Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Question for written answer  E-001570/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Sebastian Everding (The Left), Emma Fourreau (The Left), Anja Hazekamp (The Left)

Under Article 15 of the Habitats Directive, Member States are required to prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing the local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of species listed in Annex IV or Annex V when managed under derogations.

Burrow hunting with dogs is a widespread hunting practice in several Member States, particularly for foxes. However, this non-selective method poses a serious risk to strictly protected species such as Felis silvestris, Cricetus cricetus, and various Chiroptera species, which may unintentionally be targeted. Furthermore, Meles meles, listed under Appendix III of the Bern Convention, is frequently subjected to this practice, raising significant conservation concerns.

• 1.Does the Commission intend to clarify that burrow hunting with dogs is prohibited under Article 15 of the Habitats Directive due to its non-selective nature?
• 2.What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the protection of threatened species from non-selective hunting methods, including burrow hunting with dogs?

Submitted: 17.4.2025

As stated in the Commission’s Communication ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations’[1], continuous support for organic farming remains essential for the Commission.

Organic farming is a voluntary scheme[2] based on precise legal standards set in Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products[3] and its associated secondary legislation. Organic farming has been increasingly successful over the last decade as EU consumers choose to support a model that is based on ambitious environmental and animal welfare rules.

Regulation (EU) 2018/848 generally requires poultry to have access to open air areas and herbivores to have access to pastures and provides only time-limited exemptions to these requirements related in particular to weather conditions, state of the grounds or animal health diseases[4].

• [1] 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, Brussels, 19.2.2025 COM(2025) 75 final.
• [2] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming_en
• [3] Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2008, OJ L 150 14.6.2018, p. 1.
  ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2024-12-01
• [4] Frequently asked questions ON ORGANIC RULES , replies to questions 12 and 14.
  https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e5b18da2-e7a7-4535-8425-db81ebe7e5ba_en

Question for written answer  E-001578/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Angéline Furet (PfE), Philippe Olivier (PfE), Tobiasz Bocheński (ECR), Anna Bryłka (PfE), Pierre Pimpie (PfE), António Tânger Corrêa (PfE), Tomasz Buczek (PfE), Julie Rechagneux (PfE), Roberto Vannacci (PfE), Petra Steger (PfE), France Jamet (PfE), Gheorghe Piperea (ECR), Pascale Piera (PfE), Petar Volgin (ESN), Petr Bystron (ESN), Sarah Knafo (ESN), Rody Tolassy (PfE), Mélanie Disdier (PfE), Gerolf Annemans (PfE)

Since 2021, the implementation of the rule of law conditionality regulation has raised concerns about a possible slide into authoritarianism by the Commission. The mechanism can be used to suspend or condition European funds on the basis of the Commission’s assessment of the internal situation in a Member State. In doing so, the Commission often exceeds its competences and appears to apply the mechanism in a biased manner, targeting governments such as those of Poland and Hungary.

• 1.How does the Commission ensure that the application of the regulation is not instrumentalised for political purposes against certain Member States, in particular those whose governments take positions which diverge from those of the European institutions?
• 2.How does it justify its intention to bypass national governments in the event of non-compliance with the rule of law, by distributing EU funds directly to the final beneficiaries, in flagrant disregard for the principle of subsidiarity, the competences of the Member States and the legal limits set by the Treaties?
• 3.Does it intend to introduce a similar conditionality mechanism which would allow Member States to temporarily suspend their contributions to the EU budget in the event of serious deficiencies or scandals within the European institutions themselves?

Supporters[1]

Submitted: 18.4.2025

• [1] This question is supported by Members other than the authors: Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain (PfE), Nikola Bartůšek (PfE)

Priority question for written answer  P-001545/2025/rev.1
to the Commission
Rule 144
Fidias Panayiotou (NI)

Cyprus’s Supreme Constitutional Court decided on 11 April 2025 that a law enhancing transparency violates Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 on the protection of personal data.

The law, adopted in September 2024, requires the names of donors of more than EUR 5 000 to the Independent Social Support Body to be published. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides refused to sign the law and sent it to the Supreme Constitutional Court.

Cyprus’s Parliament had adopted the transparency law as a response to increased public demand for scrutiny of the Independent Social Support Body, a fund that, in 2023, reportedly raised EUR 2.2 million in private contributions and is managed by Cypriot First Lady Philippa Karsera Christodoulides.

Given that, according to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), supreme national courts are obliged to refer a question to the CJEU when a case before them raises a question of interpretation of Union law:

• 1.Does the Commission confirm that the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus should have made a preliminary reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU in this case?
• 2.What are the effects of a low level of transparency regarding the rule of law and the anti-corruption mechanism, from the Commission’s perspective?
• 3.Will the Commission include this case in its next Rule of Law report and make recommendations for Cyprus?

Submitted: 16.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001332/2025/rev.1
to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Rule 144
Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left)

Concerning the escalating rate of Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in the Palestinian occupied West Bank, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented that Israeli occupation authorities demolished 1 787 Palestinian facilities between 7 October 2023 and 15 October 2024, including 800 inhabited homes.

On 21 January 2025, the Israeli military launched ‘Operation Iron Wall’, which, according to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), forcibly displaced 40 000 Palestinians in the northern West Bank[1]. Ireland and the EU have funded infrastructure in the occupied West Bank, such as schools, playgrounds and other community facilities, which Israel has demolished. The report details the expansion of Israeli illegal settlements, the unlawful demolition of Palestinian homes and a surge in settler violence, all taking place in ‘a climate of impunity’. International humanitarian law prohibits an occupying power from demolishing homes and other property belonging to the protected population. Israel’s practice amounts to a grave violation of international humanitarian law and is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Has the EU sought compensation from Israel for infrastructure subsidised by the EU and subsequently demolished by Israel?

Submitted: 1.4.2025

• [1] UNRWA, ‘Large-scale forced displacement in the West Bank impacts 40,000 people’ – official statement, 10 February 2025, https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/large-scale-forced-displacement-west-bank-impacts-40000-people.

Question for written answer  E-001500/2025/rev.1
to the Commission
Rule 144
Rosa Serrano Sierra (S&D)

In March 2025, the Commission adopted its first report on the implementation of the EU emissions trading system (ETS) extension to maritime transport. The report concludes that there is no clear evidence of ships being diverted to non-European ports or that shipping companies are relocating their ports of call to avoid ETS and FuelEU obligations. However, the report fails to calculate the CO₂ emissions emitted, overlooks the fact that the Red Sea crisis is temporarily modifying traffic flows and omits the increase in announced investments in transhipment terminals in third-country ports. Nor does it take into account the fact that in 2024, European ports lost 2 % of their operational capacity, while non-European ports gained 3 %.

In the light of the above:

• 1.Has the Commission analysed whether emissions have been reduced and whether there has been any impact on the connectivity of European ports?
• 2.Will it address any of the issues raised in the forthcoming European port strategy and, in particular, does it intend to include a framework for the protection of port workers in the strategy?
• 3.Is it considering extending the list of third-country transhipment ports with carbon leakage risks this year ?

Submitted: 11.4.2025