Brussels – Almost one year of delay – 330 days, to be precise – and a title slightly different from the original. At last, the pre-enlargement strategy is back on the European Commission’s agenda and is scheduled to be presented on 30 September.
According to the latest published agenda, the College of Commissioners is expected to discuss and adopt the item “Pre-enlargement policy reviews” during its fourth weekly meeting after the summer break. It should be noted, however, that the agenda is tentative, and it cannot be ruled out that the publication could be brought forward or postponed – as happened several times in late 2025.
In any case, what was originally scheduled for 4 November 2025 – and then went from being “in the oven” to “back in the fridge” – should finally be brought to the table to revive a debate that has been stalled in Brussels for far too long. Most likely, this will happen just two weeks before the European Council is due to hold a strategic discussion on enlargement and EU institutional reform, during the 15 October EU leader’s meeting.
Compared with the original version, the title of the proposal has changed – from “An EU fit for enlargement: policy reviews and reforms” to simply “Pre-enlargement policy reviews”. While it is still expected to build on the 2024 Communication on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews, its scope may remain unchanged. What remains unclear is whether its level of ambition and the tools at its disposal have changed.
What to expect on pre-enlargement reviews
What the European Commission will publish is a communication – a soft law instrument setting out a strategic approach but carrying no legally binding force.
Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos has already anticipated that the proposal will focus on “the Treaties, the budget and the decision-making process,” but only on those areas where a broad consensus is emerging.
The growing emphasis on a new generation of Accession Treaties and on the mechanisms needed to prevent backsliding on the EU’s core principles suggests that the proposal will evolve into something more closely linked to the accession of new members than to a broader reform of how an enlarged Union should function.
Safeguard clauses in Accession Treaties are nothing new. However, the need to prevent “Trojan horses” from entering the EU and the lessons learned from previous enlargements have made it a priority to strengthen these tools.
While some member states have suggested admitting new members without granting them full voting rights and the veto power, the Commission is not willing to introduce additional accession criteria only for new members. On the contrary, “if a country goes backwards on our fundamentals” – namely respect for democracy and the rule of law – “the safeguards must bite hard,” Commissioner Kos said.
This could involve including specific provisions in Accession Treaties for the transitional period, allowing for the suspension of certain rights if the rule of law in new member states is undermined. This proposal was also put forward in a recent non-paper by five EU members, which called on the Commission to present a “catalogue of options” for safeguards in new Accession Treaties.
While overcoming the unanimity rule through a shift towards qualified majority voting (QMV) seems highly unlikely, one way to prevent the enlargement process from being held hostage to bilateral disputes could be to reduce the number of decisions requiring unanimity in the Council “from 150 to 70” during the intermediate stages of each candidate’s accession process. Among the available tools are the passerelle clauses – legal mechanisms that allow a shift in decision-making procedures without a formal amendment of the Treaties.
As for the thorny issue of a broader revision of the EU’s accession policy, Commissioner Kos is pushing for substantial changes to a methodology “made for peacetime, not for times in which we should deliver quickly.” With member states ready to “kill off” any far-reaching revision, enhanced gradual integration – granting candidate countries access to selected EU programmes and policy areas before their formal accession to the Union – appears to be the only proposal with a realistic chance of success. The idea has also gained renewed momentum following a recent German–French non-paper.
Once published, the communication will serve as the basis for the Commission’s engagement with the Parliament and the Council to determine how far it can make progress with the co-legislators.
