News
CJEU: Advocate General’s Opinion on the EU solidarity mechanism and compliance with the principle of subsidiarity
On 4 June 2026 the Advocate General delivered her opinion on Case C-553/24, (Assemblée nationale v Parliament and Council), arising from an action brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the National Assembly of the French Parliament seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 on asylum and migration management in whole or, in the alternative, in the section which concerns the solidarity mechanism.
The National Assembly argued that the relocation regime under the solidarity mechanism of that Regulation exceeds the competences of the EU and infringes the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU).
The Advocate General recalls that an action under Article 8 of Protocol No 2 is strictly limited to alleged infringements of the principle of subsidiarity, which must be distinguished from the principles of conferral and proportionality governing the division and exercise of EU competences. Applying this distinction, she considers that the first four claims of the National Assembly are inadmissible as they fall within the scope of conferral and proportionality rather than subsidiarity. By contrast, the fifth claim is admissible as it concerns whether Member States could have sufficiently addressed migratory pressure on their own and whether EU-level action was therefore necessary.
As regards the substance of the case, the Advocate General considers that the National Assembly’s subsidiarity claim is unfounded. She notes that Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 seeks to address cross-border challenges relating to asylum and migration management, including migratory pressure on certain Member States and the absence of an effective mechanism for the fair sharing of responsibility required under Article 80 TFEU. In her view, the introduction of a mandatory solidarity mechanism could only be effectively achieved at EU level. She further finds that the Regulation, the Commission proposal and the accompanying legislative materials provide sufficient justification for EU intervention, demonstrating that the objectives pursued could not be satisfactorily achieved by Member States acting alone. Accordingly, she concludes that the Regulation complies with the principle of subsidiarity and proposes that the Court dismiss the National Assembly’s sole admissible claim as unfounded.