Please explain what led you to interpret this as a threat of any form. The Orban reference was pretty clear.
From the article:
> "This is a clear reference to the ability of the European Commission to cut funds allocated to member countries when they are deemed to be violating the rule of law."
Your US/Germany comparison doesn't work, since that's an entirely different situation. For starters, a state like the US can actually apply pressure or use force, because there isn't an established strong framework saying it can't nor anything directly enforcing what little there is. US enforced sanctions over the pipeline construction because it didn't like the pipeline, nothing Germany can do directly. (And if you want to assume the recent sabotage was the US, pretty much the same applies)
The commission is just not an independent state-level actor in that way. It's actually constrained by a state-like legal framework around it, granting it limited powers for specific purposes. Outside of those, it can and will be reigned in very quickly.
EU courts are the judical oversight, and the EU parliament can remove the commission at any time (legislative oversight).
Corruption isnt just taking bribes. Urusula’s comments are akin to coercing voters into voting against their preference and are a clear violation of treaties whereby the eu has no right to intervene in the sovereign voting process of member states. Its not like italians were bribed or forced into voting a certain way. That means ursula is abusing a position of power in favour of certain political parties with the threat of cutting funding if their new leader isnt docile enough. That is corruption and the perfectly fine eu courts will never sanction her for it.
"We'll pay close attention if you stick to the laws" is pretty much the worst the commission can really threaten a government, which isn't really all that much if there is nothing serious to punish.