Melike Pala
10 July 2025•Update: 10 July 2025
- Upcoming vote likely to fail due to lack of broad support, but indicates growing dissatisfaction with von der Leyen's leadership
BRUSSELS
Re-elected last year, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen faces the first no-confidence vote of the decade on Thursday, which is expected to fail due to lack of majority, but it still reveals widespread dissatisfaction with her leadership.
In the fifth year of her term, von der Leyen is facing a vote of no confidence in the European Parliament amid mounting criticism in recent years over climate, defense, and transparency issues.
The motion was submitted by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, securing 79 signatures, enough to bring the issue to a parliamentary debate. It challenges von der Leyen's leadership over her refusal to release text messages exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the EU's COVID-19 vaccine contract negotiations in 2021.
Piperea alleges that the commission breached its own transparency rules and defied a ruling by the EU's General Court, which ordered the release of those communications. He described the commission’s conduct as an "abuse of power" and demanded full disclosure.
Addressing the parliament on Monday, von der Leyen dismissed the motion as "taken from the oldest playbook of extremists." She accused her critics of spreading conspiracy theories supported by foreign interests—an implicit reference to Russia.
She emphasized that vaccine negotiations were conducted jointly with EU member states and rejected claims of secrecy or hidden clauses as "simply a lie."
Since taking office in December 2019, von der Leyen has never faced a formal no-confidence vote. While various groups in the parliament have at times threatened motions over issues such as rule-of-law breaches in Hungary and Poland, vaccine contract transparency, and the commission's management of migration and Frontex operations, none have gained sufficient support to proceed.
What to expect?
The upcoming vote is widely expected to fail, as it requires a two-thirds majority of votes cast, representing more than half of all MEPs. Support so far appears mainly limited to far-right members.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, founder of the Patriots for Europe group in the parliament, weighed in via social media, framing the vote as a broader judgment on von der Leyen’s leadership rather than just a response to corruption allegations.
Describing the choice facing MEPs as one between the "Brusselian imperial elite" and "patriots and common sense," Orban urged von der Leyen to resign.
Meanwhile, leading political groups across the center-left coalition, including the European People's Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats, Renew Europe, and Greens/EFA, have pledged not to support the motion. Still, several used Monday's debate to express concerns about von der Leyen's leadership style and political alliances.
Though largely symbolic, the vote highlights growing tensions over transparency and the centralization of power in EU institutions as well as showing widespread dissatisfaction with von der Leyen's leadership.
No-confidence votes in EU history
Since its establishment in 1958, the European Commission has been the EU’s executive branch, responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding treaties, and managing the bloc's daily affairs.
While the European Parliament holds the power to dismiss the entire commission through a motion of censure, a form of no-confidence vote, this power has been exercised only 9 times in the history of the EU.
The most notable example occurred in 1999, during Jacques Santer's presidency, when allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and nepotism led to a threatened no-confidence vote. Faced with this pressure, the entire commission resigned voluntarily, the only collective resignation in EU history.
The most recent attempt was in 2014 during Jean-Claude Juncker's presidency, but the motion failed with only 101 MEPs voting in favor versus 461 against.
