MIL Publishing Engine 1

In the EU products marketed with the name ‘wine’ or ‘aromatised wine products’ (AWPs) are subject to strict rules regarding their content and processing. The list of oenological compounds authorised for the production and preservation of wines and the conditions and limits of use, including their function and categorisation as additives or processing aids, is laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2019/934[1]. Only the ingredients laid down in Regulation (EU) No 251/2014[2] are authorised to produce AWPs.

If those products are modified by using additives or processing methods that are not included in the above-mentioned regulations, they can no longer be considered wine or AWPs. In this case, those products, including the additives or flavouring contained therein, are examined and regulated by general food law.

Concerning labelling, since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2021/2117[3], which amended Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013[4] and (EU) No 251/2014, the requirements of the list of ingredients for wine and AWP are considered compulsory or mandatory particulars, respectively, that must be included in the labelling and presentation of wine and AWP. All additives used in the production of any of these products must be presented in the list of ingredients, in line with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011[5].

The provision requiring the compulsory labelling of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration for wine and AWP guarantees the right of consumers to access information on the substances used in their production, in line with the EU legislation on food information to consumers.

Work on preventive health will be stepped up, ensuring a comprehensive approach to health promotion and disease prevention across the life course.

• [1] Annex I, part A, Table 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/934/oj/eng.
• [2] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/251/oj.
• [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2117/oj/eng.
• [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng.
• [5] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj.

The Commission proposal referred to by the Honourable Member[1] aims at gradually phasing out the EU’s dependence on Russian nitrogen-based fertilisers through a transitional approach. This involves measured annual increases of customs duties on Russian imports over a period of three years, minimising the risk of a surge in fertiliser prices. The Commission expects the measure to result in a gradual and orderly replacement of Russian nitrogen-based fertilisers with alternatives, including domestically produced ones, thus contributing to fair competition in the EU fertilisers market and supporting a stable, long-term role of the EU fertilisers industry in ensuring the EU food security.

The proposal mandates the Commission to monitor nitrogen-based fertiliser prices. The Commission will continue assessing the situation and take appropriate measures to prevent the price increase. These measures may include, among others, proposing the temporary suspension of tariffs on affected goods imported from sources other than Russia and Belarus.

The Commission is not proposing to modify customs duties on imports from Russia of other products. The Commission would like to note that some of the products referred to by the Honourable Member are already subject to import restrictions as part of the sanctions adopted following Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine under Regulation 833/2014[2], in particular potash fertilisers and crustaceans. Any decision to impose or amend these sanctions is for the Council to take by unanimity.

• [1] https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)34&lang=en.
• [2] Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/833/2025-02-25 .

In the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030,[1] the Commission calls upon all cities with over 20,000 inhabitants to develop ambitious urban nature plans, to benefit from the multiple services green space and tree cover provide. By greening their urban development, cities like Seville can support nature and biodiversity, build resilience to climate change, cool urban areas and reduce flood risk, and boost the health and well-being of their citizens — priorities also reinforced under the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change[2] and the Union’s wider work on climate and health[3].

The Nature Restoration Regulation[4] sets specific targets for maintaining and increasing the coverage of urban green space and tree cover in urban areas across the EU. These targets between 2024 and 2030 are set at national level, and they are implemented at Member State level. They do not set targets for any specific local projects. Article 13 of the same Regulation states that Member States should contribute to the planting of at least three billion additional trees by 2030. Again, it does not set specific targets at local level. The Commission would encourage all cities to play their part in supporting these urban greening objectives.

• [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en.
• [2]  https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/adaptation-climate-change/eu-adaptation-strategy_en.
• [3]  https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/health/environment-climate-and-health_en.
• [4] Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024.

Question for written answer  E-001827/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Michalis Hadjipantela (PPE), Loucas Fourlas (PPE)

The President of the European Commission, Ms von der Leyen, stated at the recent EPP conference in Valencia that, ‘We do not invade our neighbours and we do not punish them’, while stressing that, ‘Europe respects international law and the integrity of borders’.

Türkiye continues to violate international law and the sovereignty of Cyprus, illegally maintaining troops in Cyprus since 1974, while systematically violating the exclusive economic zone of two EU Member States, Cyprus and Greece, refusing to recognise the sovereignty of the former.

Türkiye is taking illegal actions, with the aim of consolidating the occupation and partition of Cyprus. For example, during President Erdoğan’s recent illegal visit on 3 May to the occupied territories, he ‘inaugurated’ a complex of buildings while reiterating his position on a ‘two-state solution’, ignoring the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the UN.

In view of the above:

• 1.Why is the Commission implementing a policy of double standards and not applying the same sanctions against Türkiye as it does in the case of Russia, offering financial support to the victim, while on the contrary offering a European upgrade to Türkiye?
• 2.What actions will the Commission take to force Türkiye to proceed with the implementation of its Cyprus obligations, ending the occupation of European territory?

Submitted: 6.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001820/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Catherine Griset (PfE)

The French Government recently called on the Commission to take action against the SkinnyTok trend on TikTok, which promotes extreme thinness among young girls.

This is not the first time this trend has reared its head. It is one of a number of harmful effects that social media has on minors, such as targeted advertising, screen addiction, reduced physical activity, harassment and even learning difficulties.

• 1.To curb this abuse, will the Commission take steps to force platforms not to promote these trends and to change their algorithms accordingly, for example by reducing the number of viewers SkinnyTok influencers have?
• 2.Has it made any progress towards finding age verification tools and tools to limit the amount of time minors spend using these platforms?

Submitted: 6.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001807/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Benoit Cassart (Renew), Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew), Sophie Wilmès (Renew), Olivier Chastel (Renew)

The EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment report entitled ‘The changing DNA of serious and organised crime’ underlines growing concerns over the trade in counterfeit automotive parts, in particular airbags. The report highlights that counterfeit automotive parts are mainly produced in Asia and imported to the EU, but that EU-based production networks are also growing. It adds that criminal networks take advantage of digital acceleration to sell counterfeit goods online and that social commerce is emerging as a key driving force to attract consumers to buy such products.

Counterfeit automotive parts represent a serious threat to European consumers, putting their safety at risk, and undermine the European automotive industry by generating economic losses.

• 1.What action does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the illicit production and sale of counterfeit automotive parts?
• 2.What action does the Commission intend to take to protect European consumers?
• 3.Does the Commission intend to collaborate with social platforms to combat the trade of counterfeit products and goods?

Submitted: 5.5.2025

Question for written answer  E-001816/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Marieke Ehlers (PfE), Auke Zijlstra (PfE), Sebastiaan Stöteler (PfE), Sebastian Kruis (PfE), Ton Diepeveen (PfE), Rachel Blom (PfE)

Special Report 11/2025 of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on the transparency of funding granted to NGOs paints a bleak picture. The ECA notes that the Commission has made little progress since the last report in 2018[1].

For instance, there is still no common registration system for grant applicants, no coherent overview of funds provided, and no single definition of NGOs – in spite of repeated calls that there should be.

The Court is insisting that the Commission issue guidance on the classification of NGOs by the end of this year; it criticises the fact that managers of EU funds rely solely on self-declarations by NGOs that they are independent of government and do not serve their members’ commercial interests, and do not use other data sources. Simply checking articles of association to establish whether profits have to be distributed to shareholders is therefore not sufficient to infer whether or not an organisation can be classified as an NGO.

• 1.Why has the Commission been putting off acting on the ECA’s recommendations for eight years?
• 2.How will the Commission ensure that hybrid organisations, e.g. public-private partnerships, foundations or associations linked to trade unions and political parties, will no longer be classified as NGOs in future?

Submitted: 6.5.2025

• [1] Special Report 35/2018.

Question for written answer  E-001536/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Fabio De Masi (NI)

The Commission has received a complaint from an EU citizen, under case number SA.104638, on the procurement of masks through logistics company Fiege during the COVID-19 crisis. In January 2025, the Commission announced that it would formally comment on the complaint.

When can the complainant expect to receive a response?

Submitted: 15.4.2025