Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Question for written answer  E-001859/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jessika Van Leeuwen (PPE)

Hybrid meat products consist of a combination of animal-based and plant-based proteins. For meat substitutes, strict rules apply regarding labelling and marketing: such products cannot be marketed under names like ‘chicken’ or ‘minced meat’. However, for hybrid meat products, these rules currently do not apply.

• 1.Is the Commission aware of the difference in nutritional value between hybrid meat products and traditional meat products consisting entirely of animal proteins?
• 2.Does the Commission agree that consumers may be misled if it is not clearly indicated on the label that a product partly consists of plant-based proteins and, if so, does the Commission share my opinion that specific labelling rules should be introduced for hybrid meat products to ensure transparency and consumer protection?
• 3.Moreover, does the Commission acknowledge that clear labelling is also crucial for people with legume intolerances, who need to be fully informed about the presence of plant-based ingredients in such products in order to manage potential health risks?

Submitted: 8.5.2025

1. The Commission is not competent to supervise or enforce compliance with European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. The monitoring of the execution of ECtHR judgments falls under the competence of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Commission considers the implementation of leading judgments of the ECtHR an important indicator for the functioning of the rule of law in a country and reports on it in the context of its Rule of Law Report. The Commission will continue monitoring the situation in Greece, including as regards the follow-up to ECtHR judgments, to address any challenges. 

2. Full respect of fundamental rights in the management of external borders is a key requirement under EU law, in particular under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Member States must investigate and address reports of fundamental rights violations. Constant dialogue with Member States is necessary to foster a common understanding and ensure effective implementation of EU law. Infringement procedures are one of the tools to ensure such implementation. If the Commission concludes that any Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EU acquis, including in terms of adopting legislation that would be incompatible with the acquis or in terms of non-compliance with the EU legislation in their administrative practice, it may decide to initiate infringement procedures.

3. According to the Treaties, the Commission has a discretionary power to launch infringement procedures. The Commission will continue monitoring the situation in Member States, including Greece, to ensure that oversight mechanisms are in place to enable efficient follow-up and effective investigations into alleged fundamental rights violations.

Priority question for written answer  P-001889/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Özlem Demirel (The Left)

Cyprus is engaged in a new form of cooperation with Syria that involves boat refugees being returned directly to the Syrian port of Tartus before they reach Cypriot territorial waters. Such action, which prevents asylum applications from being made and examined, is banned under international law because it constitutes refoulement at sea.

• 1.What does the Commission know about Cyprus’ new refoulement practice, and to what extent was it informed in advance or even involved in bringing the practice about?
• 2.Does the Commission consider that the relevant agreement between Cyprus and Syria is covered by EU law?
• 3.What efforts is the Commission making to build up and equip the Syrian coastguard, and what structures are already known about in this connection?

Submitted: 12.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001847/2025
to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Rule 144
Petr Bystron (ESN)

According to the ‘About Us’ section of its website, the European External Action Service (EEAS) works to support resilient democracies, promote human rights and contribute to a rules-based global order in Europe and around the world. However, the EEAS – the EU’s official diplomatic service, which receives approximately EUR 732 million annually from the EU budget – appears to cooperate with and fund NGOs that were previously part of the network of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), such as Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI), Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps and others.

In light of recent actions by US President Donald Trump, which led to the termination of most USAID foreign activities, we would like to raise the following questions:

• 1.Which other USAID-funded NGOs has the EEAS supported or worked with? How much funding was granted to these organisations in 2024 by the EEAS, and how much funding did the EEAS itself receive?
• 2.What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that this funding does not support foreign interests?
• 3.What level of oversight does the EEAS have over the activities of its NGO partners, which are based in non-EU countries, and how are cases of ideological or political bias addressed?

Submitted: 7.5.2025

1. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361[1] prohibits Member States from allowing the use of vaccines against tuberculosis in bovine animals. This EU rule is based on decades of experience with eradication, on robust scientific advice, and on expert opinions. Currently available vaccines for bovine tuberculosis do not confer full protection and compromise tuberculin skin tests or other immunological tests, for the distinction between vaccinated and infected animals, jeopardising current control and eradication of bovine tuberculosis and the ongoing approved eradication programmes of the Member States.

2. The Commission has not communicated with the British authorities in this regard and has not received information from them on this topic.

3. The Commission is constantly ensuring that the EU rules are based on the latest scientific knowledge and has consulted the European Food Safety Authority several times on the issue of bovine tuberculosis .

• [1] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361 of 28 November 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards rules for the use of certain veterinary medicinal products for the purpose of prevention and control of certain listed diseases.

1. Since 1996, Israel’s association to the EU framework programmes for research and innovation (R&I) has been a success story with clear mutual benefits across various priority areas including information and communication technologies, health, advanced manufacturing, climate change and energy, as well as biotechnology. At this stage, it is premature to discuss which countries would be allowed to participate in or offered association to the successor of the current framework programme for R&I and under which terms as it is still to be scrutinised and adopted by the co- legislators, based on a proposal that is yet to be adopted by the Commission.

2. In accordance with Article 2 Treaty on European Union, the EU is founded on the values of inter alia respect for human rights. In consequence and in application of relevant EU, national and international law[1], the EU will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights including in R&I related activities, applicable to all participants in the R&I framework programmes regardless of their nationality.

3. Currently, any R&I activities carried out under Horizon Europe[2] must have an exclusive focus on civil applications, as set forth in applicable rules and in particular in the Horizon Europe Regulation[3]. During the implementation of Horizon Europe projects, all beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action comply with these rules.

• [1] Including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Supplementary Protocols.
• [2] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en.
• [3]  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695 , OJ L 170, 12.5.2021, p. 1-68.

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004[1] on the coordination of national social security systems, together with its implementing Regulation (EC) 987/2009, are key pieces of EU legislation that ensure the protection of social security rights for individuals moving within the EU, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. They establish common rules for determining which country’s social security system applies to individuals in cross-border situations, while respecting the competence of Member States to define the specifics of their social security systems, such as beneficiaries, levels of allowances, and eligibility criteria.

In December 2016, the Commission proposed to modernise the current rules to ensure that they are fair, clear and easier to enforce. The negotiations between the co-legislators are ongoing.

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 also applies to frontier workers or other cross-border workers, including those in the Moselle department of France who worked in Germany and receive unemployment benefits in France. According to the current rules, for these groups of workers, the unemployment benefits are generally paid by the Member State of residence.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/883/oj/eng .