Articles 289 and 294 TFEU Explained: The Ordinary Legislative Procedure

Ask the EU Knowledge test what it loves most and it will answer: institutions and how a law gets made. Article 294 TFEU is where the second half lives — the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP), the default route by which the Union legislates since Lisbon. It is a sequence with actors, deadlines and failure modes, which makes it a machine for generating exam questions.

This is part of our TFEU series — see also Article 45 (free movement of workers), Article 258 (infringement), Article 267 (preliminary rulings) and Article 288 (legal acts).

Who votes, and by what majority, is Articles 15 and 16 TEU. For the procedure applied to specific policies, see Article 191 (environment) and Article 207 (common commercial policy).

Article 289 defines it; Article 294 runs it

Two article numbers, one procedure, and questions come at it from both.

Article 289(1) contains the definition: the ordinary legislative procedure consists in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission. That single sentence carries three testable facts — the two co-legislators, the three instruments it can produce, and the Commission proposal as the starting point. The procedure itself is then laid down in Article 294.

Article 289(2) defines the alternative: in specific cases provided for by the Treaties, the adoption of a regulation, directive or decision by the European Parliament with the participation of the Council, or by the Council with the participation of the European Parliament, constitutes a special legislative procedure. Note the shape: still one of the two institutions adopting, with the other participating — consultation and consent are the two familiar forms.

Article 289(3) supplies the label: legal acts adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute legislative acts. That is a definition by procedure, not by content or by instrument. A regulation adopted by the Commission under delegated powers is a regulation, but it is not a legislative act — because no legislative procedure produced it. This is the distinction behind delegated and implementing acts in Articles 290 and 291.

Article 289(4) covers the exceptions to the Commission's monopoly of initiative: in the specific cases provided for by the Treaties, legislative acts may be adopted on the initiative of a group of Member States or of the European Parliament, on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or at the request of the Court of Justice or the European Investment Bank. The right of initiative is overwhelmingly the Commission's, but "always and only the Commission" is an overstatement the Treaty itself contradicts.

In other languages the procedure is asked for by name rather than by number — procedimiento legislativo ordinario, procédure législative ordinaire, procedura legislativa ordinaria, ordentliches Gesetzgebungsverfahren. Same procedure, same two articles.

The choreography, stage by stage

The proposal. "The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council" — Article 294(2), and the single most quoted line of the procedure. The right of initiative belongs to the Commission: Parliament and Council co-decide, but they decide on the Commission's text.

First reading. Parliament adopts its position and sends it to the Council. Two exits: if the Council approves Parliament's position, the act is adopted in that wording; if not, the Council adopts its own position, communicates it to Parliament with full reasons, and the file moves to second reading. No deadline governs first reading — one reason most legislation in practice is agreed here, smoothed by informal trilogues between the institutions.

Second reading. Now the clock runs: within three months (extendable by one), Parliament may approve the Council's position or stay silent — the act is adopted — or reject it by a majority of its component members — the act is dead — or propose amendments. Amended texts go back to the Council, which again has three months to approve everything (act adopted) or not (next stage). The Commission opines on Parliament's amendments, and where its opinion is negative, the Council must act unanimously on those points.

Conciliation. A Conciliation Committee — Council members or their representatives and an equal number of MEPs, with the Commission taking part to broker compromise — has six weeks to agree a joint text. No joint text, no law.

Third reading. Parliament and Council each get six weeks to adopt the joint text as agreed. Either institution failing to do so kills the act. There is no fourth chance.

The who-does-what traps

Initiative swap. "The European Parliament proposes legislation" / "the European Council submits legislative proposals" — both false in the OLP. The European Council, remember, does not exercise legislative functions at all; it sets directions. Proposals come from the Commission.

Adoption swap. "The Commission adopts the regulation after consulting Parliament" — inverted roles: the Commission proposes, the co-legislators adopt. Under the OLP, Parliament and Council are equals; neither can steamroll the other.

Deadline abuse. Statements planting the three-month clock in the first reading (it has none), or giving conciliation three months (it has six weeks), test whether you memorised where the deadlines actually sit.

Name games. Codecision is the OLP — pre-Lisbon vocabulary for the same procedure. And "ordinary" implies its counterpart: special legislative procedures exist where the Treaties prescribe them (consultation, consent), typically Council-dominant. If a question says the OLP covers every EU act, that word "every" is doing dishonest work.

What the questions in our bank actually test

Article 294 has three readings, a Conciliation Committee, a set of majorities and a stack of deadlines. Our own EU Knowledge bank suggests candidates are not asked to recite all of it evenly. Of the 20 active questions built on this article, all 20 turn on the readings and the conciliation stage — the sequence, who acts when, and what happens if one institution does not act. Only 3 put the Conciliation Committee itself in the correct answer; the rest test the steps around it.

That tells you where to put effort. The procedure's spine — Commission proposal, Parliament position, Council position, second reading, conciliation, third reading — is worth being able to recite in order and from either end. The exact composition of the Conciliation Committee is worth knowing once; it is not where the questions concentrate.

The distractor shapes repeat as reliably as they do on the other procedural articles:

• The compressed procedure. A statement that skips a reading, or lets the Council adopt alone after Parliament's first reading. The ordinary procedure is co-decision throughout; any version in which one institution finishes the job by itself is wrong.
• The wrong initiator. "Parliament proposes and the Commission decides." The right of initiative sits with the Commission, and the ordinary procedure begins with its proposal.
• The imported special procedure. Consultation and consent are special legislative procedures under Article 289; statements describing "the Council decides after consulting Parliament" belong to those, not to 294.

These figures describe our question bank, not EPSO's, which is not published. They are a guide to what this article makes examinable.

Study leverage

The OLP repays one deliberate hour: sketch the flow — proposal → EP position → Council approves or positions → 3-month exchanges → 6-week conciliation → third reading — and annotate who acts and what majority applies at each node. Most OLP questions are that sketch, paraphrased. Then pressure-test it against free weekly EU Knowledge questions, and fit the topic into your campaign with the EPSO Preparation 2026 complete guide.