In a written answer on 30 July 2026, the Council of the European Union reaffirmed the Treaty-based division of external competences, insisting that the Commission President must not adopt positions falling within the Council's exclusive competence under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Responding to a parliamentary question from Marieke Ehlers and Mieke Andriese (both PfE), the Council stressed that while the Commission represents the Union externally in areas such as trade and development, CFSP representation rests with the High Representative, and the European Council and Council define the Union's foreign policy direction and priorities. The answer underscores the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU, warning that once a foreign policy position is agreed in the Council, all institutions and Member States are bound to uphold it internationally.
The question, tabled by the two PfE MEPs, highlighted growing concerns over overlaps in external representation, particularly under the 'Team Europe' approach, where the Commission President has increasingly taken public diplomatic stances toward third countries. The MEPs asked how the Council interprets the division of roles between the Commission President, the High Representative, and the European Council, and how it ensures the Commission does not overstep into CFSP territory. The Council's reply, however, offers no new mechanisms or enforcement measures, instead restating the existing Treaty framework and the obligation of institutional loyalty. It does not address the 'Team Europe' approach directly, nor does it propose any procedural safeguards to prevent future overlaps.
The answer reflects a broader institutional tension between the Commission's expansive external role and the Council's desire to preserve its CFSP prerogatives. While the Council's response is legally precise, it remains declaratory, offering no concrete steps to clarify or enforce the division of competences in practice. This may leave the door open for continued ambiguity, particularly as 'Team Europe' initiatives blur the lines between EU external action and CFSP. The reply signals that the Council sees the existing Treaty provisions as sufficient, but it does not engage with the practical concerns raised by the MEPs about the Commission President's diplomatic activities. Institutional follow-up is likely to focus on monitoring future external engagements, with the Council potentially issuing more detailed guidance if disputes arise.