MIL Publishing Engine 1

Question for written answer  E-001647/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jean-Marc Germain (S&D), Anna Cavazzini (Verts/ALE)

Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) prevent forest loss by implementing legal reform, improving law enforcement and increasing community incomes in several tropical forested countries. The Commission has proposed unilateral termination of the Cameroonian VPA and informed the Liberian Government of its firm intention to terminate the EU-Liberia VPA. It also proposes replacing both VPAs with Forest Partnerships – non-binding frameworks with no role for Parliament and limited public information.

The Commission’s actions threaten the EU’s reputation in these countries and risk accelerating forest loss. In Liberia, both the government and civil society have voiced serious concerns about the EU’s approach.

• 1.Why has the Commission chosen to terminate the VPA unilaterally without proper consultation and due process, and why has there been no comprehensive, multi-stakeholder evaluation of the EU-Liberia VPA’s achievements?
• 2.After being stalled by the previous government, implementation of the EU-Liberia VPA has seen progress under the current Boakai administration. Why has the Commission suddenly decided on termination, rather than strengthening the VPA and designing the Forest Partnership to create a mutual reinforcement?
• 3.Given the importance of Parliament, Council and civil society oversight for forests, what role will these groups have in drafting, approving and monitoring Forest Partnerships?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001634/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE)

In its Special Report 11/2025, the European Court of Auditors revealed a system that is wholly unacceptable: the European Union finances NGOs on a very large scale with no serious scrutiny. Organisations proclaiming themselves to be NGOs receive grants without proper verification of their independence or compliance with European values (paragraphs 11, 17 and 23). Some serve commercial interests, while others have distinct political agendas, without democratic legitimacy.

More than 40% of the funds are received by a small number of organisations favoured by the Commission (paragraph 42), 85% of which survive exclusively on public grants (paragraph 57). This opaque system makes it possible to finance ideological, pro-immigration campaigns and structures committed to communitarian causes or which advocate in favour of sensitive societal issues.

• 1.How does the Commission justify the fact that entities serving private interests can be recognised as NGOs and thus benefit from European public funding?
• 2.Why does it continue to publish incomplete or unusable financial data, making it impossible for citizens to scrutinise the funds allocated to NGOs?
• 3.Will it make all public funding conditional on full transparency regarding the sources of funding and political activities of NGOs?

Submitted: 23.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001629/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Rosa Serrano Sierra (S&D)

Transport poverty – the paucity or absence of available and accessible transport services and infrastructure – is one of the critical challenges that rural areas in the EU are grappling with, as it hinders rural communities’ access to essential services (education, healthcare, etc.) and makes them more isolated.

Some regional authorities offer few or no transport solutions in our towns and villages, particularly in the most remote areas, either denying residents the right to live there or causing the social exclusion of those who are determined to stay.

This situation is at odds with the EU’s cohesion principle and runs counter to the Commission’s objective of strengthening the social dimension of mobility with a view to addressing transport poverty and improving access for isolated rural areas.

In view of the above:

• 1.Will the Commission put forward measures to meaningfully address mobility-related issues in rural areas in the next EU recommendation on transport poverty?
• 2.Does the Commission believe that improving transport connections could make rural areas less disadvantaged?
• 3.Does the Commission agree that it is important to outline strategies at the regional level, especially in cross-border territories, to ensure that all areas can count on an adequate number of quality connections?

Submitted: 23.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001622/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Mariusz Kamiński (ECR)

‘Media freedom and pluralism are a vital part of democracy and of the fundamental rights of EU citizens. True democracy is not possible without a free media scrutinising those in power. The media is a key pillar in the checks and balances that underpin democratic rule. That’s why the descent into authoritarian rule often starts with independent media being targeted. Over the last few decades, a number of states across the globe have taken this path, using coercion and often violence to persecute media outlets and individual journalists’[1] – quoted from the European Council website. This quote perfectly reflects the situation in Poland under the government of Donald Tusk.

In light of the above:

• 1.Does the Commission’s silence regarding the unlawful, forceful takeover of public service media using secret service methods, such as switching off the television signal[2], and the systemic destruction of opposition media through attempts to withdraw concessions[3], pressure advertisers[4], refuse admission to press conferences (including during life-threatening emergencies, such as flooding[5]) and the use of aggression and violence against journalists[6] not constitute an authorisation to destroy democracy in a Member State?
• 2.Does the Commission consider that the system described by Donald Tusk as ‘militant democracy’, which includes the drastic examples of the destruction of media freedom and pluralism described above, to be in line with the values of the Union which the Commission is so eager to invoke?
• 3.Is the Commission aware that Civic Platform is violating the law, including electoral rules, by discriminating against candidates and using public television and its resources to organise electoral agitation, as happened on 11 April in Końskie[7]?

Submitted: 23.4.2025

• [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/media-freedom-eu/
• [2] https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/wylaczono-nadawanie-kanalu-tvp-info-oraz-portalu-tvp-info-muller-nielegalne
• [3] https://sdp.pl/zamach-na-wolnosc-slowa-cmwp-sdp-w-obronie-koncesji-naziemnej-dla-telewizji-republika-i-w-polsce24/
• [4] https://www.press.pl/tresc/80495,prawicowi-dziennikarze-protestuja-przeciw-zastraszaniu-reklamodawcow-telewizji-republika_-podpisal-sie-tez-tomasz-sakiewicz
• [5] https://www.press.pl/tresc/83971,prokuratura-wszczela-dochodzenie-ws_-niewpuszczania-dziennikarzy-republiki-na-konferencje-premiera https://biznesalert.pl/krrit-zlozyla-zawiadomienie-do-prokuratury-chodzi-o-informowanie-mediow-podczas-powodzi/
• [6] https://sdp.pl/sdp-zlozy-do-prokuratury-ws-poturbowania-dziennikarza-tv-republika-podczas-wiecu-wyborczego-rafala-trzaskowskiego/
• [7] https://wpolityce.pl/media/726640-szef-krrit-pisze-do-pkw-ws-udzialu-tvp-w-debacie-w-konskich

Question for written answer  E-001666/2025
to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Rule 144
Nikolas Farantouris (The Left)

The Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, is making a surprise visit to Azerbaijan on 25 April, without however announcing the agenda for the talks with President Ilham Aliyev. According to international observers, Baku has recently been drastically restricting freedom of expression, violently suppressing peaceful demonstrations.[1] The authorities have carried out mass arrests of opposition figures. Dozens of citizens remain in politically motivated detention. Journalists and activists are in prison after show trials.[2]

Furthermore, following the 2023 military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, over 100,000 Armenians – almost the entire Armenian population of the region – became refugees in Armenia amid a severe humanitarian crisis.[3] It is recalled that the European Parliament has recognised the Armenian Genocide,[4] which is commemorated today, 24 April, and Europe must prevent similar incidents in the future.

The Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is therefore asked:

• 1.What is the agenda and content of the EU’s discussions with a ruler who is internationally accused of ongoing violations of the rights of his citizens?
• 2.Will the issue of the rule of law and human rights be raised and in what terms?
• 3.What does the European Commission intend to do about the major issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is affecting the – Europe-friendly – people of Armenia?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

• [1] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/azerbaijan
• [2] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/azerbaijan-statement-spokesperson-human-rights-situation_en
• [3] https://pace.coe.int/en/files/33145/html
• [4] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0094_EL.html.

Question for written answer  E-001595/2025/rev.1
to the Commission
Rule 144
Tomislav Sokol (PPE)

Europe faces a critical shortage of healthcare professionals, with over 1.2 million doctors, nurses and midwives needed as of 2022. Without action, this gap could reach 4 million by 2030. Ageing populations, chronic diseases and COVID-19 have worsened the crisis, with a 62 % rise in health worker absences during the pandemic. Innovations such as telemedicine, AI-driven diagnostics and digital health platforms can help alleviate strain, improve efficiency and enhance patient care.

• 1.Does the Commission recognise the role of healthcare innovations in addressing healthcare workforce shortages?
• 2.What specific measures is the Commission implementing to promote the adoption of such health innovations across the Member States to alleviate the burden on healthcare workers and enhance patient safety?

Submitted: 22.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001649/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Georg Mayer (PfE)

• 1.How many of the civil society organisations supported by EU funding have been involved since 2018 as advisors, project partners or stakeholders in the Commission’s policy-making processes?
• 2.Are there examples where EU-funded organisations have targeted narratives against populist, migration-critical or conservative positions?
• 3.How does the Commission ensure that its funding practice does not influence the public debate, whether party-political or ideologically, unilaterally?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001664/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Beatrice Timgren (ECR), Charlie Weimers (ECR), Dick Erixon (ECR)

In its press release of 14 April 2025, the Commission welcomed the Council’s endorsement of the first element of the simplification omnibus on sustainability[1]. The postponement, until 2028, of key obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive was presented as a first step toward delivering legal certainty and reducing unnecessary compliance costs for companies.

The Commission’s commitment to simplification is a welcome first step towards repairing an overregulated system that is killing jobs and exporting our industry to non-EU countries.

Considering that extending timelines and slightly reducing reporting requirements will not solve the competitiveness crisis caused by the overburdening acquis communautaire:

• 1.Will the Commission establish measurable targets for reducing reporting obligations?
• 2.Will the Commission commit to a broader and more ambitious programme of mass deregulation across EU legislation, extending beyond sustainability-related laws?
• 3.What further actions will the Commission take to make sure growth is never again hampered by red tape from Brussels?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

• [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_1057.

Question for written answer  E-001620/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE)

Since December 2022, the Commission has frozen a significant part of EU funds to Hungary because of systemic corruption, rule of law deficiencies and fundamental rights violations in that country. Further to its answer to written question E-002481/2023[1], can the Commission provide an updated overview of the amount of EU funds that has been paid to Hungary from 1 January 2023 to the present date? Please also indicate again from which budget lines the transfers were made.

Submitted: 23.4.2025

• [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002481-ASW_EN.html

Question for written answer  E-001619/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Per Clausen (The Left)

During the many debates about what is a needlessly low threshold for public procurement in the EU, including as regards the considerable administrative costs and burdens associated with tenders for which no-one submits bids because they involve such small amounts, one of a number assertions that have been made is that the EU will itself not be able to modify the threshold because of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and agreements, as described in Article 6 of the Procurement Directive[1]. But can it really be true that the EU is not in a position to determine when public bodies in the EU and Member States should put contracts out to public tender?

Accordingly:

• 1.Can the Commission confirm that the EU is powerless to raise or lower thresholds for public procurement in the EU or in Member States without first securing a review of the public-procurement thresholds in the WTO Government Procurement Agreement?
• 2.What is the estimated amount of administrative costs that the EU and individual Member States could save if the threshold for public procurement were raised to EUR 1 million?

Submitted: 23.4.2025

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024