MIL Publishing Engine 1

The Commission has been in close contact with the Greek authorities over the last years to assist them to implement the ruling of the Court in Case C-849 /19[1].

Greece has now adopted conservation objectives for all Special Areas of Conservation. The Commission will take action as appropriate to ensure that Greece also adopts conservation measures to fully comply with the ruling.

Concerning the separate file EU Pilot file EUP(2021)9806 and based on the information available, it was not possible to confirm the alleged in correct transposition of the Habitats Directive[2] and the file was closed.

As regards infringement case INFR(2014)4073[3], the Commission is assessing the replies received by the Greek authorities, following the reasoned opinion. T he objective of this type of infringement procedure is to assist the Member State in bringing the situation of non-conformity to an end.

This case concerns the absence of a national legal framework that complies with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. However, this absence of compliant national framework does not mean that wind farm projects based on this framework are also automatically in breach of the above provision.

National administrative and/or judicial bodies are primarily responsible to verify compliance of individual projects with the EU environmental legislation and provide the appropriate means to address the matter.

Citizens are thus invited to use existing national means of redress if they want to contest a specific project for possibly breaching relevant EU law.

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action.

• [1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=235718&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=76753
• [2] 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.
• [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_23_525

The Schengen Borders Code allows Member States to temporarily reintroduce internal border control to address a serious threat to public policy or internal security[1].

The Commission is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with all Member States concerned to ensure that mitigating measures limit the impact on cross-border travel, whilst at the same time encouraging them to use alternative measures, as listed in the Commission’s Recommendation of November 2023[2], to address security threats.

Under the Treaties, there is no possibility to suspend the Schengen rules. Consequently, the Commission does not have the power to propose such a measure The Schengen area guarantees free movement to more than 450 million EU citizens.

Around 3.5 million people cross internal borders daily, and almost 1.7 million people reside in one Schengen country while working in another.

Schengen brings important economic benefits to citizens and businesses, contributing to a smooth functioning of the internal market by enhancing economic activity, creating jobs, and supporting the EU’s competitiveness.

• [1] Article 25a, Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, p.1-52, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1717.
• [2] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/268 of 23 November 2023 on cooperation between the Member States with regard to serious threats to internal security and public policy in the area without internal border controls, OJ L, 2024/268, 17.1.2024.

1. The Habitats Directive[1] in its Article 6(3) and 6(4) provides a clear and flexible procedure to address potential conflicts, applicable also in cases between flood protection and nature conservation needs[2]. Article 6(4) allows plans and projects with significant negative effects on a site to proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest , in the absence of alternative solutions and if compensatory measures are taken. This can typically apply to flood protection measures that relate to human health or public safety which are explicitly mentioned in Article 6(4), second paragraph.

2. The Commission does not plan to amend the Habitats Directive beyond the current proposal to align the annexes to the amendment of the Bern Convention[3]. Regarding compensatory measures for impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the context of application of Article 6(4) of the directive, it is the national competent authority which decides on the need and character of such measures. The German authorities have a long-standing experience with successfully applying exemptions for flood protection measures[4]. The implementation of these flood protection measures shows the feasibility of such measures and the flexibility of the Habitats Directive.

• [1] Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.
• [2] The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/11e4ee91-2a8a-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1
• [3] COM(2025)106 final: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/8ec6689c-a7d8-422e-829d-c4231fc32872_en
• [4] The Commission has been notified pursuant to Art 6(4) about the following protective dykes, among others: Strengthening of the Rhine flood dyke/right side of the Murg dam (responsible authority: Raststatt/Baden-Württemberg State Council Office), Strengthening and reinforcement of the right-hand Elbe dyke near Fischbeck (responsible authority: district of Stendal/Saxony-Anhalt), Raising and strengthening of the Emden harbour dyke (responsible authority: Lower Saxony State Agency for Water Management, Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation/Lower Saxony).

1. Member States are responsible for the definition of their health policy. This includes the definition of pain management and measuring gaps in access to painkillers. At EU level, in relation to medicines availability, the Executive Steering Group on Shortages and Safety of Medicinal Products (MSSG)[1], consisting of representatives of Member States, the European Medicines Agency and the Commission, monitors and responds to ongoing shortages of medicines that cannot be resolved at Member State level.

2. Under the EU4Health Programme, seven projects are co-funded to support training initiatives for clinical and non-clinical staff with a focus on digital skills and other relevant skills[2]. One of these projects, the Health Professionals’ Digital Team Skills Advancement[3], develops a digital health literacy strategy and a plan to improve digital literacy in healthcare, which may benefit also those patients in need of pain management.

The proposal for a Critical Medicines Act announced in the Political Guidelines[4] was adopted by the Commission on 11 March 2025[5]. It addresses supply chain vulnerabilities of critical medicines, facilitates increasing EU manufacturing capacity for critical medicines, and reduces Europe’s dependencies on third countries. This proposal complements the reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation and will build on the ongoing work, notably in the Critical Medicines Alliance and in the MSSG.

• [1] Executive Steering Group on Shortages and Safety of Medicinal Products (MSSG) meetings — European Medicines Agency (EMA): https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do/crisis-preparedness-management/executive-steering-group-shortages-medicinal-products/executive-steering-group-shortages-safety-medicinal-products-mssg-meetings
• [2] https://year-of-skills.europa.eu/news/skills-and-healthcare-training-opportunity-health-professionals-under-eu4health-programme-2023-10-16_en
• [3] https://hpass.healthworkforce.eu/
• [4] Political Guidelines (2024-2029), page 9: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf
• [5] https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-critical-medicines-act_en

1. The Commission stresses that efficient border management must uphold fundamental rights, including human dignity and the principle of non-refoulement. In light of the tragic death of three minors at the Bulgarian border, the Commission notes that it is the responsibility of the Bulgarian authorities to investigate allegations of wrongdoings and ensure accountability. While national authorities are tasked with these investigations, the Commission is in regular contact with Bulgaria to discuss border and migration management issues, including full respect of fundamental rights[1].

2. The 2021-27 Border Management and Visa Instrument[2], governed by the Common Provisions Regulation[3], requires Member States to meet horizontal enabling conditions (HECs), one of which relates to the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter). Bulgaria, as all Member States, must demonstrate HEC compliance at the programme’s adoption and implementation[4]. If the Charter HEC is no longer fulfilled at the level of relevant specific objective, the Commission will not reimburse affected expenditure.

3. The 2023 Facilitation Directive proposal[5] explicitly sets out that the elements of the offences included therein are usually not fulfilled when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance or the support of basic human needs. The directive does not aim to criminalise humanitarian aid provided to third-country nationals in line with legal obligations.

• [1] This engagement includes closely working with the Bulgarian authorities to reinforce the national independent mechanism to monitor fundamental rights compliance at the external borders. The issue was covered within the framework of the Pilot Project for fast asylum and return procedures (https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/reporting-results-pilot-project-fast-asylum-and-return-procedures-bulgaria_en) and has been reinforced under the Cooperation Framework with Bulgaria on border ad migration management (https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/07649e14-1d49-48f1-a08a-9f8d8b9d4e9e_en?filename=Cooperation%20framework%20between%20the%20European%20Commission%2C%20the%20EU%20agencies%20and%20the%20Republic%20of%20Bulgaria_en.pdf&prefLang=it).
• [2] Regulation (EU) 2021/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy.
• [3] Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy.
• [4] Bulgaria, like all Member States, had to justify that it fulfils all HECs at the adoption of the programme and during the implementation of the programme has put in place measures to ensure the respect of fundamental rights for all projects funded. The Commission has frequent exchanges with the Bulgarian Managing Authority in charge of BMVI. HECs are discussed in Monitoring Committee meetings, during technical level exchanges, and are reported on in the Annual Performance Report.
• [5] Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down minimum rules to prevent and counter the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and stay in the Union, and replacing Council Directive 2002/90/EC and Council Framework Decision 2002/946 JHA, 28.11.2023, COM(2023) 755 final, Recital 7.

On 11 March 2025, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union[1]. The aim is to increase the effectiveness of returns of people with no right to stay in the EU through simplification, clarity and more efficiency. Credible returns are crucial for a comprehensive approach to migration and a deterrent for illegal migration.

The proposal aims also at widening the third countries to which an illegally staying third-country national can be returned, provided that those third countries respect international human rights standards and the principle of non-refoulement and an agreement or arrangement is concluded.

The return of third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction or who are subject to extradition procedures is regulated either by Directive 2008/115/EC[2] or by national law, when a Member State has decided not to apply the directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(b), or relevant international conventions on the transfer of prisoners.

Member States are generally bound by the European Convention of Human Rights. As regards criminal detention issues, Member States have committed to respect the standards on this matter drafted by the Council of Europe, such as the 2006 European Prison Rules. Also, on 8 December 2022, the Commission adopted a recommendation on the procedural rights of suspects and accused in pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions[3].

• [1] Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC, COM/2025/101 final.
• [2] Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
• [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7570

The Commission is aware of the report by the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In the context of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism, the Commission with the Member States experts assesses the implementation of the return acquis, in particular the Return Directive[1], by Member States. Following the Schengen evaluation carried out in Italy in 2021, the Council issued recommendations[2], which concerned, among others, the detention conditions. The Commission is closely following up and monitoring the effective implementation of those recommendations by Italy.

As a follow up to the Lampedusa 10-point plan[3], a dedicated working group on returns was set up with Italy on 25 September 2023. The group regularly meets to discuss return matters, including issues linked to detention conditions. The findings of the Council of Europe’s report to which the Honourable Members make reference is discussed with Italy in this context.

As regards the initiative carried out by Italy following the signature of a protocol with Albania, the implementation of the protocol under Italian law must not undermine or be detrimental to common EU rules. Moreover, it cannot prevent the aims and objectives of EU law, and it must be without prejudice to the rights and guarantees that persons in these situations are afforded by Member States, in line with their national law and obligations under international law.

• [1] Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
• [2] Council Implementing Decision 10415/22 setting out a recommendation on addressing the deficiencies identified in the 2021 evaluation of Italy on the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of return.
• [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4503

Question for written answer  E-001560/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE)

The many EU citizens who use mopeds and motorcycles for the purposes of mobility and recreation are particularly vulnerable because of the inherent risks of using these powered two-wheeled motor vehicles (PTWs).

The share of PTW rider fatalities keeps increasing, the 3 361 motorcyclists and 539 moped users who died on EU roads in 2023 accounting for 19 % of all EU road traffic deaths that year[1].

Given that:

Inflatable airbags could, according to recent studies, improve motorcyclist safety by reducing serious spinal injuries by 60 %[2] and affording better lower-body protection[3].

The Commission was stressing the need for specific airbag rules to address safety issues for motorcyclists as far back as 2010[4].

Parliament highlighted the urgency of further safety measures for PTWs in its resolution of 6 October 2021[5].

We therefore ask the Commission:

What is it doing to improve road safety for motorcyclists? Is it considering making airbags compulsory for PTWs?

Submitted: 16.4.2025

• [1] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/2023-figures-show-stalling-progress-reducing-road-fatalities-too-many-countries-2024-03-08_en?prefLang=it.
• [2] Giustini, M., Cedri,S., Tallon, M., Roazzi, P., Formisano, R., Pitidis, A., ‘Use of back protector device on motorcycles and mopeds in Italy’, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 43, Issue 6, December 2014, pp. 1921–1928, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu209.
• [3] Pallacci, T., Baldanzini, N., Barbani, D., Pierini, M., ‘Preliminary effectiveness assessment of an airbag-based device for riders’ leg protection in side impacts’, Procedia Structural Integrity, Vol. 24, 2019, pp. 240–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.02.021.
• [4] European Commission, ‘Towards a European road safety area 2011-2020’, COM(2010) 389 final.
• [5] European Parliament resolution of 6 October 2021 on the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 – Recommendations on next steps towards ‘Vision Zero’ (2021/2014(INI))

Question for written answer  E-001575/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE)

The olive oil sector in Spain and the EU faces legal uncertainty, as it is the only food product for which the quality control and classification system is based on a sensory analysis by tasting panels which can be carried out after the product is put on the market. Although Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2015 regulate that procedure, results vary significantly between panels and laboratories. This affects how products are categorised as extra virgin and virgin and leads to penalty proceedings with penalties of up to EUR 100 000. This disparity negatively affects producers, complicates exports and harms the competitiveness of the European sector vis-à-vis international markets.

In view of the above:

• 1.Could the Commission assess the feasibility of having approved, comparable tasting panels before products are bottled that are able to provide uniform, legally certain results?
• 2.What steps is the Commission considering to improve the reliability of classification systems, avoid barriers to trade and lessen the legal uncertainty experienced by Spanish producers as a result of varying results produced by organoleptic analysis panels when classifying olive oil as virgin or extra virgin?

Submitted: 17.4.2025