Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Question for written answer  E-001875/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE), Benedetta Scuderi (Verts/ALE), Leoluca Orlando (Verts/ALE), Ignazio Roberto Marino (Verts/ALE)

In May 2023, Acciaierie d’Italia requested a review of the integrated environmental permit (IEP) for the (former ILVA) plant in Taranto.

Enshrined in the European regulatory framework for the sake of public transparency and participation, the right to access environmental information enables public oversight and plays a role in the sound management of environmental resources.

The Aarhus Convention gives members of the public the right to access information about and to participate in decisions made about environmental matters, as well as to seek redress if these rights are not respected. In the interest of transparency in environmental matters, Directive 2003/4/EC enshrines the right to access environmental information held by public authorities, while Article 24 of Directive 2010/75/EU regulates the disclosure of IEP-related documents, ensuring that information is made available to the public for the sake of transparency and participation.

Despite this, many documents have not been uploaded to the website of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security[1], including the minutes of the inter-service conference, the opinions of local bodies and the National Institute of Health, the final preparatory opinion, and the monitoring and control plan.

In light of the above:

• 1.Given the significance of the site and its severe environmental impact, does the Commission believe the principles of transparency and disclosure should be observed?
• 2.What action will the Commission take against the Italian State?

Submitted: 12.5.2025

• [1] https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Oggetti/Documentazione/2038/14487.

Question for written answer  E-001873/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Marcin Sypniewski (ESN)

In Poland, there have been cases in which local authorities (jednostki samorządu terytorialnego – JSTs) have adopted resolutions objecting to integration centres for foreign nationals being located in their area. In response, provincial governors have warned the JSTs concerned that they might lose access to EU funding, suggesting that opposing government decisions may have negative financial consequences.

In accordance with the principle of financial autonomy for JSTs that stems from the decentralisation of public authority in Poland, the authorities concerned are entitled to have their own budgets and to take decisions within the limits laid down by law.

In light of the above:

• 1.Does the Commission allow the granting of EU funding to be conditional on administrative decisions taken by local authorities, such as the adoption or rejection of specific resolutions?
• 2.Is it consistent with the principles of EU cohesion policy and respect for the autonomy of local authorities to threaten to withdraw EU funding in the event of opposition to the construction and operation of integration centres for foreign nationals?
• 3.Is the Commission planning to take action to ensure that the allocation of EU funds is not used to bring pressure to bear on local authorities in matters that fall within their remit?

Submitted: 12.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001876/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Elena Kountoura (The Left)

A recent law in Greece[1] has extended the existing ban on parking for camper vans and caravans to areas including archaeological sites, coastlines, beaches, forest edges and public spaces[2]. Despite referring to Article 34 of the Greek Highway Code[3], this extension of scope has not been accompanied by the corresponding development of necessary infrastructure set out for municipal, fenced and equipped parking areas.

However, despite the existence of the legal framework, the lack of infrastructure such as camper stops and organised municipal sites makes it practically impossible for camper vans and caravans to park or stay anywhere legally. This has left European citizens with camper vans or caravans facing confusion and uncertainty and unable to comply with requirements, especially in areas lacking signs, information or infrastructure provision[4].

Given that Greece is still struggling to attract caravanners, owing to its lack of adequate infrastructure and policies, and given that in the EU the sector generates EUR 120 billion a year, will the Commission say:

• 1.Does it intend to include objectives for developing parking and service infrastructure for camper vans and caravans in the Member States in the upcoming European sustainable tourism strategy, with a view to strengthening the EU’s road tourism policy?
• 2.Will it consider establishing a European framework of guidelines or common minimum standards for such infrastructure in the context of free movement and European tourism policy?
• 3.Does it intend to finance, through the European structural funds or other instruments, the development of appropriate infrastructure in Greek tourist destinations?

Submitted: 12.5.2025

• [1] Law 5170/2025 (Government Gazette A 6/20-01-2025), https://www.taxheaven.gr/law/5170/2025.
• [2] This amendment also includes a ban on private landowners hosting more than one camping vehicle for free.
• [3] Specifically, Article 34 of the Greek Highway Code establishes the possibility of parking camping vehicles in appropriate fenced areas designated by the relevant municipalities or communities, which also ensure their security, while a joint decision of the ministers for the interior, public administration and decentralisation, transport and communications, public order and the environment, spatial planning and public works lays down detailed rules for implementation and makes provision for costs relating to security, maintenance, etc.
• [4] The absence of an organised strategy to promote road tourism compromises this alternative form of tourism, which is systematically supported in other EU countries, where there are more than 30 000 camper stops.

Question for written answer  E-001881/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Stefano Cavedagna (ECR), Ruggero Razza (ECR), Carlo Ciccioli (ECR), Michele Picaro (ECR)

On 30 August 2024, the European Commission removed the marketing authorisation for the drug Ocaliva (obeticholic acid), used to treat primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic and progressive liver disease.

As a result of this decision, Advanz Pharma Specialty Medicine Italia voluntarily withdrew the drug from sale in Italy and it was taken off the list maintained under Law No 648/96 of drugs paid for by the national health service.

Ocaliva was the only approved second-line treatment for patients who do not respond to or cannot tolerate ursodeoxycholic acid treatment, and its withdrawal has left many patients without any viable treatment options.

Although the European Medicines Agency has suggested compassionate use or programmes for designated patients, access to such measures remains fragmented at European level, giving rise to inequalities in access to treatment.

Can the Commission therefore say:

• 1.Whether, in view of the provisions of EU law, it believes measures such as the purchase of Ocaliva from abroad should be taken to enable Italian patients to continue their treatment?
• 2.How it intends to ensure continuity of treatment for patients without any valid therapeutic alternatives, even given the emergence of new drugs?

Submitted: 12.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001871/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Carolina Morace (The Left), Valentina Palmisano (The Left), Danilo Della Valle (The Left), Mario Furore (The Left), Gaetano Pedulla’ (The Left), Giuseppe Antoci (The Left), Pasquale Tridico (The Left)

Italian Law No 169/2024 criminalises surrogacy for Italian citizens even if it takes place abroad. This legislation risks infringing citizens’ right to free movement (Article 21 TFEU) and the principle of mutual recognition of public documents, including those relating to parenthood (Article 81 TFEU, Regulation (EU) 2016/1191).

It could also result in serious discrimination against children born through surrogacy in Member States where the practice is legal, undermining their right to continuity of family status and violating Articles 21 and 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In the V.M.A. case (C-490/20), the Court of Justice ruled that Member States must recognise a parent-child relationship legally established in another Member State to ensure the child’s full enjoyment of their citizenship rights.

In view of the above:

• 1.Does the Commission believe that this Italian law is compatible with EU law?
• 2.What measures will it take to protect children’s rights and guarantee the free movement of families with children born through surrogacy in other Member States?

Submitted: 12.5.2025