Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Question for written answer  E-001765/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE)

On 19 April 2025, a Tunisian court sentenced 40 people to prison sentences ranging between 13 and 66 years for conspiracy against internal and external state security[1]. Among those sentenced include journalists, opposition politicians and other individuals critical of the regime. Their conviction led to fierce criticism from civil society and legal experts, suggesting that these charges were politically motivated.

• 1.Has the Commission monitored or engaged with the Tunisian authorities in relation to the aforementioned case, and if so, using what methods?
• 2.On the basis of what assessment does the Commission have sufficient trust in the independence of the Tunisian judiciary, given the significant amount of EU funding benefiting the Tunisian Ministry of Justice?
• 3.What impact will the conviction of these prominent opposition figures have on EU-Tunisia relations, notably on the inclusion of Tunisia on the recently published ‘safe countries of origin’[2] list?

Submitted: 30.4.2025

• [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/20/tunisia-court-prison-sentences-kais-saied.
• [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1070.

Priority question for written answer  P-001790/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Tom Berendsen (PPE)

Just over a year from now, the Apollo Vredestein tyre factory in Enschede will close its doors and around 500 employees will lose their jobs[1]. The Indian parent company intends to move production primarily to the plant in Hungary.

With this, the worst-case scenario has unfortuantely become reality. Like many companies in the manufacturing industry, Vredestein is suffering from higher costs, especially energy costs. At the same time, this decision seems to have been facilitated by the State aid the company received for its plant in Hungary. Concerns about this have been around for quite some time, as evidenced, inter alia, by the questions I and other colleagues have already raised about this with the Commission[2].

The closure of Apollo Vredestein has a major impact on the 500 employees, their families and the Twente region more generally. Moreover, such developments undermine the level playing field in the Union and thus public support for European cooperation. Accordingly:

• 1.Does the Commission still believe that all those involved in this case acted in accordance with the spirit and letter of the current State aid rules?
• 2.Does the Commission share my view that the State aid rules should be revised so that similar situations can be avoided in the future?
• 3.What can the Commission do to help the affected workers and the Twente region cope with this economic blow?

Submitted: 2.5.2025

• [1] https://www.tubantia.nl/enschede/zwarte-dag-voor-twente-vredestein-sluit-volledige-fabriek-500-medewerkers-op-straat~a4fafae3/.
• [2] Questions for written answer E-001536/2020, P-003353/2020, E-004663/2020, E-006949/2020, E-003607/2021 and E-005190/2021.

The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member and has taken legal action against Spain to address the problems of water overexploitation and biodiversity loss in Doñana through the correct application of the Habitats Directive[1] and the Water Framework Directive[2].

As a result, the Court of Justice of the EU found in a judgment of 24 June 2021[3] that Spain had failed to fulfil obligations under the above-mentioned Directives.

It is for Spain to implement all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court under the supervision of the Commission.

The Commission sent to Spain a letter of formal notice[4] under Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on 15 July 2022.

Since then, the Commission has held several bilateral discussions with the Spanish authorities to discuss the measures they have taken and plan to take.

Spain has put in place a holistic plan to comply with the judgment, including measures in relation to illegal abstraction. The Commission will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the ruling and take any necessary step to ensure that it is fully complied with.

EU funding is available to help Spain solve this issue, for instance, both Recovery and Resilience Facility[5] and the European Regional Development Fund[6] can provide support for such type of investments.

• [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.
• [2] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73.
• [3] Case C-559/19: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62019CJ0559
• [4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_22_3768
• [5] https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en
• [6] https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en

Question for written answer  E-001752/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Marianne Vind (S&D)

Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires Member States to lay down and enforce effective penalties for infringements of the rules on the protection of animals during transport. For long journeys, a journey log must be drawn up and submitted to the authority of the country of departure within one month after the journey concerned has been completed[1]. Logs identify infringements in particular. However, the regulation does not specify how authorities should act in the event of infringements outside their jurisdiction. Article 28 only stipulates that notification must be given to authorities that gave authorisation to the transport operators concerned, but not, for example, to authorities in transit countries.

Documents provided by Animal Protection Denmark show that cases involving foreign firms are usually dropped, either because Denmark does not have jurisdiction or because of a lack of proportionality between resources and the expected penalty. The information available suggests that there are similar practices in other Member States.

In the light of the above:

• 1.Does the Commission have an overview of Member States’ prosecutions in these cases, and does the Commission regard it as compatible with EU law[2]for Member States not to prosecute in such situations?
• 2.How should Member States fulfil their obligations under EU law in this respect?
• 3.Does the Commission intend to bring infringement proceedings against Member States that fail to prosecute, or what measures is the Commission considering introducing in the forthcoming revision of the Transport Regulation so as to ensure that infringements established on the basis of return journey logs are prosecuted regardless of where they are committed and of where transport operators are based?

Submitted: 30.4.2025

• [1] See Annex II, point 8.
• [2] Including Article 25 of the Transport Regulation and the duty of loyalty under Article 4(3) TFEU.

The Commission adopted the Competitiveness Compass[1] on 29 January 2025. The Compass builds on the Draghi Report[2] by setting out measures to close the innovation gap, a joint roadmap for decarbonisation and competitiveness, and reducing excessive dependencies and increasing security.

It furthermore sets out horizontal enablers of EU competitiveness. The Competitiveness Compass identifies flagship actions and initiatives such as the Clean Industrial Deal[3] that will further implement the priorities set out in the Compass.

Private financing and a refocused EU budget are needed to mobilise investments for competitiveness. On 19 March 2025, the Commission adopted a communication on the Savings and Investments Union[4], a key initiative to improve the way the EU financial system channels savings to productive investments.

In 2025, the Commission will present a new approach for a modern and reinforced EU budget, which will be simpler, with fewer programmes and a plan for each country linking reforms with investments. The European Competitiveness Fund will make investment in strategic technologies and de-risk private investment.

Energy prices are central to the competitiveness of EU companies. The Commission adopted an Action Plan for Affordable Energy[5] to bring down energy prices for industry and households.

The action plan sets out measures to pass on the lower generation cost of fossil-free electricity to consumers, make the energy system more resilient, and unlock investment.

This is part of the wider Clean Industrial Deal initiative which was adopted on the same day to support two closely linked sectors in the transition to meet the EU’s agreed decarbonisation goals, namely the energy intensive industries and the clean-tech sector.

• [1] A Competitiveness Compass for the EU, COM(2025) 30 final.
• [2] https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en
• [3] https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en
• [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0124
• [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0079

Question for written answer  E-001751/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE)

On 4 March 2025, Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque engaged with a group of young Europeans to discuss key challenges in the financial sector, notably the importance of financial education. Participants – students, young entrepreneurs and financial professionals – highlighted a critical gap: despite the emphasis on saving and investing, basic financial skills are rarely taught in schools, leaving young people unprepared to navigate complex financial markets, inflation and the housing crisis.

The lack of accessible financial education discourages early saving and investment habits, contributing to broader issues such as the investment deficit and future pension insecurity. Studies show that in countries such as Romania, a significant proportion of young people lack even basic financial knowledge, limiting their ability to make informed economic decisions.

Young Europeans called for financial literacy to be systematically integrated into school curricula as an essential life skill. Commissioner Albuquerque supported the idea of an ambitious teacher training programme, stressing that many teachers are currently not equipped to deliver financial education effectively.

Given the strategic importance of financial literacy, what measures does the Commission intend to propose to promote financial education across Member States, particularly by integrating it into national education systems and supporting teacher training?

Submitted: 30.4.2025

The provisional agreement on the targeted revision of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD)[1] reached on 18 February 2025 amends the Commission proposal by modifying Recital 40 and Article 22c(4) and including new Article 22c(3a).

The revised provisions aim to allow Member States to address ultra-fast fashion and fast-fashion practices via the modulation of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)[2] financial contributions.

Recital 40 explains the importance of addressing ultra-fast fashion and fast-fashion practices when modulating the EPR financial contributions and provides examples of potential criteria that Member States may consider for such purpose. Those criteria serve the purpose of exemplifying the producers’ practices referred to in Article 22c(3a).

According to Article 22c(4), to avoid distortion of the internal market and ensure a consistent modulation of EPR financial contributions based on Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)[3] requirements and on the producers’ practices mentioned in Article 22c(3a), the Commission intends to adopt Implementing Acts laying down specific fee modulation criteria.

After the adoption of the ESPR Delegated Acts, the ESPR sustainability criteria will be set and the Commission will be able to develop the EPR fee modulation criteria and adopt the WFD’s Implementing Acts.

The preparatory work for the drafting of the ESPR Delegated Acts is ongoing. It is therefore too early to provide clear indications as to how the Commission is envisaging the alignment of the WFD Implementing Acts with the ESPR Delegated Acts.

The adoption of the Implementing Acts will follow the Committee Procedures as described in Article 39(2) of the WFD and the Better Regulation Guidelines[4].

• [1] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109-140.
• [2] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en
• [3] Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC.
• [4] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en