukraine and the EU  sanctions against  Russia 
and their implementation (2022/2560(RSP)). 

14 

                                                             
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Figure 6 – Relative share of words dedicated to sub-topics of general Ukraine war theme 
in plenary debates on European Council conclusions 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Versailles

March

May

June

October

December

General views on the war
International justice
Humanitarian, financial and economic support
Impact on neighbouring countries

Diplomatic support
Sanctions
Military support

Source: EPRS. 

3.2.3. Political groups 
Political  groups in the European Parliament, and their corresponding European political parties, 
often pay  significant attention to the activities of  the  European Council and communicate on 
them. 39 Political allegiance also plays an important role in plenary debates on the European Council 
conclusions, as MEPs – in particular those speaking on behalf of their political group – sometimes 
refer to position papers agreed by their groups when commenting on the conclusions.40 In 2022, all 
political groups strongly focused on the three dominant topics identified in the previous section 
(see Table 3). Russia's war on Ukraine still constitutes the most mentioned topic across all groups, 
albeit to a varying extent. The calculated average ratios of the number of words dedicated to specific 
topics reveal some patterns. 

  Members of the EPP  and Renew group dedicated on average a higher share of their 
speaking time to Russia's war on Ukraine than members of the other groups. MEPs from 
The Left group tend to refer to this topic to a lesser extent than other MEPs. 

  Members from the ID group dedicate on average more than a quarter of their speeches 
to energy, followed by members from the ECR, The Left and the Greens/EFA groups. The 
three largest groups in the parliament refer relatively less to the conclusions on energy. 
  Members from The Left and S&D groups refer more extensively to economic issues than 
other  MEPs.  In  particular, they  tend  to  demand  action  to  alleviate  the  strain on 
households and businesses caused by inflation. Members from The Left group generally 
focus more on the internal repercussions of the war than on the war itself. 

39   See R. Drachenberg, European  political parties and  the European Council: A pattern of ever closer coordination, 

EPRS,  European  Parliament, 2022. 

40   S&D,  Bring the bills down;  Renew Europe, A European plan for our industry:  Competitive, green and  resilient!.  

15 

                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

  Security and defence plays a rather subordinate role, except for members of The Left 

group who tend to criticise the European Council's conclusions in this domain. 
  Food security is raised most frequently by members of the Greens/EFA group. 
  Members from the S&D and ECR groups tend to discuss topics that do not appear in the 
conclusions more than other groups. S&D and to a limited extent ID members mention 
issues relating to migration more than other groups, whereas concerns about the rule 
of law in Hungary and Poland are frequently raised by ECR members. 

Table 3 – Average ratio of topics per speech by political groups 

i

/
e
n
a
r
k
U

a

i
s
s
u
R

y
g
r
e
n
E

y
m
o
n
o
c
E

i

p
h
s
r
e
b
m
e
M

s
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
a

d
n
a
y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

e
c
n
e
f
e
d

EPP 

S&D 

Renew 

44.6 

31.7 

50.2 

Greens/EFA 

39.7 

ID 

ECR 

The Left 

Source: EPRS. 

39.8 

35.1 

27.5 

10.6 

12.1 

18.8 

18.0 

23.6 

20.2 

9.3 

8.9 

28.2 

13.5 

24.6 

11.8 

23.3 

24.4 

4.8 

2.2 

4.6 

2.8 

4.5 

5.9 

0.5 

4.5 

2.0 

3.8 

1.0 

2.7 

1.3 

12.0 

l

a
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
i
/
E
o
F
o
C

m
r
o
f
e
r

3.1 

1.2 

4.7 

3.6 

1.1 

0.7 

3.8 

n
o
i
t
a
r
g
M

i

0 

8.0 

0.1 

0 

3.3 

0.4 

1.0 

w
a

l

f
o
e

l

u
R

0.3 

4.5 

0.0 

2.3 

0.0 

8.6 

2.4 

s
n
o
i
t
a
e
r

l

l

a
n
r
e
t
x
E

5.0 

2.3 

0.8 

4.8 

1.1 

1.2 

0 

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
s
d
o
o
F

1.5 

2.0 

1.7 

7.7 

1.1 

1.5 

0 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

3.2.4. By Member State 
Comparing the average ratios of topics per  speech by  national delegations can shed light  on 
similarities of  national delegations beyond the boundaries of political  groups. For the  sake of 
comparability and clarity, only countries with at least 10 speeches are included (see Figure 7).  

Figure 7 – Average ratio of topics per speech by national delegation 

Source: EPRS. 

This points to a number of findings. 

  Russia's war on Ukraine takes up on average more than half of Polish MEPs' speeches. 
German, Dutch and Romanian MEPs also put a strong focus on the war in their speeches. 
Portuguese MEPs only dedicate on average about one fifth of their speeches to it. 
  On average, Italian and French MEPs  refer most to the energy crisis, which  is not a 

priority for the interventions of most Hungarian and Polish MEPs. 

  Economic issues make up for a substantive part of the speeches of Portuguese MEPs 
and to a lesser extent of Dutch MEPs. German, Polish and Hungarian MEPs dedicate on 
average less than 10 % of their speeches to economic issues. 

  Security and defence issues are most discussed by French and Portuguese MEPs, but 

never mentioned by Hungarian, Romanian or Dutch MEPs. 

  The topic of migration is brought to the debates by Spanish MEPs, demanding progress 

on the migration and asylum pact. 

  The rule  of  law  issue is  discussed mostly by MEPs  from the countries affected, and 
affiliated  to  the  governing  parties.  Defensive  statements on  alleged  rule  of  law 
violations appear primarily in debates on European Council conclusions rather than on 
other occasions. 

  Other issues; such as the Conference on the Future of Europe or institutional reforms 
are addressed mostly by French MEPs, membership applications are addressed most 
often by Hungarian MEPs and food security by German MEPs. 

17 

 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

3.2.5. Assessment and interaction in the plenary debates 

Analysis of the plenary debates on European Council conclusions is informative in terms not only of 
what the main topics are but also of how critical or supportive MEPs were regarding the activities of 
the  European Council. Previous  research41 has denoted MEPs' attitudes towards the European 
Council  as almost always negative, describing the  leaders' work as insufficient. However, other 
factors, and not least the political and/or institutional context play an important role. In light of the 
external threats facing the EU in 2022, it might seem plausible to argue that in crisis situations, unity 
and  cooperation  prevail  and  that,  hence,  plenary  debates  would  be  bound  to  be  less 
confrontational. Experts cite Brexit as an example where such a crisis 'was a source of harmony 
between the European Council and the European Parliament'.42 To assess this hypothesis, every 
speakers' attitude on each topic mentioned in  the respective speech was coded  as conveying 
unconditional support (positive), opposition or criticism (negative) or an intermediate assessment. 
An intermediate assessment entails an identification of both positive and negative elements or does 
not provide a clear assessment of past actions of the European Council. This applies for instance to 
speeches that are only forward-looking.   

The results confirm indeed that negative assessments constitute the largest category, accounting 
for 42.5 % of topical references, whereas only 19 % of speeches convey an unconditionally positive 
attitude. 38.5 % of assessments are intermediate. On the whole, the European Council's conclusions 
are subject to a rather critical scrutiny in the plenary of the European Parliament. This leads to the 
conclusion that the European Parliament adopts a critical viewpoint, demanding explanations and 
justifications  from  the  president  of  the  European  Council,  as  an  important  dimension  of 
accountability. On some topics MEPs are more critical, while on others they are more supportive. 
Differences in the assessment of European Council conclusions are also identifiable on the basis of 
MEPs' affiliations to political groups. 

Figure 8 – Assessment of the European Council's action by political groups 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EPP

S&D

Renew

Greens/EFA

ID

ECR

Left

Source: EPRS 

Negative

Intermediate

Positive

Among the political groups of the European Parliament (Figure 8), members of the ID and The Left 
groups tend to evaluate the European Council conclusions in  the most negative way, whereas 
members from the EPP  group exhibit  the smallest share of negative assessment. EPP  members 

J. Werts, The European Council in the Era of Crises, 2021. 

41  
42   D. Dinan,  The European Council in 2018, EPRS, European  Parliament, 2019.  
18 

                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

equally exhibit  the highest share of unconditionally positive assessments, followed by Members 
from the S&D, ECR and Renew groups. However, contrary to the EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens/EFA 
groups, the ECR group has a limited share of intermediate assessments and the third largest share 
of purely negative assessments. 

Comparing the  distribution of  assessments by  topic  (Figure  9),  it  becomes  obvious that  the 
European Council's conclusions on Russia's war in Ukraine are still more positively evaluated than 
those in the fields of energy and the economy. The early debates of the year, dominated by Russia's 
war in  Ukraine, demonstrated unity in terms of condemnation of the war, and yielded a positive 
assessment of  the  EU's  immediate humanitarian, economic and  financial  support of  Ukraine. 
However, MEPs  from  various political  groups voiced  their dissatisfaction with the  progressive 
sanctions packages, demanding a full embargo on fossil fuel imports from Russia. This demand was 
underlined by 212 MEPs in an open letter. 43 

Figure 9 – Assessment of the European Council's action on different topics 
100%

  p

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Source: EPRS. 

Negative

Intermediate

Positive

The President of the European Council also had to face criticism regarding the decisions on energy. 
Energy was an area in which MEPs were keen to propose certain specific measures at the beginning 
of the year. Joint purchasing platforms and storage, the decoupling of gas and electricity prices and 
a gas price cap were already discussed in the debates on the Versailles Declaration44 and the formal 
March European Council meeting. 45 As the discussions among Member States culminated in the 
conclusions of the October European Council meeting, 46 MEPs dismissed the decisions as too late 
and insufficient, and notably criticised the delegation to energy ministers of the task of clarifying 
the details on the gas price cap.  

Members  continually  criticised  insufficient  conclusions on  economic  issues,  in  particular  the 
European Council's  failure  to  tackle  the  cost  of  living  crisis,  which  was  not  discussed in  the 

43   Speech by Guy Verhofstadt,  6 April 2022. 
44   S. Anghel, Outcome of the informal European  Council in Versailles on 10-11 March 2022, EPRS,  European Parliament, 

2022. 

45   S. Anghel S. and R. Drachenberg, Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders, 24-25 March 2022, EPRS,  European 

Parliament, 2022. 

46   S. Anghel S. and R. Torpey,  Outcome of the European Council meeting of 20-21 October 2022, EPRS, European 

Parliament, 2022. 

19 

                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

conclusions, apart from a pledge to coordinate national policies. In the debate on the December 
conclusions, the debate shifted towards concerns about the EU's competitiveness and the level 
playing field in the single market. MEPs criticised the Commission for granting extensive State aid 
to Germany and France, and the European Council for not tackling the cost of  living crisis. The 
members of the S&D and The Left groups in particular called for new common European financial 
instruments to alleviate the crisis. 

'The  cost-of-living crisis  affecting our European  citizens unfortunately persists, and  we are 
therefore concerned that the European Council conclusions fail to prioritise the support for our 
citizens and the cushioning of the crisis' social consequences.' 

Marc Angel (S&D) 

Among the topics mentioned in the debates, MEPs' predominantly negative assessment of the 
European Council's conclusions regarding the Conference on the Future of Europe and the related 
institutional questions are particularly noticeable. Considering the European Parliament's position 
in favour of the establishment of a Convention for a revision of the Treaties, 47 MEPs were very critical 
of the European Council's refusal to change the Treaties at the debate on the conclusions of the June 
European Council meeting. 

Other topics were assessed more positively by MEPs. For instance, in the debate on the conclusions 
of the June European Council meeting, Members widely welcomed the granting of candidate status 
to Ukraine and Moldova, after having called for this action in previous debates. The slow progress in 
the accession processes of the Western Balkan countries was deplored, however. The conclusions 
on food security played a major role in the debate on the special May European Council meeting 
and were widely appreciated by MEPs. 

3.2.6. Institutional aspects 
As highlighted above, the plenary debates focused, in substance, on the topics discussed at the 
European  Council.  Given  the  expansion  of  the  European  Council's  influence  over  EU 
decision-making in  recent years, the European Parliament's oversight function is however not 
limited to a content-based scrutiny of European Council conclusions, but also examines the role of 
the European Council within the EU's institutional arrangement. The plenary debates are hence an 
opportunity for MEPs to address to the president of the European Council their concerns about 
institutional issues and the balance between the institutions. 

Institutional questions came to the fore in the debate on the October European Council conclusions, 
during which a small number of MEPs criticised the use by the Commission – as required by the 
European Council48 – of Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
as the legal basis for the adoption of temporary emergency measures in the energy domain. Article 
122  TFEU 49 stipulates that in cases of  severe difficulties in  supply chains, notably in  the area of 
energy, the Council may decide on appropriate measures on a proposal from the Commission. This 
allows rapid deployment of temporary emergency measures, but reduces the level of democratic 
scrutiny over  EU  legislation by  effectively  bypassing the  European Parliament,  which  is  only 
informed of the decision. In this spirit, MEPs addressing the usage of Article 122 TFEU criticised the 

47   European  Parliament resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention  for the revision of the Treaties 

(2022/2705(RSP). 

48   European  Council meeting of 20 and  21 October 2022 – Conclusions. 
49   Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
20 

                                                             
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Council regulation laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, in 
the context of its legal basis. 

'Therefore,  we  find  the  Council  regulation  based  on  Article  122  without  Parliament's 
involvement, quite  worrisome,  especially on  the  aspect  of  overriding  public  interest.  ... 
Emergency measures based on Article 122 are not the place to introduce long-term changes, 
and two parallel proposals on the same subject can also create insecurity for the market. ' 

Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA). 

MEPs also regularly criticise the European Council and the Council with regard to their working 
methods and decision-making procedures. Here, the principle of unanimity voting is the main issue 
of contention. MEPs have been keen to outline the flaws of the unanimity requirement for foreign 
affairs decisions, which enable certain countries to negotiate exemptions from the EU's sanction 
packages on Russia. 

'It is good, Mr Michel, that we finally agree on this sixth package of sanctions. But let's be honest, 
for us in the Parliament it came a bit too late. ... I know, our unity is important, but it is not time 
for us to take the power of those autocrats and stop unanimity?' 

Hilde Vautmans (Renew) 

As mentioned above, in the past, the European Council has often been criticised for legislative 
trespassing. However, in the six plenary debates on the European Council's conclusions from 2022, 
allegations of legislative trespassing were largely absent. 

3.2.7. Plenary working methods 
In the framework of the plenary debates, resolutions can be adopted to wrap up a debate. 50 In 2022, 
the European Parliament voted once on a resolution51 on the conclusions of the European Council, 
notably on the meeting of 24-25 March 2022, including the latest developments in the war against 
Ukraine and the EU sanctions against Russia and their implementation. The resolution was adopted 
with 513 votes in favour, 22 against and 19 abstentions, and most notably called for an immediate 
embargo on Russian fossil fuel imports, the exclusion of Russia from multilateral forums and the 
continuation of weapon deliveries. It also increased the interaction between MEPs in the plenary 
debate, as they were debating about amendments to the resolution, in particular on the question 
of sanctions on Russian oil and gas imports. Apart from the debate on the March conclusions, the 
level of interaction between MEPs in these 2022 plenary debates was rather low. In total, seven blue 
cards 52 were raised in the six debates. 

As highlighted above, plenary debates on European Council conclusions are also an opportunity for 
MEPs to ask questions to the president of the European Council. MEPs have occasionally used this 
opportunity to ask questions on topics mentioned in the conclusions, but have also addressed the 
president and  vice-president of  the  European Commission on  a  wide  range of  topics.  While 
Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič often refers to the statements by individual MEPs, Michel 
did not answer any specific questions in his two closing statements of 2022. 

50   See RoP 143. 
51   European  Parliament resolution of 7 April 2022 on the conclusions of the European  Council meeting of 

24-25 March 2022, including the latest developments of the war against Ukraine and the EU  sanctions against  Russia 
and their implementation (2022/2560(RSP)). 

52   According to Rule 171 of the RoP,  the President may  give the floor to Members who indicate, by raising a blue card, 
their wish  to put  to another  Member,  during that  Member's  speech,  a  question  of  no  longer than  half  a minute's 
duration,  where the speaker  agrees and  where the President is satisfied  that this will not lead to a  disruption of the 
debate. See DG Presidency The Plenary: a User's Guide, European Parliament 2019. 

21 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

4. Lessons learned 

One of the main aims of the plenary debate on the European Council conclusions is to ensure that 
there is democratic scrutiny at EU level of the activities of the European Council. Despite the current 
limited accountability of the European Council and its president to the European Parliament, these 
debates provide an  important  element  of parliamentary oversight. They are  an exercise  in  the 
transparency of EU policymaking, agenda-setting and scrutiny, and also offer an important feedback 
mechanism,  during  which  the  directly  elected  representatives of  EU  citizens  can  give  their 
assessment of the activities of the European Council.  

This analysis has revealed a number of elements that could further enhance democratic control and 
reinforce parliamentary oversight, potentially increasing the accountability of the European Council 
and its president and the added value of the plenary debates on European Council conclusions. 

4.1. Participation in the full debate 

To further enhance the added value of the plenary debates on the European Council conclusions, it 
would be beneficial if the president of the European Council remained until the end of the debate 
in order to deliver a closing statement in which he or she answers the questions posed by MEPs. This 
would  also require MEPs  to address more specific  questions to the president of  the  European 
Council during the debate. 

4.2. Increased accountability to Parliament 

At the moment, although the European Council president is not accountable to Parliament, as the 
various office-holders to date have always been keen on stressing,53 he or she nevertheless has an 
explicit  reporting duty. One way  of  increasing the  democratic accountability of the  European 
Council  president would be  for  Parliament to hold  a  vote on the  position –  as  it  does for the 
Commission president – but in  this case  it  would be  a  legally  non-binding vote, following the 
election of a new European Council president. Following the election by the European Council of its 
next president, Parliament could debate the next president of the European Council and hold a 
non-binding vote, expressing support or otherwise for the president-elect. This in itself would have 
significant symbolic  value. Parliament developed the  same  non-binding vote for  the  office  of 
European Commission president by itself, years before it had any such Treaty-based powers. 

4.3. Maximising MEPs' attendance at plenary debates 

For a  variety of reasons, attendance at plenary debates on the European Council conclusions is 
irregular. A  more  regular  strong attendance at  plenary  debates would  give  more  weight  to 
Parliament's messages delivered to the European Council president. Therefore, a large number of 
MEPs at these plenary debates would increase the added value for Parliament of holding these 
plenary debates. Political groups should also make the most of their available speaking time and 
allocate it among different speakers. 

53   See for example EPRS  event The First Five Years of Permanent Presidency of the European  Council: The Van Rompuy 

Experience with Herman Van  Rompuy  on 5 May 2015. 

22 

                                                             
Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

4.4. Pre-European  Council  plenary  debates  with  the  European 
Council President 

Until now,  the European Council president has not attended the pre-European Council plenary 
debates. The European Council is currently represented by the rotating presidency of the Council of 
the European Union. However, Charles Michel  has  announced his intention to  attend the  pre-
European Council plenary session on 15 March 2023, 54 thereby setting a positive example. 

It is the role of the president of the European Parliament to present Parliament's views on the topics 
on the European Council agenda to EU Heads of State or Government at the meeting. The regular 
attendance of the European Council president at the pre-European Council plenary debates could 
provide additional details on the views of MEPs on these issues ahead of the meeting. His or her 
presence would also indicate ahead of time which topics Parliament would also like to see added to 
the European Council's agenda. 

4.5. Parliament resolutions on European Council meetings 

Former Parliament President Jerzy Buzek stressed that another way for Parliament to 'influence the 
workings of  the  European Council' was  through 'the adoption of  timely resolutions ahead of 
summits'.55 Resolutions ahead of European Council meetings could further strengthen the position 
of  the  European Parliament president when speaking to EU Heads of  State or  Government at 
European Council meetings. 

While resolutions on European Council meetings and/or conclusions were used more frequently 
before the entry into force of  the Lisbon Treaty than they are currently. Frequent use of  these 
resolutions could strengthen Parliament's influence on the topics on the European Council agenda. 
Similarly,  regular  resolutions on  the  conclusions of  the  European Council  would  enable  the 
Parliament to  submit a  collective  position to  the  president of  the  European Council, whereas 
currently plenary debates tend to convey many individual messages of political groups or MEPs. 

5. Conclusions 

Plenary debates with the European Council president are one of the two main regular points of 
interaction between the European Council and the European Parliament –  the other being the 
Parliament president's opening remarks at European Council meetings. This research represents the 
first in-depth analysis looking at the functioning, content and added value of these debates. 

The paper started with the premise that there is a certain lack of accountability of the European 
Council at European level. Considering the increased influence of the European Council in EU policy-
making, holding EU Heads of State or Government accountable for the guidelines they give for 
policymaking at EU level appears increasingly necessary. Academics have argued that Parliament 
would be the right actor to hold the European Council and its president accountable at EU level. 

A first step towards increased accountability of the president of the European Council accountable 
can  be  seen  in  the  Treaty-based reports  that the  European Council  president must give  the 
Parliament after formal European Council meetings. Focusing on those plenary debates with the 

54   Draft agenda  of European Parliament plenary session,  13-16 March 2022. 
55  

J.  Buzek,  'State of  the Union:  Three  Cheers for  the Lisbon  Treaty  and  Two  Warnings  for Political Parties', Journal of 
Common Market Studies, Vol. 49(s1), pp.  7–18, 2011. 

23 

                                                             
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

European Council  president, this  paper  has  given  an  overview  of  their  origin,  development, 
objectives and format. Then, it  looked at  whether and  how Charles Michel  has carried out his 
reporting duty and what topics his interventions focused on. It showed that under Michel, the scope 
of the reporting activities has been broadened again to include reports on informal meetings. As 
part of  his interventions, he summarises, explains and justifies the conclusions of the European 
Council. A systematic comparison of his opening statements with the European Council conclusions 
indicated that Michel indeed tends to focus on the main headlines of the conclusions, even though 
the extent to which he elaborates on certain topics can differ with the emphasis put on the issue in 
the conclusions. The analysis showed that in addition to the main topics of each European Council 
meeting, Charles  Michel  referred repeatedly to  two  themes in  his  speeches to  the  European 
Parliament in 2022: EU unity and strategic autonomy. 

When examining the added value of President Michel's appearance in the European Parliament, the 
research highlighted that, next to the central added value of the debates in plenary, which is to 
provide MEPs with the possibility to address questions to the European Council president on the 
conclusions and activities of the European Council, the main element of added value is identified as: 
i) providing additional information that is not directly retrievable from the conclusions, ii) reporting 
on discussions that did not result in conclusions, and iii)  presenting activities that occurred as a 
follow up to the European Council meeting. 

The analysis also examined whether Charles Michel stayed for the full debate or if he answered MEPs' 
questions. Data showed that, over time, Charles Michel has become less and less inclined to give a 
closing statement at the end of the debate. He did not systematically stay until the end in 2022, and 
thus, did not respond to all the questions posed by MEPs during the debate. 

The research also collected unique data on MEPs' plenary interventions, showing the key topics that 
144 members of the European Parliament focused on in their 245 contributions on the European 
Council conclusions from 2022. The analysis identified trends according to political groups and/or 
nationality, showing that it is not always necessarily the biggest group having most speakers that 
participates in  the debate and that, sometimes, a political  group was  represented by only one 
speaker in a debate. 

MEPs addressed a large number of topics based on the European Council conclusions, but also 
pointed to topics that were considered to be missing from the agenda. While Russia's war on Ukraine 
constituted the most  mentioned topic  across political  families  and  nationalities, the research 
identified sub-topics such as sanctions, military or financial support, which were mentioned more in 
the various plenary debates.  

The findings show that MEPs do not simply rubber-stamp conclusions and priorities set by the 
European Council, often including members of their own political parties, but are often critical of its 
activities and carry out their scrutiny role of the European Council's activities. The research identified 
that the European Council's conclusions were subject to rather critical scrutiny in the plenary of the 
European Parliament,  as  42.5 %  of  the  assessments were  somewhat critical;  only  19 %  gave 
unconditionally positive support, while  38.5 %  made intermediate assessments.  The paper also 
showed that MEPs' assessments varied between the different topics, with topics such as the EU's 
reaction to Russia's war in Ukraine, food security and membership applications being seen more 
positively and the European Council's conclusions on the CoFoE, energy and economy in a more 
critical way. In addition, the research highlighted that the European Parliament's oversight function 
does not entail only a content-based scrutiny of European Council conclusions, but also includes an 
examination of the role of the European Council within the EU's institutional arrangement. The 
plenary debates are hence an opportunity for MEPs to address to the president of the European 

24 

Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Council 

Council concerns about institutional issues, and notably the balance between the institutions and 
their  compliance  with  their  respective  competences. All  of  this  confirms  that  the  European 
Parliament  tries  to  hold  the  European Council  accountable by  demanding  explanations and 
justifications from its president on the European Council's activities. 

Altogether, this paper has demonstrated that the regular exchanges between Parliament and the 
European Council president on the European Council conclusions are an important element of EU 
democracy. First, it supports the transparency of EU policymaking, as additional information is often 
provided by the European Council president on the issues discussed by the EU Heads of State or 
Government, rather than limiting his statements to repeating the European Council conclusions. 
Second, it is an important aspect of Parliament's scrutiny of the executive (in this case the European 
Council)  as  parliamentarians  can request  additional  information from  the  European  Council 
president, but can also give their assessment of the activities of the European Council. Third, it allows 
MEPs to highlight the topics that are important for them and for EU citizens, whether or not they 
have been addressed by the European Council. 

Finally, the analysis also identified potential improvements to further strengthen the accountability 
of the European Council at EU level. More specifically, these included ensuring that the European 
Council president remains until the end of the plenary debate, having more specific questions from 
MEPs  and answers to  them, and strengthening attendance at plenary debates. Suggestions to 
further strengthen  the scrutiny  role of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the European Council 
president could also include the increased use of resolutions on European Council conclusions and 
the president's attendance of pre-European Council plenary debates. Finally, the option of a non-
binding vote on the president-elect of the European Council could also be envisaged. 

'A more accountable EU executive leads in turn to a better-performing Union.' 

Jerzy Buzek, 2011

25 

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

References 

Anghel  S.  and  Drachenberg  R.,  The  European  Council  under  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  EPRS,  European 
Parliament, 2019. 
Bainbridge T. and Teasdale A. (eds), The Penguin companion to European Union, 4th edition, Penguin 2012. 
Buzek J., 'State of the Union: Three Cheers for the Lisbon  Treaty and Two Warnings  for Political Parties',  
Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49(s1), pp. 7-18, 2011. 

Crowe R.,  'The  European  Council  and  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework',  Cambridge  Yearbook  of 
European Legal Studies, pp. 1-24, 2016. 
Dinan  D., Relations  between  the  European  Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  EPRS,  European 
Parliament, 2018. 

Dinan, D., The European  Council in 2018, EPRS, European  Parliament, 2019.  
Drachenberg R., Charles Michel as President of the European  Council, EPRS, European  Parliament, 2022. 
Fabbrini  S., 'Who  holds  the  elephant  to  account?  Executive  power political  accountability  in  the  EU',  
Journal of European Integration, 2021. 

Puetter U., The European Council and the Council, Oxford University  Press, 2014. 
van de Steeg M. 'Public  accountability  in the European  Union:  Is the European  Parliament  able to hold 
the European  Council accountable?',  European Integration online Papers, Vol. 13, 2009. 

26 

Q
A
-
0
7
-
2
3
-
1
0
7
-
E
N

-

N

Plenary  debates  on  the  conclusions  of  European 
Council meetings with the president of the European 
Council  are  among  the  most visible  and  frequently 
recurring  interactions  between  Parliament  and  the 
European  Council.  These  debates  are 
important 
because they are the only place at EU level where the 
results of European Council meetings are examined and 
scrutinised, and the institution is held accountable. 

By  examining  and  assessing  the  reports  made  by 
Charles Michel  to  the European Parliament following 
European  Council  meetings 
in  2022,  and  the 
subsequent interventions of MEPs,  this  EPRS analysis 
provides a unique overview of these interactions. 

The research outlines the added value of  the plenary 
reports and identifies potential ways to further increase 
the accountability of the European Council at EU level. 

This is a publication of the European Council Oversight Unit 
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service 

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European 
Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of 
the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should 
not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. 

ISBN: 978-92-848-0229-6 | DOI: 10.2861/446528 | QA-07-23-107-EN-N