The recent Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting on December 4, 2025, revealed significant divergences among Member States regarding the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Regulation for 2028–2034. The debate primarily revolved around the scope of eligible projects in the annex — whether to maintain a narrow cross-border focus or allow broader infrastructure to qualify — and the overall budget ambition.
Germany and Estonia emerged as key voices defending a strictly cross-border oriented CEF annex and cautioning against fiscal excess, citing limited EU fiscal space and the need to prioritize competitiveness. Germany favored a prudent budget and cooperation that avoids prioritization in programming, emphasizing enhanced Member State involvement while supporting renewable energy infrastructure and military mobility projects primarily focused on dual-use infrastructure. Estonia similarly called for strict cross-border project focus but demanded higher co-financing for eastern border security.
In contrast, countries like Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Ireland, Malta, and Portugal pushed for a broader annex to include additional routes and diverse infrastructure elements such as ports, airports, and roads, arguing for more inclusive geographic and sectoral coverage. On budget, Czechia, Spain, Finland, and several others advocated maintaining or increasing funding levels to support costly high-speed rail projects, military mobility enhancements, and strategic corridors like Rail Baltica.
The debate took place within the EU Council's Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council framework, with contributions from the European Commission, which emphasized the strategic role of CEF in completing the TEN-T core network, military mobility, and warned about the risk of diluting EU added value without clear budget commitments. The Presidency aimed for a partial general approach on the proposal by mid-December.
the Commission supported a €51.5 billion transport envelope including €17.7 billion targeted for military mobility, underscoring cross-border projects. Estonia and Czechia pushed for firm budget commitments and higher co-financing requirements for eastern states, while Germany called for balanced governance structures and stronger competitiveness orientation. Malta and Portugal brought in sector-specific proposals, such as ensuring energy security for island states and clarity on airport and road eligibility.
Less detailed interventions came from countries expressing broader political support without explicit numerical targets or institutional proposals, such as Slovenia and Bulgaria. Portugal explicitly demanded stricter passenger rights protections, including a three-hour compensation threshold, standardised hand-luggage rules, and balanced airline liability, indicating tensions between consumer protection and industry competitiveness.
These exchanges illustrate clear cleavages over increasing versus decreasing EU powers: whether to keep CEF tightly focused on EU-wide cross-border infrastructure or extend it national sovereignty and regional interests. They also highlight the balance sought between maintaining fiscal responsibility versus committing significant EU funds to boost military mobility and high-speed rail—each with distinct impacts on EU producers, national authorities managing infrastructure, and consumers relying on efficient transport.
For stakeholders, the proposed broader annex and higher budget would enhance connectivity and competitiveness for regions like eastern Europe and island states, while stricter focus and budget restraint relieve taxpayers and member states concerned about overextension. The passenger rights debate reflects ongoing balancing acts between consumer protections and airline operational viability.
Looking ahead, the Council’s intent to adopt a partial general approach indicates continued negotiation among Member States, Commission, and incoming Presidencies to reconcile these competing priorities. The Commission's call for robust defence of the budget suggests pressure will remain to secure ample funding for CEF’s strategic objectives, especially military mobility central to EU security policy.