Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Proposal for a Council regulation establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of a European defence industry instrument (COM(2025) 122 final)
Date: 2025-07-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU investment, European defence policy, European security, arms industry, common security and defence policy, defence expenditure, public investment








C_202505156EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5156


28.10.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Proposal for a Council regulation establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of a European defence industry instrument


(COM(2025) 122 final)


(C/2025/5156)


Rapporteur: 
Maurizio MENSI

Co-rapporteur: 
Jan PIE






Advisors


DAL FERRO Alberto (advisor to the rapporteur, Group III)
THEODOSOPOULOS Vassilis (advisor to the co-rapporteur, category 1)




Referral


EC, 13.5.2025




Legal basis


Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




European Commission documents


COM(2025) 122 final




Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)



SDG 9 – Industry, innovation and infrastructure

SDG 16 – Peace, justice and strong institutions




Section responsible


Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI)




Adopted in section


10.7.2025




Adopted at plenary session


16.7.2025




Plenary session No


598




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


180/5/7




1.   RECOMMENDATIONS

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)






1.1.



underscores that the implementation of the ‘SAFE’ instrument must be guided by the principles enshrined in the Treaty on European Union, whereby the EU should also contribute to peace, security and the protection of its citizens, as well as to respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter;










1.2.



emphasises that SAFE should contribute to increasing investment in the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB) and to reducing dependencies, in order to reinforce Europe’s freedom of action and security of supply in this area;










1.3.



recommends that the Member States urgently make maximum use of SAFE, in line with their respective financial situations and in a coordinated manner, considering its attractive financing and accompanying facilitations, as well as that investments under SAFE (e.g. for military mobility) may also contribute to competitiveness and civilian objectives;










1.4.



stresses the importance of focusing investment on the key capability needs identified, within an EU framework, by the Member States and directing this investment towards the EDTIB;










1.5.



underlines the need to address the Member States’ urgent needs while also reinforcing the EU’s defence readiness and the competitiveness of the EDTIB and safeguarding Member States’ future freedom of action;










1.6.



strongly supports the strict application, when implementing SAFE (e.g. in the case of over-subscription), of the principle of European preference, reflected in the requirement for a substantial degree of EU content and, for complex (category 2) products, also the ability to decide, without third-country restrictions, on the definition, adaptation and evolution of product design (the ‘design authority’ principle), and suggests that, for less-complex (category 1) products where the issue of design authority is relevant, incentives be provided for the procurement of products where this authority is in Europe;










1.7.



regrets that missiles, critical infrastructure protection and cyber are not included as category 2 products, for which the design authority should be in Europe;










1.8.



stresses that the participation in SAFE of non-EU countries – and their respective industries – beyond Ukraine and the EEA EFTA countries, must be open only to like-minded partners that have signed a ‘security and defence partnership’ with the EU, and that any participation of third-country industries should not undermine the main objective of the instrument, i.e. strengthening the EDTIB and reducing dependencies on non-European suppliers;










1.9.



welcomes the a priori inclusion of both Norway and Ukraine and their respective industries in common procurements under SAFE, as well as the signature of Security and Defence Partnership between the EU and the UK, which will allow UK participation in common procurement under SAFE;










1.10.



underlines that SAFE should serve as a starting point on which to build for mobilising additional resources and calls on the Member States to urgently take action in this regard.




2.   EXPLANATORY NOTES


Arguments in support of recommendation 1.1









2.1.


Peace and security are the foundations that enable the EU to uphold its core values – freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – while ensuring stability, prosperity, and the well-being of its citizens. Without them, progress in justice, economic development, and social cohesion would be impossible.












2.2.


Today, the EU faces a dramatically degraded geopolitical landscape as Russia’s war in Ukraine challenges the continent’s security architecture and exposes vulnerabilities in its defence architecture. At the same time, the United States is accelerating a strategic pivot away from traditional transatlantic commitments, forcing European nations to reconsider their reliance on US leadership and accelerate efforts towards greater strategic autonomy.












2.3.


Against this background, EU initiatives on the defence industry must urgently strengthen the capacity of the EU and its Member States to safeguard peace and security. At the same time, such initiatives should avoid militarisation and be part of a holistic approach to security and resilience that integrates industrial, technological and societal components alongside military capacity.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.2









2.4.


The development of this CCMI Opinion began shortly after the referral of the proposed SAFE regulation to the EESC. At the time of finalising the draft, the Regulation had already been adopted by the Council. As such, the focus of the Opinion has shifted towards the next steps in the implementation of SAFE. These are understood to include the expression of interest by Member States in benefitting from SAFE loans (by end July 2025), the submission (by end November 2025) and assessment of Member States’ requests for financial assistance and respective investment plans, the signature of loan agreements, and the disbursement of the loans (by end December 2030).












2.5.


The overarching objective of SAFE, as part of the Defence Readiness 2030 package, should be to enhance the defence readiness of the EU and its Member States. This requires the strengthening of security of supply and freedom of action, i.e. the ability to reliably provide European armed forces with the equipment they need, particularly in wartime, while ensuring that this equipment can be fully utilised as needed.












2.6.


Defence readiness cannot be limited to merely possessing certain equipment. Crucially, it also requires the ability to maintain, repair and, in times of conflict, produce/replace such equipment at volume and speed; the ability and freedom to modify and upgrade it, as needed; and the freedom to use and, when appropriate, to transfer it to allies and partners without undue restrictions. This ability and freedom can only be ensured by a robust and innovative indigenous defence industry that is able to develop, manufacture, and sustain the full spectrum of necessary products.












2.7.


To enhance defence readiness in the EU, SAFE must therefore foster greater investment in the EDTIB, while helping to reduce dependencies on suppliers from third countries that may be unable to reliably supply European armed forces, or only willing to do so on terms that would be detrimental to European interests.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.3









2.8.


The European Council has stressed the need to continue to substantially increase expenditure on Europe’s security and defence. However, several Member States face fiscal constraints that limit their ability to do so, while elevated and uneven borrowing costs further complicate these efforts and risk reinforcing structural disparities in defence readiness across the EU.












2.9.


Against this background, the Member States should urgently take full advantage of SAFE. Through its attractive financing conditions and accompanying facilitations, it offers a mechanism to support the Member States, particularly those with more limited fiscal space, in engaging in joint defence procurement. This can contribute to a shared contribution to Europe’s defence capabilities, while ensuring the long-term sustainability of defence investments. At the same time, it should be stressed that investments in certain designated capability areas can also contribute to civilian objectives (e.g. investment in dual-use transport infrastructure and assets under military mobility can address challenges relating to cross-border mobility more broadly).





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.4









2.10.


Focusing defence investment in the EU on the key capability needs identified collectively by the Member States ensures that scarce resources will be allocated coherently, consistently and without undue duplication and inefficiencies towards addressing the most pressing common security needs and strategic priorities.












2.11.


Channelling this investment towards the EDTIB will generate substantial benefits for European governments, armed forces, and societies, including beyond the immediate term. In particular, it will increase the EDTIB’s competitiveness, production and innovation capacity, thus enhancing security of supply, technological autonomy and freedom of action, as well as contributing to employment, skills and tax revenues.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.5









2.12.


Due to decades of underinvestment in defence, the EDTIB today may not be fully able to meet all of the needs of Europe’s armed forces at the required pace or volumes. Given the urgent need to strengthen defence capacity in the EU while continuing to support Ukraine, some of the materiel needed in the short term may have to be sourced abroad.












2.13.


Addressing short-term needs, however, should not undermine the agreed objective of reinforcing the EDTIB’s readiness and Europe’s freedom of action in the longer term. This would be the case especially if advanced, complex products (category 2) were sourced abroad, due to their strategic importance, technological sophistication, and long in-service lives. Differentiating between such products, on the one hand, and consumables or less-complex ones (category 1), on the other, and tailoring the eligibility criteria to each category, makes it possible to strike a balance between the two imperatives.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.6









2.14.


To ensure that investments under SAFE are channelled, to the fullest extent possible, towards the EDTIB, it is essential to strictly apply the principle of European preference that is embedded in the regulation. This applies not only to the companies (location and control), but also to the products procured.












2.15.


With respect to the products, a substantial degree of EU-made content is the baseline requirement, to ensure that a significant share of the overall value originates with the EDTIB.












2.16.


For category 2 products, given their strategic nature, it is essential to have as an additional requirement European design authority, i.e. the ability to decide, without restrictions imposed by third countries or third-country entities, on the definition, adaptation and evolution of product design. This is particularly important for ensuring that, if needed, European manufacturers have the right to replace third-country components that could constrain European users’ freedom to operate or transfer their equipment as they need.












2.17.


As regards category 1 products, the absence of a design authority requirement can provide the Member States with the flexibility to meet urgent demand. At the same time, every effort should be made to procure products for which the design authority is in European hands. The EESC regrets that SAFE does not provide incentives, such as improved financing conditions, to encourage such efforts.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.7









2.18.


Missiles constitute a critical, strategically important military capability, as evidenced by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Critical infrastructure protection and cyber solutions involve complex, non-consumable products that are vital for the security and resilience of military and civilian infrastructures, systems and data. They are thus vital for the stability and resilience of our societies, economies and institutions, as well as for enabling effective military action in all domains. As such, they should have been classified under category 2, so that the design authority for such products is also in Europe, to be able to adapt them according to evolving needs and technologies and to replace problematic third-country components if needed.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.8









2.19.


The EESC welcomes the flexibility on the number and categories of participating countries in common procurement, as well as the openness towards third countries. Cooperation with like-minded partners can be mutually beneficial, as it can contribute to aggregation of demand, interoperability, economies of scale, and investment in the EDTIB.












2.20.


At the same time, only countries that do not contravene the defence and security interests of the EU or its Member States, and which are closely aligned with the EU’s values and its common foreign, security and defence policy, should benefit from participating in this initiative.












2.21.


While the participation of like-minded third countries in joint procurement can be beneficial if it is in line with the security interests of the EU and its Member States, participation of these countries’ industries in SAFE-funded activities could undermine the competitiveness of the EDTIB, and thus the instrument’s key objective, if not carefully managed. As such, third-country industrial participation should be structured in a way that safeguards European industrial interests.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.9









2.22.


Norway is a strategic partner of the EU, given its geographic proximity, advanced defence industry, and shared commitment to European security. It already is a full partner in and contributes to EU defence programmes. Ukraine is an accession candidate whose security is tightly interlinked with that of the EU and which will remain at the frontline of European defence for the foreseeable future. Its resilient and innovative defence industry can also significantly contribute to Europe’s competitiveness and defence readiness. The participation, by default, of both countries and their respective industries in common procurements under SAFE is therefore strategically crucial.












2.23.


The EU and the UK share history, values and democratic institutions, as well as tightly linked security and geopolitical interests. As Europe increasingly assumes responsibility for its own defence, the EU and the UK will need to join forces to achieve their shared aims. This includes building a defence industrial base able to develop and produce the full spectrum of capabilities whilst also reducing dependence on the US. The recently signed EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership enables UK participation in common procurements under SAFE and can generate substantial mutual benefits in terms of financing, aggregation of demand and interoperability.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.10









2.24.


While SAFE has a substantial budget, the readiness needs of the EU and its Member States are estimated to be considerably greater. Given the adverse security environment, addressing these needs is a matter of urgency, particularly for Member States directly exposed to military threats. As such, further action at EU level is likely to be needed in this respect.












2.25.


To promote European solidarity and to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in allocating the scarce resources that must support all of the EU’s various objectives, additional resources mobilised at EU level in the area of defence should build on the approach of SAFE and the principles of investing ‘together and European’ to meet shared needs. For future initiatives, the possibility of funding through grants should also be considered, where appropriate.






Brussels, 16 July 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5156/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)