The European PP seeks the support of the PSOE in Brussels with a "minimum" text on Morocco.

At this moment, there is no new specific resolution on the 2026 Ceuta migration crisis in the European Parliament that is following its own parliamentary procedure (initiative registration, rapporteur, amendments, committee stage, and plenary vote). What exists, on the one hand, is a resolution already approved and closed from 2021, and on the other hand, debates and political requests for another resolution to be adopted now, which so far has not materialized in a registered text.

What resolution exists today on Ceuta and at what stage it is

The parliamentary references being used in 2026 systematically refer to the:

• European Parliament Resolution of 10 June 2021 on the migration crisis in Ceuta, in which the Eurochamber censured, among other aspects, “the use by Morocco of border control and migration, particularly of unaccompanied minors, as a mechanism of political pressure against Spain.” This resolution was passed with 397 votes in favor, 85 against, and 196 abstentions, as Demócrata recalls when reviewing its background (context article).

In the European Parliament procedure, urgent resolutions or those on current political issues are single-reading: they are debated and voted on in Plenary and, once adopted, the file is considered closed. They do not generate a prolonged “processing” over time like a directive or regulation.

Therefore, the 2021 resolution is in a concluded phase: it was already debated and approved by the Plenary, and today it is used as a political and legal precedent, but it is not “ongoing” nor pending further internal procedures.

What is happening in 2026 in the Eurochamber regarding the new Ceuta crisis

In the crisis that began on 30 July 2026 (massive entry of tens of thousands of people into the city), the European Parliament's action has so far been channeled through:

• An extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), held in August 2026, to analyze the situation. Demócrata details that it was convened at the initiative of the EPP and focused on an exchange of views on the migration crisis in Ceuta, with participation from the Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration and the President of the Autonomous City (LIBE debate report).
• An urgent debate in the Eurochamber on the crisis, also promoted by the European People's Party group, whose political aim is to pressure for a common EU position, but which has not yet resulted, according to available information, in a new resolution text submitted for a vote.
• Political initiatives by Spanish actors to take that step: for example, the President of Ceuta, Juan Jesús Vivas, traveled to Brussels and expressly demanded that the European Parliament approve “a resolution” emphasizing that Ceuta and Melilla “are the borders of Spain and Europe” and that sets a political response to Morocco for its role in the crisis (Vivas visit report).

The very fact that Vivas demands that “a resolution be approved” and that the press describes the meetings in the LIBE Committee as debates and exchanges of views, without citing a file number or rapporteur of a specific text, indicates that the new resolution has not yet been formally registered nor is it at an advanced stage of parliamentary processing.

Conclusion on the “parliamentary stage”

• Resolution of 10 June 2021 on the migration crisis in Ceuta: its processing is completely closed. It was an urgent resolution debated and voted on in Plenary; today it only operates as a political and legal reference precedent.
• Possible new resolutions on the 2026 crisis: in light of the available information, the issue is at a stage of political debate and pressure for a new resolution to exist (meetings in the LIBE Committee, urgent debates, Vivas's visit to the Eurochamber), but there is no record that a new resolution text has been registered or voted on yet. Therefore, there is no proper “parliamentary stage” beyond the initial committee debates.

In summary: as of today, in the European Parliament there is no open resolution procedure on the 2026 Ceuta migration crisis beyond these preparatory debates; and the only formally existing resolution on Ceuta, that of 10 June 2021, is already approved and archived as a concluded political act.

Iratxe García Pérez is the president of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the European Parliament, the second largest force in the Eurochamber, and a leader with a long trajectory in the PSOE, both locally and nationally as well as in Brussels and Strasbourg. Her competencies combine the political leadership of the European Socialist group with institutional representation before the other groups and the Parliament's governing bodies.

Competencies as president of the Socialist group in the Eurochamber

As the top leader of the S&D Group, Iratxe García heads a political family that brings together more than a hundred MEPs from 25 Member States. According to various sources from Demócrata and the European Parliament itself, among her central functions are:

• Defining the group's political priorities: sets the general political line of the Socialists and Democrats on major legislative files (European budget, green agenda, social policy, foreign relations, etc.), as well as strategies vis-à-vis other forces, especially the European People's Party and the far right.
• Coordinating parliamentary activity: oversees the work of S&D MEPs in committees and plenaries, and directs the preparation of the group's position before each plenary session, including voting guidelines and negotiations on amendments and compromises.
• Representing the group in the Conference of Presidents: participates in this governing body of the Eurochamber, where it is decided what is debated in plenary, how the agenda is structured, and how the legislative calendar is organized. This grants her direct influence over the European Parliament's political agenda.
• Leading dialogue with other institutions and actors: acts as the group's main voice before the European Commission, the Council, other political groups, and the public, intervening in key debates on multilateralism, trade, rule of law, migration, or foreign policy.
• Internal group management: chairs the S&D “table,” coordinates the group's secretariat, and articulates a common position among very diverse national delegations, seeking to maintain internal cohesion and the pro-European majorities necessary to advance the social-democratic agenda.

In addition to this presidency, she is a member of the European Parliament's Conference of Presidents and participates in several parliamentary structures, which strengthens her ability to influence priority setting and majority building in the chamber.

Political trajectory in Spain

Born in Baracaldo in 1974, Iratxe García became politically linked to Valladolid and the rural Castilian-Leonese environment from a very young age. She studied Social Work at the University of Valladolid and worked as an educator in occupational training courses before dedicating herself fully to politics.

In 1993 she joined the Socialist Youth of Valladolid. Just two years later she was elected councilor in the Laguna de Duero City Council, a position she combined with that of deputy in the Valladolid Provincial Council. Between 1996 and 1999 she held the General Secretariat of the Socialist Youth, and later became deputy secretary general of the PSOE in the province.

The local and provincial base of her career was complemented by a stint in national politics: the stakeholder database records that she was a deputy in the Congress and deputy spokesperson, experience that gave her projection in the federal socialist apparatus before her definitive leap to Brussels.

Trajectory in the European Parliament

Iratxe García has been an MEP since 2004, serving consecutive terms without interruption. During this time she has held prominent responsibilities:

• Chair of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, from which she promoted initiatives on equality between men and women and on the social and care agenda in the EU.
• Chair of the Spanish Socialist delegation in the Eurochamber, coordinating the PSOE's actions in the European Parliament.
• Federal Secretary of the PSOE for the European Union between 2014 and 2016, a bridge between the party leadership in Madrid and socialist action in the community institutions.
• In the most recent legislature, member of the Petitions Committee, of the Delegation for Relations with the Countries of South Asia and of the Delegation for Relations with the United States (as substitute), as well as of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (substitute).

According to her parliamentary profile, she is also part of the Conference of Presidents, as leader of the S&D, and various Demócrata reports emphasize that her position allows her to influence majority balances, the negotiation of the multiannual financial framework, the European response to international crises, and the defense of a “European social model” against the far right.

Overall, her profile combines a solid municipal and organic base in the PSOE with more than two decades of European experience, placing her today as one of the key figures of Spanish and European socialism in the Eurochamber.

A “European Parliament resolution” in the usual sense (own-initiative resolutions, resolutions on reports, on the situation in a country, etc.) is not, by itself, legally binding on Member States. For an act in which the European Parliament participates to be binding on the States, it must meet a series of requirements derived from the EU primary law (Arts. 288 et seq. TFEU, among others).

1. It must be a “legislative act” or a typical act under Art. 288 TFEU

Union law distinguishes between:

• Regulations: of general application, binding in all their elements and directly applicable in each Member State.
• Directives: bind the Member State “as to the result to be achieved,” leaving national authorities the choice of form and means.
• Decisions: binding in all their elements for their specifically designated addressees (for example, one or several States).
• Recommendations and opinions: have no binding force.

European Parliament resolutions, in the common use of the term, fall into this last category (recommendations, political positions, requests to other institutions) and are not included in the list of binding acts under Art. 288 TFEU. Therefore, they lack direct binding effects on the States.

2. Need for a legal basis in the Treaties

For an act involving the Parliament to generate obligations for the States, it must:

• Be based on a specific legal basis in the Treaties (TFEU or TEU) that empowers the Union to act in the relevant area (environment, internal market, transport, etc.).
• Comply with the procedure provided in that legal basis (usually the ordinary legislative procedure, sometimes the special legislative procedure or other specific procedures).

Without a legal basis, the act would be contrary to the principle of conferral and subject to annulment before the CJEU. A political resolution of the Parliament that “asks” the States to do something does not create legal obligations, because normative competence must always come from the Treaties and materialize in a form of act provided therein.

3. Participation of the Council (and, where applicable, the Commission)

The European Parliament does not legislate alone. The ordinary legislative model requires:

• A proposal from the European Commission (except in exceptions).
• Joint adoption by Parliament and Council ("co-decision" act) in the ordinary legislative procedure, or adoption by the Council with Parliament's participation in the special legislative procedure.

Therefore, a text adopted only by Parliament, without the Council's intervention as co-legislator nor a Commission proposal within a given legal basis, will not be a binding regulation, directive, or decision, but a political resolution.

4. Publication and legal form of the act

Even when Parliament acts as co-legislator, the binding nature for the States only arises if:

• The act is adopted expressly as a regulation, directive, or decision under the terms of Art. 288 TFEU.
• It is published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the form and with the formal requirements provided (title, legal basis, articles, final provisions on entry into force, etc.).

A Parliament resolution that accompanies or precedes a legislative act (for example, a “recital” or an attached political position) may have interpretative relevance, but the binding nature lies with the legislative act itself, not with the resolution as such.

5. Practical effects of non-binding resolutions

Although not legally binding:

• Parliament resolutions have strong political weight, guide the Commission and Council, and can anticipate the content of future rules.
• They can serve as interpretative reference to understand the European legislator's intent when a binding act is later adopted.
• In some areas, they promote State action by indicating “desirable standards” or good practices, but without creating enforceable obligations by themselves.

In summary: a typical European Parliament resolution is not binding on Member States. For a text involving Parliament's adoption to be binding, it must be transformed into one of the acts provided in Art. 288 TFEU (regulation, directive, or decision), be based on a legal basis in the Treaties, follow the corresponding procedure with Council participation (and usually the Commission), and adopt the official form and publication required by Union law.