The EU Council has formally adopted a reply to a parliamentary question confirming that the EU treaties do not provide a legal basis for establishing any EU structure with intelligence-gathering powers. The reply, prepared for adoption via a silence procedure within the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) on 2 November 2026, reiterates that intelligence activities remain a national prerogative under the current legal framework.
Document details and procedural context
The Council's response, dated 2 June 2026, was adopted through the silence procedure, a standard method for approving non-controversial texts without debate. The question had raised the possibility of creating an EU-level intelligence capability, but the Council's answer firmly grounds the issue in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which assign intelligence and security matters to member states. The reply notes that while the EU can coordinate and support national efforts in areas such as counter-terrorism and hybrid threats, it cannot assume operational intelligence functions.
Policy orientations and trade-offs
The Council's position reflects a deliberate choice to preserve national sovereignty in intelligence, balancing security cooperation against the risk of centralising sensitive capabilities. The decision maintains the current division of labour: the EU facilitates information-sharing through agencies like Europol and the Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN), but does not collect or analyse raw intelligence. This approach avoids potential treaty conflicts and respects member states' exclusive competence in national security, as enshrined in Article 4(2) TEU. However, it also limits the EU's ability to develop a fully integrated intelligence capacity, which some argue could enhance threat detection and response.
Impact on stakeholders
- National intelligence services: Retain full control over collection and analysis, avoiding EU oversight or operational constraints. This preserves their ability to protect sources and methods.
- EU institutions: The Council, Commission, and European Parliament cannot pursue a centralised intelligence service without a treaty change, which would require unanimous member state approval and likely national referendums.
- EU security agencies (Europol, INTCEN): Their role remains limited to information exchange and analysis of open-source or member-state-provided data, without direct collection powers.
- EU citizens: Benefit from continued national accountability in intelligence, but may face slower or less coordinated EU-level responses to cross-border threats.
Expected institutional follow-up
The parliamentary question and reply close this specific inquiry, but the debate may resurface in future treaty reform discussions. Any move to establish an EU intelligence service would require a new intergovernmental conference and ratification by all member states, a politically fraught process. For now, the Council's position reinforces the status quo, leaving intelligence firmly in national hands.