Author: MIL OSI Publisher

The Commission is determined to make road transport across the EU more sustainable and resilient, while boosting the competitiveness of our industry and operators. In March 2025, the Commission published the Automotive Action Plan[1] and the communication on Decarbonising Corporate Fleets[2]. In addition, in the mission letter from the President of the Commission, the Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism has been called upon to prepare a legislative proposal for clean corporate fleets.

Based on these commitments, the Commission is preparing a legislative proposal and will explore options and measures in an impact assessment on how to support the uptake of zero-emission vehicles by corporate buyers, without putting unnecessary burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and considering criteria on sustainability and resilience. Requirements on companies are only one of the options that will be explored, and all options will scrutinise costs and administrative burden for all parts of the value chain.

The Commission held an open public consultation in 2024, where more than 250 stakeholders, ranging from businesses and their associations to Member States and non-governmental organisations, put forward their positions on all aspects of corporate fleets. Additionally, the Commission will perform an additional open public consultation focused on options for the legislative proposal. The Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism will hold a Strategic Dialogue specifically on corporate fleets in the course of 2025.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0095
• [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0096

Question for written answer  E-001857/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D)

According to the Commission’s report on young-child formulae from 2016[1], 17 out of 27 Member States classified the product as a dietetic food, and the majority of Member States and of interested stakeholders were in favour of specific measures for young-child formula. Yet the Commission decided against specific measures at the time. Recently, a relevant global standard regulating inter alia young-child formula was published[2].

• 1.Has the Commission gathered any new insights on the matter in recent years, including in the context of its collaboration on the global standard? If so, what insights has it gathered?
• 2.Is the Commission still against introducing specific measures for composition and labelling in relation to nutrient reference value requirements for young-child formula, despite the opinion of Member States and stakeholders? If so, could the Commission explain its reasons?

Submitted: 8.5.2025

• [1] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on young child formulae, COM(2016)0169, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0169.
• [2] Codex Standard for Follow-Up Formula for Older Infants and Product for Young Children: CXS 156-1987, revised in 2023, which regulates the nutritional composition and labelling, https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B156-1987%252FCXS_156e.pdf.

Question for written answer  E-001589/2025/rev.1
to the Commission
Rule 144
Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE), Mélissa Camara (Verts/ALE), Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE), Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE), Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE)

On 31 March 2025, investigative journalists found[1] that children are facing inhumane conditions in EU-funded refugee reception centres on the Greek islands, including extreme overcrowding, systemic neglect and prolonged confinement. On Samos, an area intended to host 200 unaccompanied minors, there were 500 children in December 2024, who had to resort to sleeping on the floor in shifts. The investigation is based on internal documents from Commission representatives stationed on the islands and staff at the European Union Asylum Agency.

• 1.Does the Commission consider the current conditions in the EU-funded reception centres on the Greek islands to be compliant with Directive (EU) 2024/1346, notably Article 19?
• 2.What concrete measures has the Commission taken to improve the conditions in these facilities, specifically as regards ensuring the best interests of unaccompanied minors, given its direct funding of these facilities?
• 3.What action has the Commission taken in relation to Greece to enforce compliance with Directive (EU) 2024/1346?

Submitted: 22.4.2025

• [1] https://wearesolomon.com/mag/focus-area/migration/unaccompanied-children-sleep-on-the-floor-in-shifts-in-greece-model-camps/.

Subsidies harmful to biodiversity comprise the following:

— energy subsidies harmful to the environment including fossil fuel subsidies, where there is established reporting to the Commission[1];

— and ‘other’ non-energy environmentally harmful subsidies, which would cover agricultural subsidies, where Member States are due to report for the first time in 2025. A guidance document on the methodology for doing so has been agreed based on input and discussions in an Expert Group of the Member States[2].

The Member States and the Commission have a commitment to report on these environmentally harmful subsidies as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework on Target 18 by February 2026. The Commission intends to publish an overview of environmentally harmful subsidies before this time, but this is dependent on Member States reporting to the Commission their non-energy environmentally harmful subsidies including for sectors such as agriculture, transport and manufacturing.

By 31 December 2025, the Commission will report on the assessment of the operation of the new delivery model by the Member States and consistency and combined contribution of the interventions in Member States’ Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans[3] to achieving environmental and climate-related commitments of the Union. The Commission will examine the effectiveness of the CAP by 31 December 2026 as part of the interim evaluation.

• [1] https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/energy-subsidies-report-shows-progress-2023-2025-01-29_en.
• [2] Sub group on Environmentally Harmful Subsidies and the Polluter Pays Principle (E02987/1): https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&groupId=103352&fromMeetings=true&meetingId=50127.
• [3] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en.

In December 2022, the Commission declared an amendment to the German Renewable Energy Act (‘Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz’, EEG 2023) compatible with the internal market in line with the Guidelines on state aid for climate, environmental protection and energy[1].

One of the criteria for state aid approval is to limit aid to what is necessary to address an identified market failure, and thus to avoid over-compensating aid recipients for their investments. Long-term commitments (with potential aid disbursement of up to 20 years) entail significant uncertainty about market developments and thus the possibility of undue windfall profits. For that reason, Germany committed to introduce a claw-back provision (or similar mechanism) to limit eventual overcompensation, in the context of the Commission decision approving the EEG 2023. This commitment is a condition of the approval.

The current discussions on the Solar Package I amendments include the outstanding need to incorporate this pre-existing requirement in the scheme. It falls within the responsibility of Member States to notify new aid in line with the applicable legal requirements and to ensure the timeliness and quality of information provided. The Commission is awaiting a proposal from Germany to address the requirement regarding the EEG 2023 approval condition and remains available and committed to rapidly review any such proposal once received.

• [1] Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on state aid for climate, environmental protection and energy 2022, Official Journal of the European Union, C 80, 18 February 2022.

The steel industry is the sector most protected by trade defence instruments with over 70 trade defence measures including a safeguard.

Before imposing measures, the Commission conducts an EU interest test where it examines if the overall EU interest justifies the imposition of measures. It examines the interests of importers, users and consumers in that context. Users are encouraged to cooperate in investigations so their concerns can be taken into account when deciding to impose measures.

Once measures are imposed, if there is evidence that they are being evaded, the Commission imposes anti-circumvention measures to stamp out such practices — now almost a quarter of all measures address circumvention.

Furthermore, in the European Steel and Metals Action Plan[1] the Commission announced it would assess the introduction of the rule of ‘melted and poured’ which would allow action against the country where the metal was originally melted, regardless of the place of subsequent transformation. In addition, by the third quarter of 2025 at the latest, the Commission will propose a long-term measure providing a highly effective level of protection to the EU’s steel sector. It will take into account changes in EU demand as well as security and resilience considerations, while preserving a certain level of openness in the EU market.

Industry harmed by unfair competition from imports should contact the Complaints Office[2] of the Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security for information on the options available.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0125.
• [2]  trade-defence-complaints@ec.europa.eu.