Commissioner Kos, in a written answer on 29 June 2026, defended the legal basis for the EU's multi-year borrowing facilities for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans, arguing that the Treaties allow structural support beyond emergency macro-financial assistance. The answer, responding to a question by MEP Angéline Furet and 16 other MEPs from nationalist and non-attached groups, clarifies that the Commission views Article 212 TFEU as sufficient legal authority for multi-year, pre-funded instruments, not just one-off emergency loans.
The question, submitted on 4 February 2026, challenged the Commission's practice of borrowing on financial markets, signing loan agreements with third countries, and disbursing pre-financing and loan instalments to national budgets, with borrowing risks covered by budgetary provisioning. The MEPs argued that this practice lacked an emergency justification comparable to the post-COVID recovery plan, which required unanimity and national ratification of the Own Resources Decision.
In her answer, Kos rejected the premise that budgetary provisioning serves as a legal basis for borrowing. 'Provisioning is a budgetary risk management tool, not a legal basis for borrowing,' she wrote. Instead, she emphasised that each facility—the Ukraine Facility (Regulation 2024/792), the Moldova Reform and Growth Facility (Regulation 2025/535), and the Western Balkans Reform and Growth Facility (Regulation 2024/1449)—was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, with each basic act empowering the Commission to borrow on behalf of the EU and defining the provisioning rate. The provisioning protects the budget against risks of future losses by setting aside a percentage of each loan amount in the Common Provisioning Fund.
the Commission considers Article 212 TFEU a sufficient legal basis for structural, multi-year financial support to third countries, without requiring Treaty amendments or new Member State mandates. This interpretation could pave the way for extending the borrowing model to other third countries or policy areas, a prospect the MEPs had sought to prevent. No immediate institutional follow-up is expected, but the answer clarifies the Commission's stance ahead of any future legislative proposals.
EU taxpayers face potential increased liability as borrowing expands, while beneficiary countries gain predictable, multi-year funding. The Commission strengthens its financial toolkit, but critics argue this stretches Treaty limits without explicit Member State consent. EU institutions gain operational flexibility, but national sovereignty concerns persist among sceptical MEPs.