As the year draws to a close, Euronews explores the key moments that shaped the policy and politics at the European Parliament in 2025. <\/p>\n
This parliamentary year was shaped by multiple attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to topple the European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.<\/p>\n
Then there was an emerging \u2014 if informal \u2014 alliance of conservatives with the hard right that could pave the way for a new right in the lead-up to the general elections in France, Italy, and Spain in 2027.<\/p>\n
It was also the year when the parliament adopted a much harder line on migration, doubled down on simplifying red tape and regulation to assist the ailing European industry, and moved further away from the landmark Green Deal, now under scrutiny. <\/p>\n
1. Fresh corruption scandal looming over the Parliament<\/p>\n
A major corruption investigation rattled the European Parliament in March.<\/p>\n
Belgian prosecutors investigated an alleged corruption involving MEPs and assistants of the European Parliament and the Chinese tech company Huawei.<\/p>\n
According to the allegations<\/a>, payments, excessive gifts such as food and travel expenses, and regular invitations to football matches were used to influence MEPs, which Belgian authorities regard as pointing to corruption. <\/p>\n All these incentives were allegedly intended to secure favourable political positions on issues of interest to the Chinese company.<\/p>\n Eight individuals were charged with offences including corruption, money laundering, and participation in a criminal organisation. <\/p>\n Prosecutors also asked to lift the immunity of four MEPs: Italians Salvatore De Meo and Fulvio Martusciello (EPP), Maltese MEP Daniel Attard (S&D), and Bulgarian lawmaker Nikola Minchev (Renew Europe). <\/p>\n They have denied the allegations.<\/p>\n The Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is still discussing the four cases, with the decision on whether to lift or maintain immunity set for the first months of 2026.<\/p>\n In the meantime, the European Parliament has barred<\/a> Huawei lobbyists from its premises in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.<\/p>\n 2. Von der Leyen\u2019s Commission survived no-confidence votes<\/p>\n Members of the European Parliament tried three times to topple the European Commission, tabling almost back-to-back no-confidence votes in an unprecedented sequence for the chamber. <\/p>\n To be approved, any motion of censure requires at least two-thirds of the votes cast in the Parliament, representing a majority of all its members. The threshold is high, and none of the three votes held got close to forcing the Commission to resign.<\/p>\n But it was the gesture that mattered. This is a defiant parliament, even among her conservative ranks. <\/p>\n The first vote held in July was initiated by some members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), challenging<\/a> Ursula von der Leyen.<\/p>\n The 360 MEPs who voted against the motion of censure \u2014 and therefore defended the European Commission \u2014 were fewer than the 370 who had approved the Commission back in November 2024.<\/p>\n Several MEPs from S&D and Renew Europe groups, both part of the centrist majority, chose not to take part in the vote: it was a way of expressing their discontent with von der Leyen’s policies without supporting a motion coming from the far-right.<\/p>\n The following two votes held in October and tabled respectively by the Left and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) groups, saw a more substantial majority defending the Commission, and von der Leyen\u2019s position was strengthened<\/a> as a result.<\/p>\n As one source told Euronews, the Parliament showed its teeth, and von der Leyen managed to prove there is no alternative to her leadership at the top of the Commission.<\/p>\n 3. Magyar and Salis win against Hungary\u2019s judiciary<\/p>\n Peter Magyar, the leader of the Hungarian opposition party Tisza, Kl\u00e1ra Dobrev, a Socialist Hungarian lawmaker, and Ilaria Salis, an Italian activist and left-wing MEP, were sought by Hungary\u2019s judiciary over different claims, but remained protected by the EU’s parliamentary immunity even as Hungarian MEPs tried to export domestic politics from Budapest into the grand stage of Brussels. <\/p>\n Magyar faced three requests to have his parliamentary immunity removed: two for defamation and one for allegations claiming he threw a man’s phone into the Danube river after an argument at a Budapest nightclub with a man who was filming him.<\/p>\n He considered the accusations a \u201cpolitical issue”, given his role as leader of the opposition to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n and his former romantic relationship with Judit Varga, who served as justice minister under Orb\u00e1n, which did not end on amicable terms.<\/p>\n MEP Dobrev was also accused of defamation, after she claimed that a local official was involved in a paedophilia scandal that led to the downfall of Hungary\u2019s President Katalin Nov\u00e1k and Varga, the ex-partner of Magyar. She maintained her parliamentary immunity. <\/p>\n Separately, Italian MEP Ilaria Salis, who was arrested in February 2023 in Budapest after a brawl in which she was accused of assaulting and beating two men described as far-right militants during the so-called Day of Honour, a neo-Nazi gathering in Europe. <\/p>\n The issue became a point of tension between Budapest and Rome, torn between Salis’ clashing political views with the Meloni government, and the duty to protect an Italian citizen abroad. Her parliamentary immunity was also maintained. <\/p>\n The Parliament rejected<\/a> all the requests in a tense voting session on 7 October.<\/p>\n Salis\u2019 case went down to the wire: in a secret ballot, 306 MEPs voted in favour and 305 against, revealing deep divisions within the Parliament.<\/p>\n Salis later referred to it as a victory against fascism in Europe.<\/p>\n 4. The EPP\u2019s ‘dangerous liaison’ with the far right<\/p>\n This year was also marked by the emergence of an alternative<\/a> to the traditional majority between the conservatives, socialists and liberals in the European Parliament, all of whom are often presented as pro-Europe and pro-rule of law. <\/p>\n On specific occasions, the EPP abandoned its traditional allies to advance legislation with the votes of the right-wing ECR and the far-right PfE and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN).<\/p>\n The unofficial alliance benefited the EPP in votes on migration and environmental issues. <\/p>\n One example was a legislative package titled Omnibus I, proposed by the Commission to support European businesses.<\/p>\n The package diluted the EU’s due diligence law, which required companies to assess their supply chains for potential environmental and labour violations.<\/p>\n New rules on sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations, which were more relaxed than the original law, were initially agreed by the political groups of the centrist majority. However, some MEPs from S&D and Renew voted to reject them.<\/p>\n Therefore, on 22 October in Strasbourg, the lawmakers subverted the decision adopted by the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee on 13 October and the simplification package was rejected with 318 votes against, 309 in favour and 34 abstentions.<\/p>\n Three weeks later, the EPP managed to pass the bill <\/a>with the votes of the ECR, PfE, and ESN, rather than negotiate a compromise version with its traditional allies. <\/p>\n The package significantly changed the original provisions of the due diligence law, which would apply now only to companies with more than 5,000 employees and a net annual turnover of over \u20ac1.5 billion (instead of 1,000 employees and a yearly turnover of \u20ac450 million as initially redacted). <\/p>\n The Parliament\u2019s adopted version also scrapped fines of up to 5% for non-compliance, introducing a vaguer formula around “appropriate levels\u201d of sanctions, to be decided by the member states.<\/p>\n 5. A harder line on illegal migration<\/p>\n December saw a rush in Parliament to approve key migration-related documents, a divisive issue.<\/p>\n In the final plenary session in Strasbourg, the Parliament approved a change to the concept of a “safe third country,” which will expand the set of circumstances under which asylum applications can be rejected, enabling EU countries to deport asylum seekers<\/a> to third countries, even if they have a connection to it.<\/p>\n The other legislative bill adopted was a new EU list<\/a> of “safe countries of origin” for the purposes of asylum, which now includes Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as all EU candidate countries except Ukraine. Nationality-based selection of asylum applicants from those countries seeking to apply for asylum in the EU would be assessed through fast-track procedures.<\/p>\n