According to this article, the presidency of the Council rotates among the EU member states every 6 months. Various obligations are also presented there.

It also present the country list for the near future and this list also includes Romania: January-June 2019.

According to this article, there is a small chance that Romania faces penalties similar to those imposed to Poland:

Asked if Romania risks the same sanctions as Poland, which could eventually lead to Warsaw losing its voting rights in the EU Council, President Klaus Iohannis said: “That risk exists”.

Some analysts argued that should this happened before or during ensuring of presidency, it would be a big embarrassment.

Question: Are there any advantages for an EU member when ensuring presidency of the Council?

I am asking because presidency of the Council is illustrated as a big opportunity that can be greatly shadowed if sanctions are issued.

1 Answer 1


Quoting Wikipedia:

The role of the rotating Council Presidency includes:

  • agenda-setting powers: in its 6-month programme, it decides on the order to discuss propositions, after they have been submitted by the Commission in its agenda monopoly powers;
  • brokering inter-institutional compromise: trialogues between Commission, Parliament and Council are held to reach early consensus in the codecision legislative procedure; the Presidency takes part to the Conciliation Committee between Parliament and Council in the 3rd stage of the codecision legislative procedure;
  • coordinating national policies and brokering compromise between member states in the Council ("confessional system") management and administration of the Council, external and internal representation;

Holding the rotating Council Presidency includes both advantages and disadvantages for member states; The opportunities include:

  1. member states have the possibility to show their negotiating skills, as "honest brokers", thus gaining influence and prestige;
  2. member states gain a privileged access to information: at the end of their term, they know member states' preferences better than anyone else
  3. the Council programme may enable member states to focus Council discussion on issues of particular national/regional interest (e.g.: Finland and the Northern Dimension initiative)

It also includes burdens, and isn't that useful nowadays in practice.

  • So, there are several advantages. I wonder if it is possible to have Council Presidency while not being to vote due to sanctions.
    – Alexei
    Dec 28, 2017 at 19:35
  • 2
    It would be a hilarious situation were it to ever happen. But I honestly don't think it will: Denying voting rights requires unanimity, and Hungary (itself a potential target for the same treatment as Poland) made it quite clear it would veto stripping Poland from its voting rights. Dec 28, 2017 at 19:38
  • There is no advantage. During the greek debt crisis EU had, European Parliament president, European Council president, European Commission president, Presidency of the Council of the EU (country being president of the council). Yet, everyone was asking what would be Merkel's decision on behalf of EU.
    – user18889
    Jan 10, 2018 at 10:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .