Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Question for written answer  E-002993/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Fabio De Masi (NI)

In light of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-40/23 P[1], according to which the Commission is required to definitively determine the existence of aid as part of its decisional practice, how does the Commission justify the non-conclusion and closure of the State aid proceedings relating to the HHLA-MSC case (see written request to the Commission under reference EASE 2025/2487)?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

• [1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=5658369B2D133B24CE434EA79641CF71?text=&docid=287069&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4147156

Question for written answer  E-002980/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jacek Ozdoba (ECR)

Member States are struggling with rising electricity costs. Rising energy costs are causing the EU to lose competitiveness to other countries, particularly China. Please answer the following questions:

• 1.According to the Commission’s experts, what percentage of the cost of electricity bills in individual European countries is accounted for by EU charges and taxes, particularly ETS?
• 2.According to the Commission’s calculations, how much will households pay after the introduction of ETS2? Please provide a detailed breakdown by Member State, together with the projected costs.

Submitted: 17.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-003076/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Catherine Griset (PfE), Séverine Werbrouck (PfE), André Rougé (PfE), Gilles Pennelle (PfE), Fabrice Leggeri (PfE)

The number of EU agencies and offices involved in monitoring media and digital platforms has increased: there is the European Board for Media Services, European Audiovisual Observatory, European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications and European Digital Media Observatory.

These European regulators are in addition to the national regulators, which are also growing in number.

• 1.Does the Commission agree that this proliferation of regulators makes it difficult for Europeans to understand precisely what they do?
• 2.Within the Commission itself, the DSA compliance monitoring team is set to expand from 100 to 200 members. Does the Commission acknowledge that the rise in the number of authorities and staff involved in media and digital platform regulation has an escalating financial impact on EU taxpayers?
• 3.Given that it is seeking to simplify EU regulation, does it plan to reduce the number of agencies and offices, especially those dedicated to media and digital platform oversight?

Submitted: 24.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-002949/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Sebastian Kruis (PfE)

In October 2023, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) removed Panama from its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring, acknowledging comprehensive reforms of its anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regimes. Panama has since overhauled its financial supervision, enhanced institutional capacity and demonstrated tangible enforcement progress. On 9 July 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution supporting Panama’s removal from the EU’s high-risk third countries list.

Given these developments and the opportunity to improve relations with a cooperative partner country, the Commission is urged to expedite its reassessment of Panama’s listing.

• 1.What is the Commission’s current timeline for reassessing Panama’s status on the EU grey list?
• 2.How does the Commission incorporate FATF decisions and parliamentary resolutions into its assessment process?
• 3.Will the Commission commit to aligning Panama’s status with its current AML/CTF performance and international recognition?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-002948/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE)

Following the Commission reply that ‘the data submitted concerned the actual strain used for producing this soy leghemoglobin (MXY0541)’[1], I have further questions.

• 1.The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) explicitly states that it evaluated 14- and 28-day rat feeding studies on LegHPrep derived from the GM yeast strain MXY0291 – not the strain intended for commercialisation (MXY0541). Why did the EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) and GMO Panel analyse studies from an irrelevant strain and derive favourable safety conclusions?
• 2.The findings in Impossible Foods’ peer-reviewed 90-day study[2], which used the strains MXY0291 and NRRL Y-11430 rather than MXY0541, appear to be the same as the findings in the study analysed by the FAF Panel. Therefore, it seems that they are the same study and that the 90-day study that EFSA evaluated used an irrelevant strain. Will the Commission release the full details of the 90-day study that EFSA evaluated, including details of the GM yeast strain that was used, and if it is a different study from the 90-day peer-reviewed one, will it state that and explain how two different studies on LegHPrep that found similar adverse effects are not an indication of food safety risk?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

• [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-001090-ASW_EN.html.
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10581837/.

Question for written answer  E-002960/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Moritz Körner (Renew)

According to the Commission, what positive military or defence implications will the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) financial instrument have for Germany by 2030?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-002984/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Maria Noichl (S&D), Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE), Sebastian Everding (The Left), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Annalisa Corrado (S&D), Michal Wiezik (Renew), Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Krzysztof Śmiszek (S&D)

In spring 2025, the non-governmental organisations Soko Tierschutz and The Marker documented systematic violations of the EU Animal Transport Regulation[1]. One specific case is the transport of more than 34 000 calves, which were just a few weeks old, from Austria and Germany to Spain. Here, they were fattened in some cases in serious violation of their rights, and were later slaughtered without stunning in North Africa and the Middle East. It is particularly barbaric that the calves’ documented travel time was over 22 hours without sufficient rest breaks or care, which is a clear violation of the applicable EU regulations. Criminal charges have been filed with the Augsburg Public Prosecutor’s Office.

• 1.Does the Commission recognise a violation of the EU Animal Transport Regulation in the documented case, and what concrete steps is the Commission taking, in cooperation with the Member States concerned, (Germany, Austria and Spain) to clarify the case?
• 2.Does the Commission have information on comparable cases of systematic infringements in other Member States?
• 3.What measures does the Commission propose to prevent such structural abuse in the future – in particular with regard to controls, transparency and sanctioning mechanisms?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

• [1] Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/1/oj).

Question for written answer  E-002992/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Fabio De Masi (NI)

• 1.Which provision of the procedural rules regarding state aid (Regulation (EU) 2015/1589) enables the Commission to close the state aid procedure concerning the sale of shares in Hamburger Hafen und Logistik Aktiengesellschaft (HHLA) to the shipping company MSC ‘without a final decision at this stage’ (written submission to the Commission of 21 May 2025 – reference EASE 2025/2487)?
• 2.What circumstances might lead the Commission to reopen the procedure?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-002976/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Moritz Körner (Renew)

Can the Commission answer the three following questions, addressing each one of them individually:

• 1.Approximately what proportion of EU citizens’ pension funds (including both private pension schemes and public pension plans) is currently being invested in the US?
• 2.How much higher would the EU’s GDP be if the money from these pension funds was invested in the EU?
• 3.How much is the fragmented nature not only of European capital markets, but also of private pension schemes and public pension plans to blame for the fact that pension funds are being invested in the US, and what is the Commission doing about this fragmentation?

Submitted: 17.7.2025

Question for written answer  E-003021/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Georg Mayer (PfE), Harald Vilimsky (PfE)

The planned amendment to Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 provides for the obligation to fill gas storage facilities to be extended beyond 2025 until the end of 2027 and for the Commission to be given additional implementing and control powers.

• 1.What specific criteria are to be used to determine whether there are unfavourable market conditions that warrant deviating from the filling target, and who will decide on approving such deviations?
• 2.What does the Commission think about what is a contradictory situation in that, on the one hand, security of supply is used as an argument for mandatory filling quantities, but, on the other, fixed filling rates are a constraint on market operators’ flexibility?
• 3.How will the Commission make sure that decision-making power on strategic energy issues and on specific storage filling arrangements remains with Member States and that specific national circumstances are taken into account?

Submitted: 21.7.2025