The Commission firmly believes that multilingualism is a core characteristic of the EU and its cultural diversity, and that the languages spoken in the different Member States are an essential part of Europe’s social and economic life and its cultural heritage.
The Commission would like to clarify that it fully respects the spirit of multilingualism: it promotes multilingualism as a guiding principle for fair use of the official languages of the EU, and it continues to use all 24 EU official and working languages in its activities.
French is one of the official and working languages of the EU institutions, including the Commission, and one of the most frequently used languages within the Commission.
The Commission firmly believes that multilingualism is a core characteristic of the EU and its cultural diversity, and that the languages spoken in the different Member States are an essential part of Europe’s social and economic life and its cultural heritage.
The Commission would like to clarify that it fully respects the spirit of multilingualism: it promotes multilingualism as a guiding principle for fair use of the official languages of the EU, and it continues to use all 24 EU official and working languages in its activities.
French is one of the official and working languages of the EU institutions, including the Commission, and one of the most frequently used languages within the Commission.
EU institution staff are recruited from all Member States. Each staff member brings their own cultural background under the banner united in diversity. The EU institutions strive to build a working environment where everyone feels included.
The European University Institute (EUI) is an intergovernmental organisation. As such, it is created and regulated by an international treaty — the Convention Setting up the EUI — signed by its contracting states.
According to Article 1(1)(b) of the High Council Decision N. 10/2020 of 15 December 2020[1], a representative of the European Parliament, a representative of the European Commission and a representative of the Council of the European Union shall take part in meetings of the High Council but shall not have the right to vote.
The Commission is not aware of any intention on the part of the contracting states to amend the Convention.
EU institution staff are recruited from all Member States. Each staff member brings their own cultural background under the banner united in diversity. The EU institutions strive to build a working environment where everyone feels included.
The European University Institute (EUI) is an intergovernmental organisation. As such, it is created and regulated by an international treaty — the Convention Setting up the EUI — signed by its contracting states.
According to Article 1(1)(b) of the High Council Decision N. 10/2020 of 15 December 2020[1], a representative of the European Parliament, a representative of the European Commission and a representative of the Council of the European Union shall take part in meetings of the High Council but shall not have the right to vote.
The Commission is not aware of any intention on the part of the contracting states to amend the Convention.
A delegation of seven Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by Chair David McAllister, travelled to Uruguay and Argentina from 26 to 29 May 2025. Members engaged in high-level discussions regarding the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement which was concluded last December in Montevideo, Uruguay. The findings from this visit will contribute to the preparatory work for the consent procedure on the political and cooperation aspects of the Agreement, for which AFET is responsible.
More broadly, this mission allowed to exchange views on bilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation, as well as geopolitical issues such as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East, and China’s expanding influence in Latin America.
A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.
This visit was also an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.
This visit was also an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
Members met with Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Speaker of the Parliament Igor Grosu, several government members, including Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Mihai Popșoi, Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration of Moldova Cristina Gherasimov, Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Oleg Serebrian and Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Development and Digitalization Dumitru Alaiba, as well as parliamentarians and representatives of civil society and think tanks.
The AFET delegation reaffirmed support for the ongoing reforms of the Moldovan government that aim to bring the country closer to the EU and highlighted the opportunities to achieve economic growth and a tangible improvement in people’s livelihoods through the implementation of the Reform and Growth Plan for Moldova.
Members met with Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Speaker of the Parliament Igor Grosu, several government members, including Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Mihai Popșoi, Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration of Moldova Cristina Gherasimov, Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Oleg Serebrian and Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Development and Digitalization Dumitru Alaiba, as well as parliamentarians and representatives of civil society and think tanks.
The AFET delegation reaffirmed support for the ongoing reforms of the Moldovan government that aim to bring the country closer to the EU and highlighted the opportunities to achieve economic growth and a tangible improvement in people’s livelihoods through the implementation of the Reform and Growth Plan for Moldova.
Question for written answer E-002430/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (PPE)
The rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies bring significant opportunities for innovation, including in the field of assistive technologies for persons with disabilities. However, these developments also present serious risks, including digital exclusion, algorithmic discrimination and a lack of accessibility in AI-powered services. Moreover, many AI systems lack the necessary safeguards to ensure non-discrimination, accessibility and transparency for persons with disabilities.
1.How is the Commission ensuring the active involvement of persons with disabilities and organisations representing them in the development, deployment and oversight of AI and emerging technologies?
2.What concrete measures are being taken to ensure that AI systems, including those developed or deployed by public authorities, are accessible and do not perpetuate bias or discrimination against persons with disabilities?
3.Are there plans to dedicate specific EU funding or innovation programmes to supporting inclusive, accessible AI that empowers persons with disabilities?
Question for written answer E-002430/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (PPE)
The rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies bring significant opportunities for innovation, including in the field of assistive technologies for persons with disabilities. However, these developments also present serious risks, including digital exclusion, algorithmic discrimination and a lack of accessibility in AI-powered services. Moreover, many AI systems lack the necessary safeguards to ensure non-discrimination, accessibility and transparency for persons with disabilities.
1.How is the Commission ensuring the active involvement of persons with disabilities and organisations representing them in the development, deployment and oversight of AI and emerging technologies?
2.What concrete measures are being taken to ensure that AI systems, including those developed or deployed by public authorities, are accessible and do not perpetuate bias or discrimination against persons with disabilities?
3.Are there plans to dedicate specific EU funding or innovation programmes to supporting inclusive, accessible AI that empowers persons with disabilities?
Question for written answer E-002490/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Seán Kelly (PPE)
In accordance with the PPWR[1], from 1 January 2030, ‘economic operators shall not place on the market packaging in the formats and for the uses listed in Annex V’, point 5 of which includes ‘single-use packaging for cosmetics, hygiene and toiletry products for the use in the accommodation sector’.
In reference to the restrictions set out by the PPWR in Article 25 and Annex V, point 5, concerning the provision of miniature cosmetics in the hospitality sector:
1.Could the Commission clarify the definition of ‘cosmetics, hygiene and toiletry products’ in this context?
2.What guidance is available for hoteliers on how to meet the needs of guests who may have forgotten essential hygiene items, such as a toothbrush or shaving kit?
3.If such items are banned from being pre-placed in hotel rooms, could they be made available on request at the reception or through other guest service channels? This approach allows hospitality operators to meet customer convenience while also aligning with the PPWR objectives to prevent packaging waste generation.
Submitted: 20.6.2025
[1] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj).
Question for written answer E-002490/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Seán Kelly (PPE)
In accordance with the PPWR[1], from 1 January 2030, ‘economic operators shall not place on the market packaging in the formats and for the uses listed in Annex V’, point 5 of which includes ‘single-use packaging for cosmetics, hygiene and toiletry products for the use in the accommodation sector’.
In reference to the restrictions set out by the PPWR in Article 25 and Annex V, point 5, concerning the provision of miniature cosmetics in the hospitality sector:
1.Could the Commission clarify the definition of ‘cosmetics, hygiene and toiletry products’ in this context?
2.What guidance is available for hoteliers on how to meet the needs of guests who may have forgotten essential hygiene items, such as a toothbrush or shaving kit?
3.If such items are banned from being pre-placed in hotel rooms, could they be made available on request at the reception or through other guest service channels? This approach allows hospitality operators to meet customer convenience while also aligning with the PPWR objectives to prevent packaging waste generation.
Submitted: 20.6.2025
[1] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj).
The European Investment Bank (EIB) and EWE AG announced the largest EIB loan that EWE has ever received at a ceremony marking the 25th anniversary of the EIB’s Berlin office today.
A long-term credit facility of up to €450 million was finalised at an event attended by German federal government ministers, project partners and stakeholders.
This will support investment totalling more than €700 million between 2025 and 2028. The programme includes the laying of more than 2,600 kilometres of new underground power lines and the construction and modernisation of over 1,100 substations, constituting another major step forward for energy infrastructure and energy security in northern Germany.
EWE Chief Financial Officer Frank Reiners said:
“We are pleased to further develop our partnership with the EIB. This financing will help supercharge our investments in grid expansion and digitalisation. This will enable us to rapidly and securely integrate more renewable energy into the power grid and strengthen the security of supply in our regions, thereby making them more attractive for new industrial developments.”
EIB Vice-President Nicola Beer added:
“What many people do not know is that the most important energy-transition investments are often right under our feet. With over 2,600 km of new underground power lines and more than 1,100 new and modernised substations, we are working with EWE to build a hidden backbone for a more secure energy supply and expanded use of renewable energy throughout northern Germany. Today’s signature of the EIB’s largest-ever financing for EWE at the 25th anniversary event for our Berlin office – attended by high-ranking representatives from politics and business – sends a strong signal for the future of energy supply in Germany. 2024 was a record year for EIB support for the energy grid and this project shows how we are actively shaping Europe’s green future.”
Hidden infrastructure – the backbone of the energy transition
Investing in power grids is at the heart of the European energy transition. The massive expansion of renewable energy makes high-performance, flexible grids vital to adding new wind and solar power systems, switching to electrical power for heat and transport and ensuring secure, reliable supply for households and industry. Around 95% of the electricity fed into EWE’s power grid in Lower Saxony comes from renewable sources. The investments will enable an additional 3 gigawatts (GW) of renewable generation capacity to be connected by 2028, representing an important contribution to German and European climate targets.
2024: A record year for EIB power grid investment
2024 was a record year for EIB support for power-grid investment across Europe. As the EU climate bank, the EIB has a long track record of financing key energy infrastructure projects making decarbonisation, economic growth and energy-security possible. In recent years, the EIB has financed grid modernisation and expansion in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU Member States, laying the foundations for a sustainable, interconnected European energy market.
Contributing to national and EU objectives
EWE’s investment programme is fully aligned with Germany’s national energy and climate plan, which foresees an 80% share of renewable energy in electricity use by 2030. It also supports the REPowerEU initiative by expanding clean-energy integration, cutting emissions and strengthening energy supply. A total of 40% Sof the investments will go to cohesion regions, promoting economic and social cohesion.
The EIB – a reliable partner for Europe’s energy transition
The EIB’s long-term, flexible financing provides a stable basis on which EWE can implement its investment plans, diversifies sources of funding and sends a positive signal to capital markets. As an anchor investor, the EIB is mobilising additional public and private capital for critical infrastructure projects.
Background information
EIB
The European Investment Bank is the world’s largest multilateral lender for climate action projects, supporting initiatives that promote sustainable growth, innovation and social cohesion in the European Union and beyond.
EWE
EWE AG is one of Germany’s leading energy and infrastructure companies, operating electricity, gas, water supply and telecommunications networks in Lower Saxony and beyond.
Question for written answer E-002445/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE), Catarina Vieira (Verts/ALE), Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE)
On 20 May 2025, the Commission presented the risk classification[1] related to the Deforestation Regulation[2] (EUDR). A few days later, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, complained that his country had been assigned a standard risk rating[3]. He expected his country to be granted a more favourable status, based notably on Article 29 of the EUDR and the recent Annex to the Trade and Sustainable Development chapter of the EU-Mercosur Agreement[4]. According to paragraph 56 of this agreement, ‘the EU recognises that this Agreement and actions taken to implement [sustainability measures affecting trade and the placement on the market related to the protection of wooded ecosystems] shall be favourably considered, among other criteria, in the risk classification of countries’.
1.Do our trade partners still enjoy the possibility of obtaining a reclassification of their status?
2.Could Argentina in theory challenge the classification under the rebalancing mechanism[5] of the same agreement (once it has entered into force) on the grounds that the implementing regulation is a measure[6] taken after the conclusion of the negotiations on 6 December 2024 as per the agreement? What will be the Commission’s line of defence if an arbitration panel is established?
[2] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj.
Question for written answer E-002427/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Per Clausen (The Left), Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Verts/ALE), Rasmus Nordqvist (Verts/ALE), Villy Søvndal (Verts/ALE), Stine Bosse (Renew)
We are astonished to note that the Commission will now be embarking on trade and strategic partnership negotiations with the six GCC countries – Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – without first clearly demanding the release of all EU citizens who are being held as political prisoners in the GCC countries’ brutal prisons.
A case in point is that of Danish national Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. He is a sick man who has been imprisoned in Bahrain for his work for democracy and human rights, and his case has been repeatedly raised by the European Parliament.
Accordingly:
1.Will the Commission do the decent and reasonable thing and clearly demand the release of all political prisoners from EU countries who may be imprisoned or subject to various restrictions in GCC countries, such as Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, before formally opening negotiations on trade agreements and/or strategic partnerships with the countries concerned?
2.How will the Commission clearly and unambiguously raise the issue of political prisoners in the six GCC countries at meetings with those countries’ representatives?
3.Will the Commission guarantee that any agreements will include mechanisms to ensure that agreements can be suspended in the event of human rights violations by contracting parties?
Question for written answer E-002481/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Marit Maij (S&D), Andreas Schieder (S&D), Alicia Homs Ginel (S&D), Romana Jerković (S&D), Nora Mebarek (S&D)
Across the EU, children are living in places that are not meant to be homes, such as cars and garages, which is considered informal homelessness. There are no concrete figures or evidence available, but aid workers in the Netherlands, for example, suspect a direct link to the housing crisis.
Given this situation:
1.Does the Commission have any figures available regarding homeless children in the EU that it could share?
2.If not, is it willing to research the extent of this problem, which concerns a very vulnerable group of citizens in Europe?
3.In light of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, could it please indicate the actions it has already taken to support these vulnerable children?
4. Exchange of views with H.E. María CASTILLO FERNÁNDEZ, Ambassador of the European Union to the Republic of Korea
5. Exchange of views with H.E. Jeonghyun RYU, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the Kingdom of Belgium, European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
***End of in camera***
6. Exchange of views following the 3 June elections in RoK and the implications for the relations with the EU with:
· Prof. Jae-Seung LEE, Director of Ilmin International Relations Institute and Director of the Jean Monnet EU Center of Excellence, Korea University
· Ms Lin GOETHALS, Director of the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS)
Question for written answer E-002444/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Maria Grapini (S&D)
The reindustrialisation of the EU is one of the objectives of the single market.
The previous Commission introduced a reindustrialisation programme with the aim of reducing dependence on third countries.
Despite this, European manufacturing is being eroded by imports of products from third countries that do not have the same production, quality, social and environmental standards as those imposed on European producers.
One example is the ceramic tiles industry in Romania, Italy, France, Poland and other European countries, which is being greatly affected by imports from India.
Prices of Indian ceramic tiles are half those of European prices, due to the use of cheaper gas from Russia and not having to pay a carbon tax on gas consumption or for Green Certificates (green taxation) for energy consumption.
What are the Commission’s concrete proposals for action to end unfair competition from imports of products not subject to environmental requirements and social standards?
The closure of European companies has led to the loss of jobs and sources of revenue for national budgets.
Question for written answer E-002440/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Rosa Serrano Sierra (S&D)
The heavy rainfall last weekend caused severe flooding in a number of Zaragoza and Teruel municipalities, notably Campo de Borja, Campo de Belchite and Bajo Martín.
The storms caused injuries and serious damage to homes, infrastructure, and agricultural and livestock farms. There were major disruptions to water and electricity supplies, landslides, collapsed bridges and blocked roads.
The new European Climate Adaptation Plan (ECAP), postponed to 2026, will play a vital role in helping European regions prepare for extreme climate events in the short and long term. It will also lay the groundwork for the planning for infrastructure, energy, water, food and land use in cities and rural areas.
Given that the Commission will present its proposal for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) in July, we would ask the following:
1.To what extent will climate adaptation be taken into account in the next MFF?
2.Does the Commission intend to strengthen the current funds (Civil Protection Mechanism, Solidarity Fund, Emergency Aid Reserve) to tackle the climate emergency or will it establish a new funding instrument?
3.When will ECAP be presented and what specific measures are planned?
Question for written answer E-002442/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 César Luena (S&D)
The planetary crisis that we face today is not just due to climate change, but also to the alarming loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems that are essential to life. In this context, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) officially dedicates 37 % of funding to the green transition, although Member States have exceeded this target, dedicating an average of 42 % of expenditure to climate goals.
However, while the RRF’s green transition pillar also covers other aspects related to biodiversity and the environment, the current monitoring system only tracks climate-related actions.
In light of this:
1.How will the Commission improve the monitoring system to more effectively track biodiversity and environmental measures under the RRF?
2.What specific steps will the Commission take to ensure that future financial instruments fairly and comprehensively address both climate action and environmental conservation?
3.How will the Commission ensure compliance with the principles of good government and efficient management of funds for biodiversity?
Question for written answer E-002437/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Giuseppe Antoci (The Left)
In recent months, several complaints have been lodged by workers, trade unions and local administrators about delays and irregularities in EU-funded building sites providing work for unemployed people in Sicily[1].
According to media reports[2] and a question to the Italian Parliament[3], at least four active building sites in the city of Catania are more than 90 days late in the payment of work grants to 60 workers, despite the fact that work began in February 2025, thereby pushing already disadvantaged people into greater poverty.
Workplace safety problems have also been observed: trade unions maintain that work is ongoing on certain sites without adequate specialist training for workers.
This would appear to entail misuse of EU funding, thus penalising the final beneficiaries thereof.
Can the Commission therefore say what measures it can take to ensure that European funds for employability and workplace inclusion are indeed being paid to the final beneficiaries within the planned timeframe?
Submitted: 17.6.2025
[1] Resources from the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Action Plan.
This study offers an in-depth examination of the European Union’s (EU) trade defence instruments (TDI), focusing on their evolution, implementation and impact on industries, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It takes stock of the European Commission’s trade defence activities and critically examines existing TDI. It highlights procedural complexities, including investigation timelines and provisional measures, alongside the unique challenges SMEs face in accessing TDI. It includes a short empirical analysis of the activity of EU trade defence measures and explores sector-specific dynamics, with examples from steel, ceramics and renewable energy industries, illustrating the protective and adaptive role of TDI against unfair global trade practices such as dumping and subsidies. Comparative insights into international practices from the USA, China and India further contextualise EU approaches.
Member States must ensure compliance with EU law, including verifying if assessments under Directives 2000/60/EC[1], 2011/92/EU[2], 92/43/EEC[3] and 2009/147/EC[4] are required for a project and, if so, assessing if they were performed in accordance with that legislation. Based on the information provided, the Commission cannot establish a breach of these EU Directives at this point in time.
In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors Member States’ compliance with EU law, focusing its enforcement action on systemic issues of non-compliance[5]. National courts are competent to verify compliance with EU law for individual cases.
Investment 4.1 ‘Primary water infrastructure for the security of water supply’ of the national recovery and resilience plan[6] (RRP) aims to ensure security of water supply and increase network resilience[7].
The Commission does not participate to the selection of projects, which falls under the remit of the Member State, but assesses the implementation of measures on the basis of the annex to the Council Implementing Decision on the Italian RRP[8].
Member States’ authorities, including the judiciary, are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with EU law, including verifying compliance of the specific projects undertaken in the context of the RRP.
[1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
[2] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU.
[3] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
[4] Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.
[5] As set out in Communication of 19 January 2017 ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, and in Communication of 13 October 2022 ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’, COM(2022) 518 final.
Question for written answer E-002435/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Ton Diepeveen (PfE), Auke Zijlstra (PfE)
The EU Competitiveness Compass presented by the Commission in January 2025 proposes a 28th legal regime that would simplify applicable rules and reduce insolvency costs. It also addresses relevant aspects of company, insolvency, labour and tax law[1].
It is stated in the European added value assessment[2] conducted by the European Parliament’s research services that tax breaks and tax incentives can increase the attractiveness of the EU for entrepreneurs and workers, and that inspiration can be drawn from existing schemes in Member States, such as lower corporate taxes on reinvestment of profits, reduced social security contributions, tax exemptions for dividends and stock options.
According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, tax concession schemes may constitute unlawful state aid[3].
1.Is the 28th legal regime intended to be in competition with Member States when it comes to tax matters?
2.How would Member States be able to lodge a complaint with the Commission against the 28th legal regime for an alleged breach of the EU state aid rules, given that the Commission is both the judge of, and a party to, such cases?
3.Do the tax rules under the 28th legal regime result in tax revenues being generated as own resources for the Union, even though the decision to introduce new own resources requires unanimity in the Council[4]?
Submitted: 17.6.2025
[1] Commission Communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ COM(2025) 030 final, p.4.
[2]Scaling up European innovation. What is the potential European added value of a 28thregime?, EPRS, European Added Value Unit, PE765.802, June 2025, p. 13.
[3] Judgment of 29 April 2025, E. sp. z o.o. v Prezydent Miasta Mielca, C-453/23, EU:C:2025:285.
Question for written answer E-002433/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Pál Szekeres (PfE)
In its latest concluding observations on the EU, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stresses the urgent need to prioritise funding for accessible housing for persons with disabilities. It specifically urges the EU to allocate resources through the Regional Development Fund in the 2028-2034 funding period and to take concrete measures within the European Affordable Housing Plan to enhance the availability of accessible housing. Retrofitting existing multi-residential housing stock with accessibility solutions is crucial for fostering inclusive communities and safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities across the EU.
1.What EU funding instruments are currently available to Member States, local authorities or advocacy organisations to support the retrofitting of existing non-accessible multi-residential housing stock with accessibility solutions, such as stairlifts?
2.What new EU-level funding mechanisms are planned or expected to be launched for the specific purpose of supporting accessibility upgrades in existing non-accessible multi-residential housing stock, and when?
Question for written answer E-002441/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE)
The Commission is working on the regulation derived from Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 on ecodesign requirements for sustainable products (the Ecodesign Regulation). With regard to wood-fired boilers and built-in fireplaces, there seem to be requirements that may involve adapting facilities and replacing equipment that would reduce their emissions, but also render them inoperative in a power cut (a common occurrence in many rural areas, particularly when there are winter storms), and place a significant financial burden on the poorest families in rural areas, whose average income is barely 75 % of the EU average.
This matter seems to be a clear example of the relevance of the introduction in this and many other legislative and policy initiatives of the rural proofing mechanism, which the Commission says it supports. In view of the above:
1.Should the Commission not put its proposal through the rural proofing mechanism with a view to reformulating it to provide for starting conditions that are more in tune with the actual circumstances in rural areas?
2.What plans, timetable, means and instruments does the Commission have for the introduction of the rural proofing mechanism in all its laws, policies and measures?
Question for written answer E-002438/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Giuseppe Antoci (The Left)
Question E-001700/2024[1] shone a spotlight on the high number of forest fires in Sicily, which alone accounted for around 45 % of the land burnt in Italy in the first eight months of 2024. In its answer of 29 October 2024, the Commission referred to the use of several European instruments: the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), the rescEU fund, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Sicily programme 2021-2027[2] and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding.
However, given the new fires recorded in June 2025, it is clear that Sicily remains highly exposed, raising doubts about whether prevention and resilience measures are being implemented effectively[3].
In September 2023, the Commission launched a pilot exercise to assess EU-funded measures to tackle forest fires in Greece and Italy. According to the European Court of Auditors’ special report 16/2025, those funds are not always used effectively, nor are they allocated systematically to the areas at highest risk or with a long-term perspective, thus undermining the effectiveness of action on the ground[4].
Can the Commission therefore say:
1.What specific conclusions concerning Italy, and particularly Sicily, were reached in the pilot exercise?
2.What is the state of play with regard to fire prevention resources in the implementation of the ERDF Sicily programme 2021-2027?
The infringement procedure referred to by the Honourable Member[1] remains open, with an ongoing dialogue with the Spanish authorities.
In the context of this infringement procedure, Spain has provided updates on its progress towards completing the designation process of the Special Conservation Areas across the country, including in the region of Galicia. Spain has also reviewed the methodology for setting site specific conservation objectives and measures at the time of adoption and/or update of the management plans, in order to provide a structural solution to the concerns expressed by the Commission.
The Commission is currently assessing the replies provided in the framework of the dialogue it has engaged with the Spanish authorities.
The Commission is currently assessing the recently adopted resolution[1] of the Slovak government on culling 350 bears, which lays down the obligation on the Minister of Environment to issue derogations for the culling.
The Commission has been in contact with the Slovak authorities and asked for more information about the implementation of this resolution and the derogation decisions issued by Slovakia. The Commission has also sought clarification on the new methodology used by Slovakia to estimate its bear population.
Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties, Member States’ national administrative and judicial authorities are primarily responsible to ensure that EU legislation is complied with. In that respect the Commission recalls that national courts play an essential role in ensuring that the derogations adopted at national level are in full compliance with the provisions of the Habitats Directive[2].
Nonetheless, the Commission is closely following the situation and in case of an established breach would take any action deemed necessary.
[1] Slovak Government resolution 182/2025 of 2 April 2025: https://rokovania.gov.sk/RVL/Resolution/22363/1.
[2] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.