On the institutional aspects of Artificial Intelligence in the context of the European integration

–having regard to Annex VI to its Rules of Procedure,

–having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–having regard to the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

–having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A10-0000/2026),

A.whereas Article 2 TEU addresses the EU’s constitutional identity and legitimises Parliament’s scrutiny of artificial intelligence (AI) where its deployment may affect core values;

B.whereas in accordance with Articles 10, 11 and 14 TEU, Parliament bears a specific responsibility to ensure democratic accountability, transparency and effective scrutiny of technological developments affecting the functioning of the EU’s institutions; whereas the safe, ethical and lawful development and deployment of AI require robust governance frameworks grounded in the EU Treaties;

C.whereas the Artificial Intelligence Act introduces the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for AI; whereas AI is advancing at an unprecedented pace, reshaping economic activity, public administration and societal interactions;

D.whereas the UN Global Digital Compact calls for strengthened international cooperation on the governance of AI and highlights the role of global forums in facilitating dialogue on the societal and ethical implications of AI;

E.whereas Parliament, as the EU’s representative democratic institution, has a legitimate role in contributing to such global discussions, in line with Articles 10, 11 and 13 TEU, and a responsibility to safeguard democratic accountability and institutional coherence in the EU’s external engagement;

F.whereas Parliament should participate in annual UN AI summits, holding dedicated events and presenting its work in this area, including cooperation with other bodies active in the field, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s AI Policy Observatory, the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for New and Emerging Digital Technologies, and AI-related initiatives of the G7 and the G20; whereas Parliament’s participation at such forums would be in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, as stipulated by Article 13(2) TEU;

G.whereas the Council conclusions of 20 November 2025 on advancing the International Digital Strategy for the European Union emphasise that digital policy and AI policy have become core components of the EU’s external action;

H.whereas monitoring global AI developments at EU level, in close cooperation with the Commission’s AI Office, the European Artificial Intelligence Board (AI Board) and the national competent authorities, monitoring developments in the Member States, maintaining regular exchanges with national parliaments, and identifying potential cross-sectoral overlaps and gaps in the EU’s legal framework for AI will be of utmost importance; whereas the proposed European Parliament AI Observatory should play a central role in this regard;

I.whereas the proposed European Parliament AI Observatory would qualify as an EU body that may be invited to the meetings of the AI Board, in accordance with Article 65(2) of the Artificial Intelligence Act;

J.whereas AI can support parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation and application of EU law by reducing information asymmetries and mitigating Parliament’s recurring difficulties in accessing the relevant data, as well as by contributing to the improvement of the EU’s legislative processes;

K.whereas the rapid evolution of AI technologies requires continuous analytical capacity in order to assess their institutional, democratic and legal implications for the functioning of the EU; whereas Parliament should therefore strengthen its internal expertise and monitoring capacities in this field;

L.whereas the rapid deployment of AI technologies is profoundly transforming electoral campaigning and political communication; whereas such technologies may interfere with the integrity of electoral processes and undermine trust in democratic institutions, including in the context of European elections;

M.whereas to ensure that the EU’s governance architecture remains coherent, transparent, democratically legitimate and capable of responding effectively to emerging AI challenges, structured and inclusive reflection on possible Treaty reform may be necessary in the medium to long term;

1.Stresses that AI governance is not solely a matter of technical regulation, but also a matter of constitutional applicability, affecting the exercise of public authority, democratic legitimacy and the EU’s institutional balance as defined in Article 13 TEU, and therefore requiring sustained parliamentary scrutiny within the scope of Parliament’s competence;

2.Reaffirms that the EU’s approach to AI must be fully aligned with the values provided for under Article 2 TEU, including democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and that AI deployment within institutions must remain human-centred;

3.Recalls the Council conclusions calling for stronger EU ambition, investment and cooperation in the field of AI, including with international organisations; considers that Parliament should have stronger institutional capacity to scrutinise the EU’s global engagement in AI and the implications thereof for the EU’s sovereignty and democratic accountability;

4.Calls for a structured and regular interinstitutional dialogue between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on the institutional implications of AI;

5.Stresses that the EU’s growing engagement in international digital and AI governance, including partnerships, multilateral initiatives and global standard-setting, has institutional implications;

6.Stresses the importance of parliamentary participation in global AI governance discussions and therefore strongly supports Parliament’s engagement in multilateral forums such as the UN annual summit ‘AI for Good’; acknowledges that by engaging globally with a clear set of values and ethical principles, Parliament is strengthening its democratic role and credibility, while fully respecting the Commission’s competences in the field and in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, as stipulated by Article 13(2) TEU;

7.Underlines that, in an era of strong geopolitical competition, Parliament’s participation in international forums is essential; stresses that AI practices and technologies shared externally must comply with Parliament’s commitments to transparency, sustainability, data protection and democratic oversight; emphasises, moreover, the importance of addressing systemic risks associated with AI, including the propagation of so-called hallucinations, which may undermine the accuracy and reliability of information, as well as the potential socio-economic impact of AI, notably in terms of job displacement, rather than merely promoting technological excellence;

8.Underlines that AI, by virtue of its scale, speed and cross-border impact, constitutes a systemic global challenge and that, as with earlier transformative technologies, including nuclear technology in the mid-20th century, responsible governance requires the timely negotiation and establishment of a dedicated international convention or treaty on AI at a global level;

9.Takes note of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence; considers that, given the global systemic nature of AI technologies, further reflection should take place on the establishment of a global multilateral framework or convention aimed at preventing systemic risks and ensuring democratic accountability at a global level;

10.Recalls that, in accordance with Articles 10, 13 and 14 TEU, Parliament exercises democratic scrutiny over the functioning of the EU and its institutions; stresses that the increasing deployment of AI systems within public administrations and EU institutions requires Parliament’s analytical capacity to be enhanced in order to ensure transparency, democratic accountability and effective oversight consistent with the Treaties;

11.Calls for the establishment of a European Parliament AI Observatory as a permanent analytical structure within Parliament’s administration, operating as a service across parliamentary committees to support them in matters related to AI, its governance, institutional balance and democratic oversight; stresses that the creation of such a capacity could be organised within the administrative structures of Parliament in a budget-neutral manner, building on existing expertise and services;

12.Stresses that the increasing deployment of AI systems within public administrations, including the EU institutions, raises important questions relating to transparency, accountability and administrative due process; emphasises that Parliament should maintain sufficient internal analytical capacity to assess such developments independently in order to safeguard its institutional prerogatives and oversight functions and build its own institutional memory in this field;

13.Calls for the use of AI tools to support the monitoring and implementation of EU legislation that has been already adopted, in particular by identifying national and regional legal acts requiring amendment and by detecting potential inconsistencies, overlaps or risks of legal fragmentation, thereby enhancing legal coherence across levels of governance, addressing implementation gaps in the Member States and improving the effectiveness and predictability of EU law; emphasises, in this context, the importance of a human-centric approach when such tools are deployed;

14.Calls for analysis of overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies between the numerous AI-related legislative and policy instruments and their implementation in order to reduce fragmentation and ensure coherent application across sectoral domains, including coherent institutional implementation;

15.Stresses that the analytical work carried out within Parliament, including by the proposed European Parliament AI Observatory, could contribute to identifying cross-sectoral gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies in the EU’s broader legal framework for AI;

16.Stresses that the European Parliament AI Observatory could contribute to the monitoring of institutional AI governance, accountability and explainability and of the implications of AI systems deployed within the institution, and could support Parliament’s follow-up to the relevant Council conclusions;

17.Calls on the Chair of the AI Board to invite the European Parliament AI Observatory, once it is established, to the board’s meetings to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and interinstitutional coherence in the EU’s AI policy;

18.Underlines that strengthened cooperation in the field of AI governance between Parliament, national parliaments and the national competent authorities, in accordance with Article 70 of the Artificial Intelligence Act, is essential in order to exchange best practice, improve legislative coherence and support parliamentary scrutiny of AI deployment across the EU;

19.Calls for systematic parliamentary assessment of AI-related risks to democratic processes, including electoral integrity, and for the European Parliament AI Observatory to support the monitoring of elections and European political parties, considering that AI increasingly shapes political communication, electoral processes, public discourse and decision-making;

20.Stresses that, owing to its fragmentation and limited harmonisation, the current European electoral legal framework, as reflected in Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/9942, is increasingly ill-suited to addressing emerging challenges linked to the use of AI in electoral processes; emphasises, therefore, the importance of preparing the ground for a future reform of the European electoral law in accordance with Article 223 TFEU, which would reflect the impact of AI on the European electoral process, making the European electoral process more resilient in the context of AI misinformation and manipulation;

21.Emphasises that the rapid evolution of the governance landscape of the EU, particularly in response to digital transformation, AI and increasingly complex regulatory frameworks, is progressively testing the adequacy of the existing Treaty provisions governing institutional competences, democratic accountability and parliamentary scrutiny;

22.Stresses, therefore, that structured and inclusive reflection on the possible evolution of the Treaties is necessary in the medium to long term, in order to ensure that the EU’s governance architecture remains coherent, transparent, democratically legitimate and capable of responding effectively to emerging challenges, while fully respecting the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and the Member States’ constitutional identities;

23.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.