MEP Marc Botenga (The Left) has asked the European Commission to identify the specific legal provision that gave it the competence to suspend cooperation with Russian entities under Horizon Europe on 4 March 2022, questioning whether the decision was an executive act taken on its own authority.
The written parliamentary question, submitted on 26 June 2026, follows a series of exchanges between Botenga and the Commission. In an earlier reply on 22 October 2025, the Commission had stated that the March 2022 measures were based on EU restrictive measures and Horizon Europe eligibility restrictions. However, Botenga notes that those provisions were adopted after the March 2022 decision. In a subsequent reply, the Commission referred to 'relevant legal measures' and 'far-reaching restrictive measures' adopted after 24 February 2022, without identifying the precise legal basis for the March 2022 decision.
first, to identify the specific legal provision in force on 4 March 2022 that gave the Commission competence to suspend cooperation and payments; second, to confirm whether the decision not to sign new contracts and to suspend payments was an executive decision taken on its own authority. The MEP points out that the fifth sanctions package, adopted on 8 April 2022, gave the Commission competence to terminate participation of Russian public bodies in ongoing Horizon Europe projects — but this was over a month after the March 2022 decision.
The question reflects a policy orientation toward legal accountability and transparency in EU decision-making, particularly regarding the use of executive powers in foreign policy contexts. It impacts stakeholders including the European Commission (which must justify its legal basis), EU research institutions and contractors (affected by suspension decisions), and Russian entities (subject to the measures).
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether it maintains that the March 2022 decision was legally sound under existing provisions at the time, or whether it acknowledges a gap in the legal framework.