The Budgetary Support Unit organises a workshop to provide an overview of the revenue side of the EU budget, proposals for new own resources, blockages and possible ways forward. A proposal for new own resourced has been on the table since 2023 and, since it has not made progress, it should be updated in July, along with the EU long-term budget (MFF) post-2027 proposal.
Three experts will share their insights: Zsolt Darvas (Bruegel), Rebecca Christie (Bruegel) and Niko Pankka (an independent researcher).
Question for written answer E-002041/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Sebastian Everding (The Left), Anja Hazekamp (The Left)
Since 2015, animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have exposed the cruelty of extracting blood from pregnant mares in order to obtain the pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG) hormone, which is used to increase and synchronise the fertility of farmed animals, despite alternatives being available.
PMSG production is in breach of EU legislation[1], but European pharmaceuticals companies continue importing PMSG from non-EU countries, inter alia from Iceland[2].
A new NGO investigation from September 2024 again shows the semi-wild horses being subjected to mistreatment, massive stress and pain during the blood collections[3].
1.In 2021, Parliament adopted a resolution on a farm to fork strategy[4] which calls on the Commission to halt the import and domestic production of PMSG[5]. Why has the Commission not heeded Parliament’s call?
2.Will the Commission include high animal welfare standards in the revised Good Manufacturing Practice in order to ensure that no more cruelly produced PMSG will enter the EU market?
3.Is the Commission considering restricting PMSG imports under World Trade Organization rules for reasons of animal protection and to safeguard public morals?
Submitted: 21.5.2025
[1] Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj.
Question for written answer E-002055/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Claudiu-Richard Târziu (ECR)
According to the World Bank, Romania needs to invest over 350 billion dollars by 2050 just to decarbonise its energy sector – an amount equating to approximately 4 % of its annual GDP. This reflects the enormous burden that the green transition is placing on eastern European countries, with no clear guarantees as to the economic or social benefits.
In its current form, the ‘green mirage’ could do serious harm to strategic industries, increase dependence on imports from outside the EU and put jobs at risk. While Romania is bearing huge costs, other economies are receiving subsidies or ignoring the rules set at European level.
1.Why is the Commission promoting a climate agenda that is harming eastern European countries disproportionately?
2.How does it justify the costs imposed on Romania in comparison with the preferential treatment of other states?
3.What will it do to protect European industries from unfair competition and balance efforts between East and West?
European Commission Speech Brussels, 28 May 2025 In a joint press conference today, High Representative/Vice-President Kallas and Commissioners Kos and Síkela presented the EU Strategy for the Black Sea region and the proposal for a Regulation on the External Action Guarantee.
The Commission is actively monitoring Northvolt’s situation to mitigate potential negative impacts on the European battery value chain.
While this bankruptcy, that is mainly due to industrial issues, presents a setback, the Commission’s determination to build a resilient, cost-competitive battery ecosystem in Europe remains.
A Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the European Automotive Industry began on 30 January 2025, and an Action Plan to enhance the sector’s global competitiveness was published on 5 March 2025[1].
This includes a ‘Battery Booster’ to support the European value chain, in particular cell production and components through direct funding and non-price criteria for components. EUR 1.8 billion will be allocated over two years from the Innovation Fund to support EU battery manufacturing.
The regulation (EU) 2019/631[2] on CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles, as amended in 2023 by Regulation (EU) 2023/851[3], provides a framework for transitioning to zero-emission vehicles, aligning with the EU’s goal to be climate-neutral by 2050[4].
Based on Article 14a and 15 of that regulation, the Commission is preparing a report on progress towards zero-emission mobility and is reviewing the impact and effectiveness of the regulation also taking into account all the technological developments .
The Industrial Action Plan for the automotive sector[5] calls for an acceleration of the work on this review which will be based on a fact-based analysis of technological developments.
Question for written answer E-002044/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Catherine Griset (PfE), Christophe Bay (PfE), Mélanie Disdier (PfE), Julie Rechagneux (PfE), Séverine Werbrouck (PfE), Fabrice Leggeri (PfE), Gilles Pennelle (PfE), Pascale Piera (PfE)
The Commission has begun to consider whether police forces could gain access to encrypted messages.
Although useful in the fight against organised crime, any backdoor could nevertheless be exploited by malicious actors, such as hackers, unscrupulous private companies or third country intelligence services.
As my colleague Aurélien Lopez-Liguori, Member of the French National Assembly, has noted, such backdoors would inevitably weaken encryption and therefore be a chink in the cybersecurity armour[1].
The risk is such that a provision to that effect was rejected in a National Assembly debate a few weeks ago.
1.Will the Commission take that security risk into account before introducing any legislative proposals that require the various messaging services to contain a backdoor?
2.If necessary, will it ensure that any authorisation to override message encryption can only be issued by a judge, as part of a criminal investigation and for a limited period of time?
3.Finally, how does it intend to require messaging services owned (as almost all are) by non-EU companies to contain backdoors?
Priority question for written answer P-002088/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Nikolaos Anadiotis (NI)
In its proposal to the Council, COM(2025) 122 final, the European Commission proposed the SAFE mechanism to boost investment in the European defence industry. First of all, according to this proposal, the participation of non-EU countries that threaten or fail to recognise Member States is not excluded in the funding of investment projects. What is more, invoking Article 122 TFEU on procedure is contrary to the principles of institutional balance:
— It circumvents, on the one hand, the Council’s basic rule of unanimity in the voting of common security and defence policy matters, and, on the other hand, the European Parliament as co-legislator with the power of scrutiny (Articles 13, 14 and 36 TEU), while depriving the Member States of their right of veto in foreign policy matters.
— This article concerns economic crises or natural disasters and therefore cannot replace the specific legal bases of Title V TEU or Regulation (EU) 2021/697 on the European Defence Fund.
In view of the above, can the Commission answer the following:
1.What is the legal basis for the application of Article 122 TFEU in military/defence matters?
2.How is the role of Parliament guaranteed in accordance with Articles 13, 14 and 36 TEU?
3.Does it intend to review the procedure in order ensure due compliance?
Question for written answer E-002022/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN)
On 25 March 2025, the Commission introduced an EU-wide aquaculture campaign called ‘EU aquaculture. We work for you with passion’. The campaign is an initiative of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. However, there is no information anywhere online regarding its funding. The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) supports the EU common fisheries policy, the EU maritime policy and the EU agenda for international ocean governance.
The Regulation establishing the EMFAF[1] provides for funding for communication campaigns:
‘The Commission should implement information and communication actions relating to the EMFAF, and its actions and results. Financial resources allocated to the EMFAF should also contribute to the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union, insofar as they are related to the priorities of the EMFAF.’
Given this, can the Commission clarify the following:
1.Out of what budget was this campaign paid for?
2.How much did the campaign cost?
3.How was the budget for this campaign broken down, i.e., how much was dedicated to creative concepts, how much to research, how much to social media, etc.?
Submitted: 21.5.2025
[1] Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (OJ L 247, 13.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1139/oj).
Question for written answer E-002038/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Eleonora Meleti (PPE)
The issue of early marriage and early motherhood in Roma communities remains a sad reality. 46 % of Roma women marry before the age of 18, while one in three becomes pregnant during adolescence. These practices violate the rights of women and children, exposing them to increased risks to their health and future well-being. Furthermore, they are not in line with the EU’s social principles and values, and undermine children’s innocence, personal development and free life choices. Imposing adult responsibilities on children often leads to psychological trauma, social exclusion and the perpetuation of poverty and inequality.
The EU Roma strategic framework is a good first step, but it does not address the issue. Given that the EU condemns child marriage practices in non-EU countries as part of its foreign policy, it must also take action to combat this dangerous phenomenon in its Member States.
In view of the above:
1.What measures does the Commission intend to put in place to eliminate early marriages and pregnancies?
2.Does the Commission intend to enhance funding for targeted information and integration programmes for Roma communities?
The EU supports the transition process towards a unified, stable and peaceful Syria. As of 6 March 2025, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that over 356 200 Syrians have returned to Syria via neighbouring countries since early December 2024, and that almost 890 000 internally displaced persons have returned to their home region since November 2024.
While remaining cautious due to the volatile situation in Syria and the many challenges which still lie ahead, and in line with the European Council conclusions of 19 December 2024[1], the EU is committed to help create the conditions for safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees.
The EU will continue to work with neighbouring countries as well as specialised agencies[2] in this regard, in particular by supporting Syrians who decide to go home and by stepping up its support for Syria’s socioeconomic recovery, including through the gradual easing of EU restrictive measures. The EU support and suspension of sanctions is commensurate with the developments in the country.
Syrian nationals who are beneficiaries of international protection have a right to reside in the territory of a Member State that granted them protection.
Directive 2011/95[3] provides for the conditions to assess whether the person has ceased to be a refugee or to be eligible for subsidiary protection and whether to revoke, end or refuse to renew refugee or subsidiary protection status[4].
When a person is no longer a beneficiary of international protection and if they have no other right to stay, they fall under the scope of the Return Directive[5]. When implementing the Return Directive, Member States shall respect the principle of non-refoulement[6].
[2] Such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration.
[3] Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast).
[4] This is subject to the procedural safeguards laid out in Directive 2013/32, including an individualised assessment and the right to an effective remedy against a decision withdrawing international protection status.
[5] Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals.
Regulation (EU) 2018/785[1] banned all outdoor uses of plant protection products (PPP) containing thiamethoxam because of unacceptable impacts on bees. Thereafter, the applicant for the renewal of approval of thiamethoxam withdrew its application and the approval expired in 2019.
Regulation (EU) 2023/334[2] lowered all Maximum Residue Levels for thiamethoxam to the technical zero[3], considering the impact on bees, which is an environmental concern of global nature. These levels also apply to products imported into the EU.
Decisions on the approval of active substances are always based on a scientific assessment of potential effects on human health or the environment, the consideration of other legitimate factors and the precautionary principle, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009[4] which does not explicitly include socioeconomic factors[5].
As set out in its Vision for Agriculture and Food[6], the Commission will carefully consider any further ban of pesticides if alternatives are not yet available, unless the pesticide in question represents a threat to human health or to the environment that agriculture relies on for its viability.
Member States can grant emergency authorisations for PPP containing non-approved active substances, if these are necessary to combat a danger to plants that cannot be controlled by other reasonable means.
The Common Agricultural Policy supports farmers with, e.g., investments, research, production methods, replanting of orchards after mandatory grubbing.
If phytosanitary measures require restriction of movement of fruits/vegetables within the EU, exceptional supporting market measures can be adopted. Horizon Europe[7] prioritises plant health research and innovation[8] under its cluster 6[9].
[2] Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/334 of 2 February 2023 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products. OJ L 47, 15.2.2023, p. 29-45.
[4] Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).
[5] Recital 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009: ‘The provisions governing authorisation must ensure a high standard of protection. In particular, when granting authorisations of plant protection products, the objective of protecting human and animal health and the environment should take priority over the objective of improving plant production. Therefore, it should be demonstrated, before plant protection products are placed on the market, that they present a clear benefit for plant production and do not have any harmful effect on human or animal health, including that of vulnerable groups, or any unacceptable effects on the environment’.
[6] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the committee of the Regions. A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations. COM/2025/75.
The Commission conducted an audit in Poland from 6 to 25 November 2024 in order to follow up on the audit report 2021-7187[1] from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety on bovine meat, including traceability, and on poultry meat and products derived therefrom.
The objective of the audit was to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the measures presented to the Commission to address the recommendations contained in the 2021 audit report.
In that context, the assessment of the actions the Polish competent authorities provided to reduce Salmonella contamination in poultry meat were part of the audit.
The report is currently being finalised and, in accordance with Article 117 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625[2], the report of this audit will be made publicly available on the Commission website[3] in due course.
On 4 June 2025 at 14.45, ECON Members will vote on the ‘Financial activities of the European Investment Bank – annual report 2024’. The draft report welcomes the strategic priorities of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for 2024-2027 and includes a strong call for the EIB to play an even bigger role in addressing Europe’s investment needs and funding common EU priorities. It also reiterates the Parliament’s call for an interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament and the EIB.
As usual, the BUDG and ECON Committees alternate in preparing an own-initiative annual report on the EIB and this year it is ECON’s turn. Members tabled 317 amendments to the draft report by the Rapporteur, Francisco Assis, who then tabled five compromise amendments that deal with a wide range of topics. These include: closing the investment gap and fostering competitiveness; consolidating the EIB’s role as EU’s climate bank; financing peace, security and defence; addressing challenges in social infrastructure, cohesion policy and housing; promoting digital transformation and new technologies; EIB neighbourhood and Global Gateway; governance: accountability and transparency. The plenary vote is planned for the July 2025 part-session.
Rapporteur: Francisco ASSIS (S&D) Shadows: Kinga KOLLÁR (EPP), Jaroslava POKORNÁ JERMANOVÁ (PfE), Johan VAN OVERTVELDT (ECR), Ľudovít ÓDOR (Renew), Damian BOESELAGER (Greens/EFA), Marc BOTENGA (The Left)
The Commission closely monitors trade defence investigations conducted by third countries targeting EU exports. Trade defence instruments are available to all World Trade Organisation (WTO) members provided that the relevant WTO requirements are abided by.
In January 2024 the Turkish authorities initiated a safeguard investigation by Notice 2024/1, number 32427, pursuant to the regulation on Import Protection Measures No 25486 published in the Official Gazette of Türkiye, dated 8 June 2004, which implements the WTO Safeguard Agreement into Turkish domestic legislation.
The investigation covers imports of uncoated paper from all third countries. In June 2024 Türkiye introduced definitive safeguard measures on the product concerned in form of a specific duty of USD 87 per ton, subsequently decreasing every year.
Since the beginning, the Commission has been actively intervening as interested party in the framework of the investigation, in close cooperation with the EU industry (Confederation of European Paper Industry).
A first written submission dated 20 February 2024, in support of the EU producers concerned was sent to the Turkish authorities. The Commission also intervened at the public hearing[1] which took place in April 2024.
Following these interventions certain products not produced in Türkiye were excluded from the scope. The Commission will continue to closely monitor the case and intervene as appropriate during any subsequent steps, such as a possible mid-term review.
The Commission recognises that regulatory requirements in general may be more burdensome for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
For this reason, the Commission has adopted a number of measures aimed at creating a business-friendly environment[1], facilitating access to finance[2], improving access to markets[3], fostering competitiveness[4], and innovation for SMEs[5].
As regards novel foods, some Member States are in addition providing financial and technical support for SMEs to prepare and submit novel food applications and others are exploring such possibility.
Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published the second Call for Expression of Interest targeting Novel Food SMEs[6], aiming at raising awareness and facilitating access for SME applicants to the pre-submission advice service by the European Food Safety Authority, specifically in the area of novel foods.
The Commission carried out an impact assessment[7] prior to adopting its proposal on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs)[8], focusing on the burden and costs for food business operators and developers to bring NGT plants to the market, and not on additional potential requirements that might arise from other existing EU legislation applicable to Category c NGT plants and products .
According to the proposal, plants verified to be Category c NGT plants would be subject to other regulatory requirements as they apply to comparable plants obtained by conventional breeding.
The Commission notes that the Novel Foods Regulation[9] requires every operator to verify whether a food it intends to place on the market is novel or not and maintains a catalogue[10] with examples to support companies in this regard.
[1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entrepreneurship 2020 action plan reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe, COM/2012/0795 final (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52012DC0795).
[9] Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, OJ L 327, 11.12.2015, p. 1. See Article 4.
Article 1(b) of Directive 2012/34/EU[1] establishing a Single European Railway Area (‘the directive’) refers to: ‘the criteria applicable to the issuing, renewal or amendment of licences by a Member State intended for railway undertakings which are or will be established in the Union’.
Those criteria are set out in Chapter III of the directive. Under the general requirements for obtaining a licence, Article 17(1) specifies that undertakings are entitled to apply for a licence in the Member State in which they are established. Railway undertakings not established in a Member State of the European Union cannot apply for a European Union licence and, as a consequence, cannot provide rail transport services (Article 17(4)).
Railway undertaking established in the European Union and in possession of an appropriate licence must comply with all the relevant requirements of EU legislation, including those on governance and separation of accounts.
Any specific case of alleged non-compliance with these legal requirements should be referred to the Commission’s services for an in-depth informed assessment.
[1] Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (recast) Text with EEA relevance OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32-77.
As an EU candidate country and a long-standing member of the Council of Europe, Türkiye is expected to respect fundamental rights, which are an integral part of EU-Türkiye relations, and implement the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Commission has repeatedly called on Türkiye to implement the ECtHR judgments as a matter of priority, including in the Commission’s annual enlargement reports[1].
The Commission is not in the position to comment on how the International Criminal Police Organisation implements an international wanted persons notice, issued at the request of one of its member countries.
The provisions under Article 15 and Annex VI of the Habitats Directive[1] establish certain restrictions for the means of capture and killing of species protected by the directive.
The Commission does not have evidence that burrow hunting with dogs is used to hunt species protected by the Habitats Directive nor is it currently aware of any negative impact of this practice on the conservation status of the populations of the species listed in Annex IV and V of the directive.
[1] 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. 7-50.
The Commission’s proposal for the next multiannual financial framework will ensure a simpler, more focused and impactful budget aligned with EU priorities.
Recognising the importance of food security and nature protection for Europe’s quality of life, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will aim to support farmers in a more targeted way, enhance environmental and social outcomes, and foster thriving rural areas in a simpler, more targeted manner, with the right balance between incentives, investment and regulation.
The Commission is aware of the challenges in Romania’s livestock sector. Several measures already exist and can be used to support the sector.
Current solutions for this sector under the CAP framework such as coupled income support, sectoral interventions, and investments allow for targeted strategies without causing disproportionate trade distortion.
Romania and other Member States also offer transitional national aid. Supporting breeding animal purchases is not in line with the current CAP rules.
Fishing capacity ceilings are vital to prevent overfishing. The Commission recognises the challenges they may pose for fleet modernisation.
Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Member States can already address additional capacity needs, as many have a margin between capacity ceilings and actual fishing capacity.
An evaluation of the CFP Regulation is ongoing, with results expected in early 2026, to assess its suitability in today’s context and emerging challenges.
The arrests of Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and many protestors give rise to questions regarding Türkiye’s adherence to its long-established democratic tradition.
As a Council of Europe member and EU candidate, Türkiye must uphold the highest standards in the protection of fundamental rights, respect of democratic principles and the rule of law. The rights of elected officials, as well as the right for peaceful demonstrations need to be respected.
On 19 March 2025, the High Representative/Vice-President and the Commissioner for Enlargement issued a Joint Statement[1] noting that respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law are essential for the EU accession process and will continue to be an integral part of EU-Türkiye relations.
The President of the Commission also answered a media question with a similar message. In view of the current developments, the Commissioner for Enlargement has cancelled a visit to the Antalya Diplomatic Forum that was planned from 11 to 13 April 2025.
Türkiye is a key partner for the EU and a candidate country. However, accession negotiations with Türkiye have remained at a standstill since 2018, in line with the Council Conclusions.
The EU’s serious concerns about the continued deterioration of democratic standards, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and respect for fundamental rights have not been yet addressed as confirmed most recently by the December 2024 Council Conclusions on enlargement[2].
The issue will continue to be raised on all levels with the Turkish authorities.
The Commission may intervene in cases raising issues, where there is sufficient evidence of a general practice, of a problem of compliance of national legislation with EU law.
However, Law 4056/2012 concerns national administrative proceedings related to permits for the housing of farmed animals. Those administrative proceedings are not under the remit of EU law. Hence, this question is referring to national legislation that does not fall under the competence of the Union.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plan Regulation[1] includes several interventions that may help farmers to adapt to the new requirements.
Under the CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027[2], in addition to direct payments, Greece envisages also support for farm modernisation investments, bio-security interventions and advisory services.
Where Union law imposes new requirements on farmers, support may be granted for investments to comply with those requirements for a maximum of 24 months from the date on which they become mandatory for the holding.
The Commission is aware of the reports on transformations of Hagia Sophia’s surroundings. Istanbul Municipality sealed a historical cistern next to Hagia Sophia used as a spa complex, and, in December 2024, took a decision to ban the unauthorised use of the cistern as a spa. In January 2025, concrete instructions for the required restoration were issued.
Türkiye should respect the letter and the spirit of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) 1972 World Heritage Convention and, therefore, avoid any implementing measure, without prior discussion with Unesco, that would affect the protection and conservation of the site in its original, historical context. Any steps that would endanger its outstanding value should be prevented.
The Commission will continue following the developments regarding the site of Hagia Sophia, also in the framework of its annual Türkiye report[1], as it has done over the past years.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) welcomes the launch of the United Nations Ocean Investment Protocol, a comprehensive new framework to align financial flows and business practices with the transition to a sustainable ocean economy. As a knowledge partner in its development, the EIB recognises the Protocol as a vital guide to scaling finance for a healthy and resilient ocean.
The United Nations Global Compact and the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) today unveiled the Protocol, which builds on the UN Global Compact Sustainable Ocean Principles and UNEP FI’s Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles. The Ocean Investment Protocol offers financial institutions, insurers, ocean industries, governments, and development finance institutions a clear pathway to collectively foster the growth of the Sustainable Ocean Economy and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG14 (“Life Below Water”).
As the largest supporter of the blue economy among development finance institutions, the EIB Group has committed €10.6 billion to blue economy projects between 2020 and 2024, mobilising €43 billion in total investments. The EIB was also a co-founder of the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles in 2017, helping to set a global standard for responsible investment.
The release of the Ocean Investment Protocol comes at a pivotal moment, as global momentum builds around a nature-positive agenda, the urgent need to curb carbon emissions, and accelerating action to tackle plastic and chemical pollution. The Protocol is intended to galvanize multi-stakeholder collaboration in the run-up to major ocean, climate, and biodiversity milestones.
Key elements include:
Holistic Guidance for financial actors to manage environmental risks and pursue growth in sectors such as offshore renewables, sustainable seafood, and climate-resilient infrastructure.
Data and Disclosure recommendations, promoting greater transparency on nature-related risks and impacts and aligning with global reporting frameworks, including the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and science-based targets.
Sector-Specific Roadmaps outlining responsible financing and operational practices in shipping, tourism, fisheries, renewable energy and other key ocean industries.
Policy and Regulation Support to foster investment-ready environments, highlight the importance of marine spatial planning and encourage incentives for sustainable practices.
Catalytic Role of Development Finance in advancing pipeline development for the Sustainable Ocean Economy, especially in emerging markets and coastal communities most vulnerable to climate change.
“The UN Ocean Investment Protocol is a strong complement to the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles, which the EIB co-founded,” said EIB Vice-President Ambroise Fayolle. “It provides governments, financial institutions, insurers, and companies with the clarity and guidance needed to align private investments with the Sustainable Development Goals. By setting clear recommendations for responsible investment, the Protocol will help ensure that growth in ocean industries goes hand in hand with environmental stewardship and social inclusion. At the EIB, we look forward to helping turn these recommendations into concrete action for the benefit of people and planet.”
Background information
A thriving ocean is essential for biodiversity, food security, climate resilience, and global livelihoods. The Sustainable Ocean Economy links ocean health with prosperity—making targeted finance more urgent than ever. It is central to achieving the targets of the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. With ocean health inseparable from global prosperity, mounting pressures—rising ocean temperatures, overfishing, pollution, biodiversity loss, weak governance, and inequitable access to marine resources—highlight the urgency of dedicated investments and policies that safeguard marine ecosystems and drive equitable economic opportunities.
The ocean economy is already equivalent in size to the world’s fifth largest economy, and global markets are reliant on the ocean and its industries to support 90 percent of global trade volume. Developing a regenerative and sustainable ocean economy is becoming increasingly central to global transitions in trade, infrastructure, energy, climate resilience, food security and regenerative tourism. The Ocean Investment Protocol responds to the critical need for swift, holistic efforts to preserve ocean ecosystems and foster growth in sustainable ocean-based sectors. It outlines actionable steps to align investments with nature- and climate-positive outcomes, fostering innovation across key ocean sectors. By 2050, the market value of a refocused, sustainable and fairly shared ocean economy is projected to reach USD$5.5 trillion.
EIB
The European Investment Bank (ElB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. Built around eight core priorities, we finance investments that contribute to EU policy objectives by bolstering climate action and the environment, digitalisation and technological innovation, security and defence, cohesion, agriculture and bioeconomy, social infrastructure, high-impact investments outside the European Union, and the capital markets union.
The EIB Group, which also includes the European Investment Fund (EIF), signed nearly €89 billion in new financing for over 900 high-impact projects in 2024, boosting Europe’s competitiveness and security.
All projects financed by the EIB Group are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, as pledged in our Climate Bank Roadmap. Almost 60% of the EIB Group’s annual financing supports projects directly contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a healthier environment.
Fostering market integration and mobilising investment, the Group supported a record of over €100 billion in new investment for Europe’s energy security in 2024 and mobilised €110 billion in growth capital for startups, scale-ups and European pioneers. Approximately half of the EIB’s financing within the European Union is directed towards cohesion regions, where per capita income is lower than the EU average.
High-quality, up-to-date photos of our headquarters for media use are available here.
On 3 June 2025, the AFET Committee will host a Structured Dialogue with Marta Kos, Commissioner for Enlargement. As foreseen in the Annex IV of the EP-Commission Framework Agreement, committees should hold exchanges of views with their relevant Commissioners on the state of implementation of the current Commission Work Programme as well as on the priorities to be reflected in the next year’s Commission Work Programme.
During the exchange of views, the AFET Members will have the opportunity to touch upon priority topics such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the security situation in Europe and the EU’s neighbourhood and enlargement policy.
Question for written answer E-002019/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Bart Groothuis (Renew)
Galileo, the EU’s global navigation satellite system, is central to the EU’s drive for technological sovereignty. However, recent observations by experts raise doubts about system performance and institutional transparency. On 7 May 2025, the EU Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) issued a notice[1] warning of potential service degradation ‘up to (…) disruption of service’ without a clear explanation. Moreover, an independent observer has reported that multiple satellites are broadcasting outdated data, potentially causing positioning errors affecting navigation and transport. At the same time, cryptographic authentication appears to be malfunctioning, weakening safeguards against spoofing and giving rise to concerns about secure use in critical services such as emergency response.
1.Can the Commission confirm the nature and scope of the reported system issues, including outdated satellite data and authentication malfunctions, and clarify what steps have been taken to mitigate risks to users?
2.What measures is the Commission taking to ensure the continuous accuracy and integrity of Galileo’s broadcast data, especially in the light of recent anomalies?
3.What protocols are in place to ensure timely and transparent communication with users and researchers during service degradations, and does the Commission consider the recent EUSPA notice adequate in this regard?
Question for written answer E-002034/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Mélanie Disdier (PfE), Fabrice Leggeri (PfE), Marie Dauchy (PfE), Mathilde Androuët (PfE)
Not a week goes by without a child in the EU being attacked by a sexual predator.
Currently, many European countries do not have a database listing every person convicted of crimes against children.
Worse still, sports club managers are neither obliged to request nor authorised to require a criminal record check from another Member State.
Given that the easiest way to be in contact with children is through sport, we urgently need to completely reassess the checks on coaches and managers to combat crimes against children.
Just recently in France, in the Dunkirk area, a Belgian educator, who had already been convicted of paedophilia by the Tournai criminal court, was able to work as a coach without the club’s managers being able to run a check on his past. Several reports, followed by complaints, revealed that the individual in question had already been convicted.
Does the Commission have plans for a system to check a person’s criminal record in other Member States, in particular their country of origin or residence, before they are employed in sensitive positions (for example, as educators working with children or as school bus drivers), as the person may have been convicted when working in such positions before?
Question for written answer E-002018/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)
Currently, the detection of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online is regulated by a temporary extension of the ePrivacy derogation[1] to allow the voluntary detection, by internet platforms, of such material.
Why has the Commission not proposed the mandatory use of AI-based tools on social media platforms to detect new CSAM, particularly in situations where end-to-end encryption is not an obstacle, despite research showing that AI is the only effective method for identifying new CSAM?
Submitted: 21.5.2025
[1] Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on a temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC as regards the use of technologies by providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services for the processing of personal and other data for the purpose of combating online child sexual abuse (OJ L 274, 30.7.2021, p. 41, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj).
According to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are responsible for the organisation and delivery of their health services and medical care, in full respect of EU law.
-border mobility of healthcare workers is ensured via the rules laid down in Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications[1].
Based on the available information, the undergoing reform has no impact on the application of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications in case of temporary provision of services in another Member State.
The undergoing reform has no impact on the free movement of healthcare workers wishing to exercise their profession in another Member State regulating this profession with regard to qualifications. Those workers can still have their qualification recognised in line with Directive 2005/36/EC.
While there is no systematic mechanism to monitor national legislative processes, the Commission is open to receiving information about the effects of legislation and possible impact on the single market.
[1] Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255 30.9.2005, p. 22) — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/36/oj/eng.
Industry in Europe is under pressure, due to several factors, including high energy prices, international competition amidst rising geopolitical tensions, and overcapacities in third countries[1]. Decarbonising our economies is a global challenge that can be an economic opportunity, as flagged in the Draghi Report[2]. The European Green Deal[3] and the recent Clean Industrial Deal[4] provide the toolbox to strengthen the business case for decarbonisation in Europe .
The Clean Industrial Deal puts forward concrete actions to turn decarbonisation into a driver of growth for European industries. Specific measures include the Affordable Energy Action Plan[5], aimed at lowering energy bills while promoting the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy, and the upcoming Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act, which will increase demand for EU-made clean products. The Clean Industrial Deal identifies seven indicators to measure progress, such as the annual installation of renewable electricity capacity and investment volumes under InvestEU[6] supporting industrial transition.
The Commission is not considering the introduction of a direct carbon levy for citizens on top of the EU Emissions Trading System[7].
[1] 2025 Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/2025-annual-single-market-and-competitiveness-report_en .
In line with its communication responding to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics — Commit to a Europe Without Animal Testing’[1], the Commission intends to finalise the roadmap by the first quarter 2026 at the latest.
Following the publication of the roadmap, the implementation phase will commence. It will start immediately, following a gradual approach. For some roadmap actions, e.g. recommendations to replace more complex endpoints, where no suitable or validated non-animal methods are currently available, the implementation will require years since progress will depend on the development and validation of such alternatives.
The roadmap will serve as a structured action plan that outlines the steps necessary for implementation, offering inter alia concrete recommendations for the integration of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) across 15 legislative areas that currently require animal testing for chemical safety assessments, not limited to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation[2]. Its implementation will therefore be relevant to a broader set of EU chemicals legislation.
The Commission also intends to better integrate NAMs into the ongoing revision of the REACH Regulation, where scientifically and legally feasible, and in line with the outcomes of the roadmap development process.