Institutional seats of the European Union

All four were chosen, among various reasons, for their location halfway between France and Germany, the countries whose rivalry led to two World Wars and whose reconciliation paved the way for European integration.

The seats have been a matter of political dispute since the states first failed to reach an agreement at the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952.

The work of Parliament is divided between Brussels, Luxembourg City and Strasbourg, which is seen as a problem due to the large number of MEPs, staff, and documents which need to be moved.

Brussels hosts additional sessions and committees[1] (including being used in September 2008 for normal sittings when the Strasbourg chamber was damaged[7]).

The Council of the European Union has its seat in Brussels, except during April, June, and October, when meetings are held in Luxembourg City.

While Saarbrücken had a status as a "European city" (Europeanised presence and control), the ongoing dispute over Saarland made it a problematic choice.

Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg, Turin, Milan, Stresa, Paris, Nice, and the French Department of Oise were all considered by the "European Committee of Town-Planning Experts" in a report to the Council of Ministers.

The delay helped Brussels establish itself as the seat, since it was already functioning as much of the administration was already working there in offices space loaned from the Belgian government.

During this time Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and the European institutions themselves favoured Brussels; Luxembourg City wanted to maintain the seat of the ECSC (or be generously compensated); France supported Strasbourg, and Italy continued to promote Milan.

[31] Frankfurt had to compete with numerous other cities, including London, Paris,[32] Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Lyon, Barcelona and even Basel (in Switzerland, which is outside the European Union).

Frankfurt was criticised as symbolising German dominance, although the Deutsche Bundesbank had effectively been running the Communities currencies for the previous years, while Luxembourg City has a banking tradition that wasn't so careful.

[33] It was also seen as important to locate the bank in a city not already hosting a national government or EU institution, in order to emphasise its independence.

[36] However, in 2004 leaders decided the logistical problems created by the outdated facilities warranted the construction of a new purpose built seat able to cope with the nearly 6,000 meetings, working groups, and summits per year.

Both institutions continue to use the adjacent Justus Lipsius building, linked by two skyways to the new construction, for low-level meetings and for use by the Council secretariat.

[40] However, in September 2008 Parliament held its first full plenary session in Brussels after the ceiling of the Strasbourg chamber collapsed during recess forcing the temporary move.

[29] While the split arrangements for other bodies have relatively little impact, the large number of members of the Parliament and its concentration of work load means that these issues are far more contentious than those surrounding the other institutions.

[4] Critics have described the three-city arrangement as a "travelling circus" with a cost an extra 200 million euro over a single location.

[44] Defenders of the Strasbourg seat, like the MEP for Germany Bernd Posselt, however claim that the figure is rather a mere 40 million euro, i.e. an extra cost of 8 cents per EU citizen.

[52] Some commentators further underline that night-life in Strasbourg is comparatively lacklustre and that MEPs who would wish to relax after a long and hard working day are not offered many opportunities to do so.

[55] In May 2006, an online petition, oneseat.eu, was started by MEP Cecilia Malmström calling for a single seat of Parliament, to be based in Brussels.

[58] One signatory to the petition was Commission Vice President Margot Wallström; she supported the campaign, stating that "something that was once a very positive symbol of the EU reuniting France and Germany has now become a negative symbol—of wasting money, bureaucracy and the insanity of the Brussels institutions".

[62] In August 2012, cracks were found in the beams supporting the ceiling of the Brussels hemicycle, leading to a closure of at least 6 months of the entire A section of the Paul Henri Spaak Building according to an estimate released on 9 October 2012 by the Parliament administration.

[64][65] Since, as of December 2012, the European Parliament is "having trouble" finding a company to carry out the repair work, it is likely that the reopening of the Brussels hemicycle may take place only in 2014.

[52] If the Parliament were wholly in Strasbourg, then the news media would also no longer be able to use shortcuts such as "Brussels decided..." rather than discuss the detail of the decision markers.

[52] This position was supported by President Josep Borrell Fontelles, although he earned some criticism when he stated that the importance of Strasbourg in the context of the Second World War could not be perceived in the same way as France and Germany by "Nordic countries" (a reference to the Swedish MEP who started the one-seat petition).

[72] On 9 November 2010, the municipal council of Strasbourg green-lighted a project (envisioned since April of the same year) of the creation of a "Place for Europe" (lieu d′Europe) – a walk-in centre for people curious about the European institutions in Strasbourg – in the former Villa Kaysersguet, an architecturally precious but currently (2010) derelict 18th-century mansion neighbouring with the European Court of Human Rights and the Agora building of the Council of Europe.

Brussels campaigners cited that it was bad timing, with French and German leaders of Parliament and the main two groups ordering their members not to support the motion.

[79] These polls have not affected the position of France, which can veto any such move, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy stating that its seat is "non-negotiable".

[52] In 2020, Irish MEP Clare Daly told The Parliament Magazine that the coronavirus pandemic highlighted the unnecessary nature of travelling to Strasbourg for plenary, and called for the seat's abolition as part of the EU's economic recovery plans[81] In January 2003, Green-EFA co-leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit proposed turning the Strasbourg seat into a "European university".

[83] The same idea has been put forward in January 2006 by Polish minister and former dissident Bronisław Geremek, in an article originally published by Le Monde.