As announced by President of the Commission in the Political Guidelines in July 2024[1], as part of a wider comprehensive EU-Middle East strategy, the Commission committed to work on a multi-year support package for an effective Palestinian Authority (PA), on the basis of agreed reforms, and to help pave the way for a two-state solution, as the best way to ensure security for both Israelis and Palestinians, strengthening partnerships with key regional stakeholders.
The PA is facing a critical budgetary crisis, which risks destabilising the West Bank and the broader region. In this context, the Commission proposed a two-step approach composed of the emergency short-term financial assistance (EUR 400 million) to cover urgent financial needs, thereby paving the way for a longer-term Comprehensive Programme for Palestinian Recovery and Resilience.
The letter of intent[2] signed between the Commission and the PA on 17 July 2024 outlines a strategy to address the PA’s financial challenges and includes all agreed milestones related to the disbursement of the emergency support. The third and final tranche of emergency support was disbursed on 18 November 2024.
In parallel, work continued on the second element of the two-step approach, with significant progress made, including the agreement on 31 October 2024 on the Palestinian Reform Matrix, which will underpin the multi-year comprehensive programme.
The Reform Matrix, which is based on the PA’s own reform agenda, was developed in close cooperation between the PA and the Commission and was discussed with Member States.
The aim of the comprehensive programme would be to stabilise the PA’s fiscal situation and strengthen governance, fiscal policy, the business environment, and service provision over the medium to long term, in line with the EU’s wider EU-Middle East Strategy.
As mentioned in the reply to E-001534/2024, the Commission’s position on Russia’s espionage, hybrid threats and disinformation campaigns is one of strong condemnation.
As also stated before, the country chapter for Poland of the 2023 Rule of Law Report[1] contains a factual reference to the case and indicates the sources of the relevant information, which include the Council of Europe platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. The Commission usually refers to such alerts in the Rule of Law Report under the pillar of media freedom in relation to all Member States.
The European arrest warrant (EAW) is a judicial procedure between judicial authorities in the Member States based on the particular circumstances of each individual case where surrender is requested. Neither the Commission nor the Member States’ governments can interfere or influence decisions taken by the judicial authorities.
The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held that the principle of mutual recognition, which underpins the EAW framework decision, means that, in accordance with Article 1(2) thereof, the Member States are in principle obliged to act upon an EAW, arresting the persons concerned and bringing them before a national court competent to examine the warrant, including to see whether any grounds for refusal apply.
In order to assess whether there is a ground for refusing the EAW, the executing court should take into account the CJEU’s case-law on the EAW, and in particular regarding the two-step procedure set out in that case-law[1].
The Commission notes that an Article 7(1) of the Treaty on EU procedure against Hungary is ongoing in Council. This procedure was initiated by the European Parliament in 2018. It is for the Council to decide on next steps in this ongoing procedure.
The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the European Parliament in this procedure and always stands ready to participate in hearings and state-of-play points in the Council.
[1] Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586 and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2023, Puig Gordi and Others, C-158/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:57.
Any research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon Europe[1] must have an exclusive focus on civil applications. During the execution of project financed via Horizon Europe grant agreements, all beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action comply with this horizontal rule. The Commission is closely monitoring the correct implementation of grant agreements signed under Horizon Europe.
The projects in which Israel Aerospace Industries participates are of a purely civil nature. These include, inter alia, projects to develop hybrid electric regional aircrafts, to revolutionise liquid hydrogen aircraft refuelling at airport scale, and to advance material science applications to reduce the generation of waste and enhance the safety of workers[2].
The Commission remains vigilant and is ready to take appropriate action should the Horizon Europe legal framework not be respected, notably regarding the exclusive focus on civil application as well as legally required behaviour of participants[3].
However, the actions or behaviour of the State of Israel cannot be considered automatically attributable to its entities participating in Horizon Europe grants.
Question for written answer E-000742/2025 to the Council Rule 144 Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus (S&D)
In light of the European Commission’s decision to withdraw the proposal for the horizontal equal treatment directive from the Commission’s work programme owing to a lack of support from the Council:
1.Can the Council provide a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the withdrawal of support in the Council for the proposal, particularly regarding the challenges in securing agreement among the Member States in the COREPER?
2.What were the main arguments of the Member States that did not support the proposal for the directive?
3.What concrete actions do the Council and the Presidency plan to take to continue this important work and to seek unanimity in the Council?
Question for written answer E-000794/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Denis Nesci (ECR), Giovanni Crosetto (ECR), Daniele Polato (ECR), Francesco Ventola (ECR), Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR)
The recent liquidation of FWU Life Insurance Lux S.A., an insurance company based in Luxembourg, affected a large number of Italian savers, who signed life insurance policies through financial intermediaries operating in Italy. An explanatory note from the national supervisory authority, the CAA, clarifies that policyholders (or, possibly, their beneficiaries) will not lose all of their savings as a result of this liquidation. The situation has nevertheless led to concerns regarding consumer protection and supervision of insurance companies operating on a transnational basis in the EU, as well as uncertainty surrounding possible winding-up proceedings that could help consumers when exercising their rights.
In view of the above:
1.What measures will the Commission take to better protect EU consumers affected by the liquidation of insurance companies established in other Member States?
2.Does it plan to review the rules on the supervision of insurance companies operating in more than one Member State in order to ensure more effective and coordinated supervision?
3.How will it increase transparency and inform consumers about the risks involved when taking out insurance policies with companies established in other Member States?
The Commission is committed to protecting freedom of expression as one of the fundamental rights both offline and online. The Digital Services Act (DSA)[1] aims to ensure a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and protects the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, such as the freedom of expression.
It sets out rules and responsibilities for online intermediaries to tackle illegal content (as defined in national and EU law) , while safeguarding freedom of expression and information. The DSA does not regulate online content, nor does it define what is illegal content.
Instead, the DSA imposes due diligence obligations on providers of hosting services, requiring them to set up notice and action mechanisms for users to report illegal content and to act once they are notified that illegal content is accessible on their services in the EU.
The DSA also mandates transparency for content moderation actions. For instance, when certain items of information are restricted on the grounds that the information provided by the recipients constitutes illegal content, the concerned user must be informed inter alia on the reasons, on the facts and circumstances relied on taking the decision and on the possibilities to redress such decision.
The Commission opened proceedings against several very large online platforms, including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram in April[2] and May 2024[3].
The Commission is monitoring the functioning of Meta’s services to ensure compliance with the DSA and can open additional proceedings, should this be necessary.
The European Democracy Shield will protect and promote democracy in the EU, in full respect of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.
The Commission welcomes the ceasefire and urges all parties to ensure its full implementation, hoping that it will lead to a substantial and sustained increase in the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
The humanitarian situation remains dire, and the Commission is mobilising all available humanitarian instruments, providing EUR 450 million in aid through trusted humanitarian partners on the ground, including United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations, to address life-saving needs such as shelter, including the distribution of non-food items, food, health, water and sanitation.
The Commission has also deployed ReliefEU[1] to operate humanitarian air bridge flights, transporting for example over 4 000 tonnes of humanitarian supplies on behalf of Member States and humanitarian partners to meet the urgent needs of displaced families in Gaza.
In addition, t he European Union Civil Protection Mechanism[2] (UCPM) supported seven EU Member States in the delivery of shelter items to Gaza and continues to support the World Health Organisation in the evacuation of critically ill patients requiring specialised medical care outside the region.
Working closely with its trusted humanitarian partners, the Commission continues to monitor the situation on the ground to respond to the enormous needs of the population of Gaza.
[1] ReliefEU Capacities: The objective of ReliefEU Capacities is to support humanitarian partners with services and operational capabilities, facilitating the quick delivery of humanitarian assistance, while ensuring greater effectiveness. New capacities will be developed throughout the year, with specific allocation rounds to be announced, calling on partners and Member States to submit proposals.
[2] In October 2001, the European Commission established the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. The Mechanism aims to strengthen civil protection cooperation between the EU countries and 10 additional participating states to improve prevention, preparedness, and response to disasters. Any country hit by a disaster, in Europe and beyond, can request emergency assistance through the Mechanism. The Commission plays a key role in coordinating the disaster response and contributing to the transport and/or operational costs of deployments.
Democracy is a core value of the EU, with free and fair elections at its heart. Member States are responsible for organising elections according to national constitutional rules, legislation, international obligations, and EU law.
The Commission supports Member States in election matters mainly via the framework of the European Coordination Network on Elections. The Commission monitors compliance by providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) with the Digital Services Act (DSA)[1] in relation to the provision of those services in the EU and has provided election guidance[2].
For the German Federal election, the Bundesnetzagentur and the Commission have organised an election roundtable[3] and a stress test[4]involving providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs, German authorities, and civil society. Signatories of the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation, which contains election commitments, have activated the Rapid Response System for the elections[5].
The Commission has been investigating X[6], designated as a VLOP, for suspected breaches of, amongst others, Articles 34(1) and (2) and 35(1) DSA which oblige to diligently assess systemic risks and put in place effective mitigation measures. The current investigations include risks to civic discourse and elections in the EU, including risks stemming from the design and functioning of its algorithm.
Recently, the Commission ordered X[7] to preserve documents on future changes to the design and functioning of its recommender algorithms. The Commission also requested internal documentation on its recommender system relating to past changes and ordered access to certain technical interfaces to allow fact-finding on content moderation and account virality.
[2] The Commission has published guidelines for providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs on the mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-providers-vlops-and-vloses-mitigation-systemic-risks-electoral-processes
[5] Previously used in EU, French, Romanian, and Croatian elections, the RRS allows non-platform signatories to quickly report time-sensitive threats to electoral integrity with platforms based on their policies.
Following the opinion in 2012 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the health risks related to mercury in food[1] which concluded that the dietary exposure of EU consumers to mercury raises health concerns, the Commission established maximum levels (MLs) for mercury in fish.
In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 315/93[2], the MLs for contaminants in food are established on the basis of occurrence data, taking into account the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ principle.
In 2022, the MLs for mercury in various fish species were lowered on the basis of the most recent occurrence data, which showed that there was no margin to further reduce the ML for tuna, and it was, therefore, maintained at 1.0 mg/kg[3]. At this stage no new data are available that would allow a further lowering of the ML for mercury in tuna.
The Commission is also not aware of any scientific information which would require an update of the conclusions of EFSA on the current health risks related to the exposure to mercury from food.
EFSA opinion includes the health benefits of seafood consumption in relation to health risks associated with the exposure to mercury.[4]
The Commission, while acknowledging that fish consumption has also beneficial health effects, has published on its website general consumption advice[5] related to fish contaminated with mercury and several Member States have issued further detailed consumption advice tailor made to the species which are consumed by their citizens.
Further measures on the restriction of tuna consumption for vulnerable consumers lie within the competence of the Member States.
[3] Regulation (EU) 2023/915 has codified all existing maximum levels including the one for mercury in fresh tuna. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj
Question for written answer E-000792/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Daniel Buda (PPE)
The EU is preparing the review of the Autonomous Trade Measures with Ukraine, as the current rules on the trade in agricultural products expire in June 2025. Trade relations should become more balanced from then on, drawing on the lessons learned. The negotiations have started at a technical level, with agriculture ministers expressing support for a more stable agreement.
How does the Commission plan to balance the interests of European farmers and Ukrainian producers in the new free trade agreement, in view of the introduction of quotas for agricultural products and the scaling-back of support measures for Ukraine?
Question for written answer E-000780/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE)
The Valencian Government intends to amend Law 5/2018 on the Horta of Valencia to reclassify protected areas and allow construction in zones affected by the catastrophe produced by the DANA storm. The Horta of València is a historic agricultural system recognised by the FAO and plays a key role in food production, environmental sustainability and Valencian cultural heritage. The EU’s Natura 2000 network protects some parts of this area, which is covered by Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), requiring impact assessments to prevent habitat degradation. Additional laws, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU), ensure compliance. Any land reclassification affecting these sites should align with EU environmental regulations.
Given the EU’s commitment to environmental protection, we would like clarification on the following:
1.Does the Commission think that this land reclassification aligns with EU directives on conserving traditional landscapes and ensuring climate resilience in vulnerable areas?
2.What will the Commission do to protect the Natura 2000 sites and peri-urban green spaces in the Valencian Country?
3.Can the Commission also specify the mechanisms in place to monitor this situation and act if EU environmental legislation is at risk of being infringed?
Question for written answer E-000812/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Marco Falcone (PPE), Fulvio Martusciello (PPE)
In a letter to Vice-President Ribera, Commission President von der Leyen called for a new approach to competition policy to enable European businesses and consumers to reap the full benefits of competition while protecting them from speculative price increases.
In recent years, Visa and Mastercard have consolidated their dominant position in the payment card market. The ECB has also stressed that card payments have acquired a market share of 64% in the eurozone and that 13 Member States have no local competitor to these companies. This has led to a significant increase in the commissions charged by international networks to payment providers (estimated to have increased by EUR 1.5 billion from 2016 to 2021).
These rising costs are making life difficult for European businesses and directly affecting consumers since part of the rise in fees is ultimately passed on to them in the prices of goods and services, thus reducing their disposable income. Consumers have sounded the alarm about the economic impact of these increases and are calling for urgent action.
In the light of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1.Does it intend to conduct an in-depth market survey to identify any unjustified increases in prices in Europe?
2.What specific measures will it take to respond to this pressing problem?
Question for written answer E-000762/2025 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 144 César Luena (S&D)
According to the answer to Written Question E-002674/2024[1], ‘the EU in principle does not enumerate individual consular cases in the annual Human Rights Council resolution on human rights in the DPRK’, and ‘the cases relating to Myanmar concerned the highest representatives of the democratically elected government’.
However, the resolutions referred to in the initial question concern the cases of two journalists[2]. See:
1.37/32[3], point 25, calls on the Government of Myanmar to ‘immediately release journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’;
2.39/2[4], point 18, ‘Expresses grave concern at the imprisonment, prosecution and sentencing of journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’;
3.40/29[5], point 10, calls on the Government of Myanmar to ‘immediately and unconditionally release journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’;
4.43/26[6], point 8, ‘Welcomes the release of journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’.
Therefore, will the EU consider specifying the cases of North Korean escapee Kim Cheol-ok and the South Korean missionaries detained for over ten years, Kim Jung-wook, Kim Kook-kie and Choi Chun-gil, in the upcoming draft annual resolution on human rights in the DPRK at the UN Human Rights Council?
Question for written answer E-000779/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Seán Kelly (PPE)
Parliament has established a special committee to address the housing crisis (HOUS), while the Commission is raising the visibility of housing policy, particularly through the upcoming European affordable housing initiative. With millions of buildings targeted for energy upgrades under the Renovation Wave, there is a significant opportunity to improve fire safety in parallel with meeting sustainability and affordability goals.
1.Given that fire safety remains a serious concern across the EU, where there are nearly 5 000 fire-related casualties annually, particularly in older and social housing, what consideration has the Commission given to fire safety when developing the European affordable housing initiative?
2.Furthermore, does the Commission agree that a European fire safety strategy, as supported by several stakeholder organisations and Members of the European Parliament, would provide added value in ensuring that energy-efficient and decarbonised buildings are also fire-resilient?
Question for written answer E-000570/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE), Dolors Montserrat (PPE)
The Spanish Government has allocated over EUR 117 million in Recovery and Resilience Facility funding to the Spanish broadcasting company Radio Televisión Española (RTVE). This would make RTVE, a public entity, one of the main beneficiaries of those EU recovery funds.
The various projects RTVE has financed using those EU funds have not had the impact expected – they have actually been very controversial owing to breaches of regulatory requirements, the return of some of the funding, and the state of RTVE’s finances.
In light of the above:
1.Does the Commission know the total amount of EU Recovery and Resilience Facility funding that has been allocated to RTVE, the names of the companies subcontracted to carry out the projects, and how much money each subcontractor received? Does the Commission know how much progress was ultimately made on the projects?
2.Has the Spanish Government provided the Commission with an assessment of the various RTVE projects funded via the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the viewing figures, the airtime and the targets achieved?
Question for written answer E-000803/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE), Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE)
Studies confirm that excessive use of smartphones by children while attending primary schools (age 6 to 15) can have a serious negative impact on their mental health and well-being, as well as worsening their school performance and negatively influencing their social skills.
Upon her re-election as Commission President for a second term, Ursula von der Leyen vowed to tackle social media addiction and cyberbullying.
Given that EU Member States and regions regulate the use of mobile phones in primary schools differently, Commission guidelines on the issue could give much-needed guidance and help national and local authorities decide future arrangements in this area.
1.Is the Commission aware of the reported negative effects of children’s use of smartphones while at school both on children themselves as well as the educational process?
2.Has the Commission already issued any guidelines / taken a position on this issue? Is the Commission planning to take up the issue, gather examples of good practices from around the EU and share them with relevant national and local authorities?
Question for written answer E-000756/2025 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 144 Roberto Vannacci (PfE)
The Third Joint Declaration[1] of 2023 and the Ninth Progress Report[2] of 2024 confirm the strengthening of EU-NATO cooperation and underscore the commitment to complementarity and coordination between the two organisations in the field of European defence.
The European defence industrial strategy seeks to achieve EU strategic autonomy. Commissioner Kubilius called, at the hearings, for the creation of a European Defence Union complementary to NATO, proposing an increase in the 2028-2034 MFF to reduce dependence on third countries.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, speaking in the AFET Committee, also urged the Atlantic Alliance Member States to increase their defence spending[3], suggesting a rise from 2 % to 3.7 % of GDP and justifying this by the increased threat from Russia and the intensification of the conflict in Ukraine.
Russia, in a war economy, increased its military expenditure to USD 140 billion in 2024[4] while, over the same period, EU Member States, in a market economy, spent USD 314 billion.
In the light of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1.How does it justify acceding to NATO’s requests to the detriment of a more balanced and autonomous approach to European security policy?
2.What measures will it take to balance the increase in military spending with the other strategic priorities for the development of the EU?
Question for written answer E-000797/2025 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 144 Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR)
Regardless of any plans for rebuilding Gaza, the US Administration is clear about one thing: there is no place for Hamas in Gaza’s future. Anyone who grasps the gravity of the events of 7 October 2023 and saw Hamas’s recent repugnant demonstration of power when hostages were released and the bodies of murdered Israelis were handed over will agree that that is the right position. The EU’s position, however, is unclear.
1.Does the EU still regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation?
2.Does the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy agree that a terrorist organisation should not be treated as a legitimate administration or political actor?
3.Does the VP/HR agree that Hamas has no place in future plans for Gaza?
Press Conference by President: H.E. Ambassador Akan Rakhmetullin, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan; Ms. Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons; Ms. Eirini Giorgiou, Legal Advisor, International Committee of the Red Cross; Ms. Taraem Taukaro of Kiribati, A representative of affected community.
—
As the third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) got underway today (3 Mar) at United Nations Headquarters in New York, Kazakh First Deputy Foreign Minister Akan Rakhmetullin welcomed new ratifications of the Treaty by Indonesia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone and the Solomon Islands.
Rakhmetullin, who is presiding the meeting, said, “we are now working on the final documents, final declaration on the decisions on various aspects, on various facets of our process.”
Melissa Parke, who is the Executive Director at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said, “disarmament is eminently achievable. In fact, of all the global challenges we face, this is the least complex. Humans built nuclear weapons. Humans can dismantle them. All it requires is political will and leadership.”
At present, she said, “that leadership is coming from TPNW states parties, civil society, communities impacted by nuclear weapons use and testing, and from parliamentarians, scientists, artists, cities and investors who are taking their money out of nuclear weapons.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Legal Adviser Eirini Giorgiou said, “nuclear weapons continue to cast a deep shadow over our common future. The risk that they are used deliberately or inadvertently has grown exponentially. It’s fuelled by ongoing conflicts, strident nuclear rhetoric and various technological developments.”
Giorgiou said the international community has “a duty to prevent the unspeakable from happening again,” and the TPNW “is a response to this urgent imperative” as it “prohibits nuclear weapons as a necessary step towards their elimination and provides a realistic roadmap for getting there.”
The ICRC Legal Adviser said, “more than half of the world’s states have expressed their will to be bound by the Treaty and have subscribed to its vision for a just and peaceful future without nuclear weapons. We call on all remaining states to follow suit.”
For her part, Taraem Taukaro who is a representative of the affected community in Kiribati where nuclear test were conducted said, “these tests were conducted 68 years ago. The detrimental effects persist, particularly concerning our health. My mother has suffered from completing. My older sister was born deaf, and I experienced unexplained fainting spells during my teenage years. Many other families have faced various types of cancer, including her cervical and breast cancer.”
The Treaty was adopted on 7 July 2017 at the United Nations and entered into force on 22 January 2021. It was the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty to be negotiated in more than two decades.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called the Treaty “an important step towards the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and a strong demonstration of support for multilateral approaches to nuclear disarmament.”
The third Meeting of States Parties will hold a thematic debate on the risks for humanity of nuclear conflict and its devastating humanitarian consequences. States parties will also consider the status and operation of the Treaty, addressing issues related to universality; the total elimination of nuclear weapons; victim assistance, environmental remediation and international cooperation and assistance; and security concerns.
To date, 73 States have ratified or acceded to the Treaty and 94 have signed it.
The Meeting is expected to adopt a political declaration.
‘Improving care and respite for families’ is one of The Highland Council Administration’s investment proposals to be considered by councillors when they meet to decide the budget on Thursday 6 March.
Council will consider a recurring £0.250m investment to employ six family support workers to improve care and respite arrangements for families with the greatest needs.
Chair of Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Cllr David Fraser commented: “We said we would improve outcomes for all children and young people across Highland with a particular focus on our most vulnerable.
“This proposed investment aims to provide a greater availability of service provision for those who need it most and with a greater degree of inclusion. If approved, it will help support a future respite model, adding to the existing funding for short breaks, which will provide a greater degree of wrap around support for families.”
Cllr Fraser added: “In addition there is a proposed £1.048m investment Additional Support Needs (ASN) and an another of £0.200m to add to the Community and Family Wellbeing Fund. Taken together, these investments represent a significant commitment by the Administration to support children, young people and families across the Highlands.”
The proposal is based on the outcome of a review previously undertaken into respite services in the area, which has considered the needs and concerns of families of children with additional support needs.
If approved, the future model for respite will provide support across three centres located in north, west and south Highland – but available to families across the whole Highland area as part of a wider plan for children and families. By providing appropriate levels of respite and support, young people are more likely to be able to remain within their families and communities which has wide reaching financial and non-financial benefits.
Other benefits of the proposed future model are that it should help to ensure that families’ needs are met more effectively while ensuring the GIRFEC processes (Getting it Right for Every Child) work effectively on their behalf. In addition to respite care, the new service would also aim to provide positive support to families by providing more advice, assistance and guidance.
The budget report and proposals are available on the Council’s website and the Special Meeting of the Council starts at 09:30 on Thursday 6 March which will be webcast.
Following the success of our winter virtual job fair, The Highland Council’s Employability team has announced details of their spring fair, to highlight new job opportunities, and will run from the 17 to the 21 March 2025.
The week-long virtual event is being delivered by the Local Employability Partnership – Work. Life. Highland in partnership with, The Highland Council, Skills Development Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Department for Work and Pensions, Developing the Young Workforce and UHI North West and Hebrides.
Economy and Infrastructure Committee Chair, Cllr Ken Gowans, said: “The Highland-wide virtual jobs fair proved very successful last year, and therefore I’m delighted that another has been organised entering the spring/summer months, to offer people and businesses the opportunity to connect and showcase the wide range of opportunities there are to develop and learn new skills. Employers and The Highland Council’s Employability team will be on hand to support attendees, answer questions and explain what opportunities they have for training and up-skilling people.
“Being held online works well as it offers flexibility, without the need for travel. The sessions are designed for people to drop in and out of throughout the week. It will be accessible to everyone no matter their location or circumstances and will directly connect potential employees with the businesses providing information about work opportunities.”
Programme Manager at DYW West Highland, Jennifer Grant, said: “This virtual jobs fair is an exciting way for employers to showcase their offer to a wider audience. It’s also a superb opportunity for job seekers of all ages across the Highlands to connect with a range of employers in areas which interest them. We’re delighted to be part of the team working on delivering this opportunity and look forward to further initiatives as our contribution to the Highland Employability Partnership group.”
Spring is good time to consider employment opportunities, as many businesses gear up for the busy months ahead. Anyone interested in finding out more about career opportunities, looking to change careers or to return to work after a break will be able to log onto sessions hosted by businesses from the comfort of their own home.
Employers taking part include Balfour Beatty, Cross Reach, RAF, NHSH, Norscot, BBM Solicitors. Castle Project, Go Green, CALA, Glenmorangie House, High Life Highland, Highland Home Carers, Careers At Sea, Police Scotland and The Highland Council. More businesses still to be added.
They will host sessions to provide information about the full-time and part-time opportunities their businesses have, along with apprenticeship schemes and initiatives to attract seasonal and year-round workers.
Work. Life. Highland is the brand name for the Highland Employability Partnership (HEP). The Partnership brings together public, private and third sector organisations supporting individuals on their journey towards, into and within employment.
The Highland Council is reminding everyone that the public consultation on how Community Councils in the area are created and governed is still running.
The Council is keen to hear views from Community Councils and the wider public on these proposals and seeks further ideas and suggested changes to the Scheme.
The Community Council Scheme Review consultation remains open until 9 April 2025.
The Council invites feedback on the proposals by completing a short survey which is available online
The Commission condemns any form of cruelty to animals. In 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability[1] that aims to raise the level of protection for the welfare of dogs and cats.
The proposal requires animal welfare conditions for all premises or structures, including households, where dogs are bred with a view to placing the offspring on the market[2].
If hunters are breeding dogs at a frequency above the thresholds foreseen by the Commission proposal, these breeding and keeping activities would have to comply with the requirements specified by the EU legal act.
In addition, the proposal foresees that dogs kept in establishments for supply[3] in the Union, including dogs supplied by natural persons, be identified and registered in a national database.
Therefore, if any supply would take place in the context of hunting activities, the dog should be identified and registered. Such a requirement should discourage the abandonment of dogs, as traceability would make it possible to locate the person abandoning the dog. The examination of the Commission’s proposal by the European Parliament and by the Council is ongoing.
Different regulations concern different animal species. As foreseen in the Mission Letter for the Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare[4], the Commission intends to modernise the existing EU animal welfare legislation on the basis of new scientific, social and economic elements during its current mandate.
[2] Article 3 point 5 of the proposal defines ‘placing on the market’ as the keeping of dogs and cats for the purpose of sale, offering for sale, distribution or any other form of transfer of ownership or responsibility for the animal, that is against consideration or at least reimbursement of the costs incurred, including the advertising of animals for the above purposes.
[3] Article 3 point 6 of the proposal defines ‘supplying’ as the transferring of ownership or responsibility for dogs or cats through any means or form, whether for a consideration or not, excluding occasional supplies by natural persons of dogs or cats by other means than via the intermediation of an online platform.
[4] Page 6 of the Mission Letter: https://commission.europa.eu/document/b1817a1b-e62e-4949-bbb8-ebf29b54c8bd_en
1. The ‘Healthier Together’ initiative[1] provides a strategic framework for the Commission’s support to Member States in reducing the burden of cardiovascular diseases. Financial support under the EU4Health programme has been provided for collaborative actions between Member States on health determinants, such as nutrition and tobacco, and on mental health. These actions aim at reducing health inequalities and focus on vulnerable groups such as children. The Commission will continue to work with Member States and stakeholders to provide solutions to facilitate healthier food choices. Together with United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), the Commission is developing a prevention toolkit for children to support policymakers in promoting their mental and physical health. In line with the political guidelines and mission letter to the Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare[2], the Commission will step up its work on preventive health with a focus on improving cardiovascular health in the EU, and will propose a European cardiovascular health plan.
2. Ensuring a high level of public health is a fundamental principle of EU food law legislation. Under the General Food Law Regulation[3], all food placed on the EU market must be safe, i.e. not injurious to health or unfit for human consumption. To this end, the General Food Law Regulation lays down the responsibilities of the various actors along the food supply chain and of the Member States’ competent authorities to ensure that food placed on the EU market complies with these requirements. Furthermore, strict EU import rules with respect to food and feed hygiene, consumer safety and animal health status in place aim at assuring that all imports fulfil the same high standards as those required for products originating within the EU.
[3] Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).
COVID-19 vaccines have been authorised to protect against COVID-19. Vaccines are not authorised with the primary goal of reducing disease transmission, which is challenging to assess in clinical studies and requires large-scale real-world data.
Post-authorisation studies indicate that COVID-19 vaccines can reduce virus transmission, though their effectiveness varies over time and across regions due to circulating virus strains and preventive measures[1].
The first COVID-19 vaccines received conditional marketing authorisation based on short-term efficacy, with the duration of protection still being determined.
By 2021, real-world data showed reduced protection over time, particularly with new variants. Ongoing recommendations for booster doses and vaccine updates aim to maintain protection as the virus evolves.
The COVID-19 vaccine contracts that the Commission concluded on behalf of the Member States were based on products which were considered safe and efficacious according to EU pharmaceutical law requirements and authorised based on the European Medicines Agency’s advice.
Studies indicate that vaccine protection declines over time and that this is due, among other factors, to the emergence of new variants. COVID-19 vaccines authorised in the EU are regularly updated to maintain protection as SARS-CoV-2 evolves.
The vaccine contracts allowed and continue to allow Member States to order updated vaccines, once authorised and made available by manufacturers.
According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, all vaccines authorised in the EU were highly protective against hospitalisation, severe disease, and death, and delays in their availability could have had severe public health consequences[2].
The claim that there was any secret deal between the Commission and X is manifestly unfounded. There has never been any secret deal, nor any proposal for any such secret deal, of any kind, offered to X during the ongoing proceedings, nor to any other entity regulated under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
All acts and decisions adopted by the Commission on the basis of the DSA[1] are taken within the limits of the Commission’s powers, following due process and subject to judicial review. In its actions, the Commission is bound by the principle of transparency.
At any point during the proceedings, before and after the issuing of preliminary findings, any provider that is subject to proceedings under the DSA may offer commitments to the Commission pursuant to Article 71 of the DSA to ensure compliance with its DSA obligations.
Where such commitments are accepted by the Commission, the relevant decisions are published in full transparency, pursuant to Article 80 of the DSA (for example the recently published commitment decision regarding Tik Tok Lite)[2].
The DSA aims to enable a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and in which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU[3], in particular freedom of expression, are effectively protected. It does not censor users in the EU and protects them against over-removal of lawful content.
The DSA sets a series of ‘due diligence’ obligations on platforms, requiring them, for instance, to act effectively once they are notified that illegal content is accessible on their platform in the EU.
In this respect, the DSA does not stipulate whether content is illegal, which remains defined by national laws, and the Commission has no power to order the removal of content.
In the 2022, 2023 and 2024 country chapters on the rule of law situation in Spain[1], the Commission underlined that stakeholders had raised concerns about public statements made by politicians criticising the judiciary.
In this context, the Commission recalled that, according to European standards, while courts are not immune to criticism and scrutiny, the judiciary must enjoy public confidence to be successful in view of its special role in society.
This is particularly important in relation to statements by members of the legislative and the executive branches, as all powers of the State must foster and protect the trust of the general public in constitutional institutions including the judiciary.
This is an issue not specific to Spain alone, and in the Rule of Law Report the Commission has recalled these standards in comparable situations in other Member States.
[1] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/abdcd1f9-681e-43be-980b-f4205c3e0556_en?filename=23_1_194017_coun_chap_spain_en.pdf, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/62fdb34b-78d4-4d53-b9ea-67286facc01e_en?filename=23_1_52576_coun_chap_spain_en.pdf and https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2bd09a6f-ef56-494a-8303-e0de808ee981_en?filename=23_1_58063_coun_chap_spain_en_0.pdf
Question for written answer E-000840/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D)
The European Union is facing a crucial moment in its regulation of big technology companies. The owners of X and Meta are leading the main opposition to our digital legislation, attacking European sovereignty and threatening our democracies. Despite this, the European Commission’s response has been, on the one hand, to indicate that it will reassess its investigations into large platforms and, on the other hand, to withdraw legislative proposals to regulate them.
The withdrawal – under the pretext of stimulating investment – of its proposed Directive on Liability for AI, designed to make technology companies pay for any damage caused by AI tools or systems, sends out the dangerous message that European digital regulation is a bargaining chip in the new international arena.
In light of the above:
1.Is the Commission considering reassessing the investigations into large digital platforms and their compliance with the Digital Services Act?
2.Does the Commission plan to change its regulatory approach to the digital domain under the announced digital package, and if so, how?
3.How does the Commission plan to ensure compliance with and legal certainty of European digital laws with the new digital package?
Question for written answer E-000836/2025 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 144 Kosma Złotowski (ECR)
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Tehran and Moscow have established close relations in the fields of economy, energy and the arms industry. In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed a strategic cooperation agreement. Moreover, Iran continues to deliver military equipment, notably drones of its own design (type Shahed), to Russia, with the result that they are being used in Ukraine, with civilians among the reported casualties.
In response to Iran’s human rights violations, nuclear proliferation and provision of military support to Russia in its aggressive war against Ukraine, the EU has already imposed sanctions. The United States also imposed further sanctions on the Iranian petroleum industry in February 2025.
1.What are the proposals of the Vice-President / High Representative as regards the development of the EU’s common foreign and security policy towards Iran?
2.Does the Vice-President / High Representative intend to put forward new proposals for sanctions to be imposed by the Council? If so, which areas would be subject to further restrictions?
3.Does the Commission have information about the tangible losses for the Iranian regime caused by the EU sanctions already imposed? If so, what are the dimensions of these losses?