Five MEPs from across the political spectrum have asked the European Commission whether it will allow Member States to temporarily exceed the 3% deficit limit for investments in health-sector preparedness, arguing that civilian healthcare systems are a critical component of EU security and defence. In a written parliamentary question dated 8 June 2026, MEPs Aurelijus Veryga (ECR, Lithuania), Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D, Lithuania), Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu (Renew, Romania), Reinis Pozņaks (ECR, Latvia) and Tomislav Sokol (PPE, Croatia) warned that while the EU has granted fiscal flexibility for military spending amid the deteriorating security environment, health-sector resilience risks being overlooked.
The question highlights that in a military conflict or large-scale crisis, civilian hospitals, emergency services, medical supply chains and healthcare professionals would be expected to support both civilian and military needs. Strengthening these capacities requires substantial investment in infrastructure, workforce training, emergency preparedness, stockpiling and specialised medical capabilities. The MEPs note that some Member States remain constrained by the Maastricht criteria when investing in healthcare preparedness, even though NATO members have committed to increasing defence-related spending and recognise the importance of broader resilience measures.
The MEPs ask the Commission whether it is considering allowing temporary deviations from fiscal requirements for investments aimed at strengthening health-sector preparedness for security and defence purposes, in order to provide Member States with greater flexibility to enhance healthcare resilience and contribute to the EU's overall preparedness objectives. The question does not propose specific numerical targets or deadlines, but frames health-sector investment as a matter of strategic importance for the EU as a whole.
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether the EU executive is open to expanding the existing defence-spending fiscal flexibility to cover health preparedness, or whether it considers the current framework sufficient.