MIL Publishing Engine 1

Question for written answer  E-001605/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Dario Nardella (S&D), Stefano Bonaccini (S&D), André Rodrigues (S&D), Maria Grapini (S&D), Camilla Laureti (S&D), Marko Vešligaj (S&D), Christophe Clergeau (S&D), Eric Sargiacomo (S&D)

The Commission communication entitled ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food’ (COM(2025)0075) outlines the areas to be worked on to achieve an attractive, competitive and resilient agricultural and food sector for future generations. In particular, public support through the CAP remains crucial to sustain and stabilise farmers’ incomes.

In its communication entitled ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework’ (COM(2025)0046), the Commission introduces the notion of ‘one plan per country’, alluding to a single fund managed at national level, which would be a major blow to the commonality of key EU policies, and would also have an impact on food security and food sovereignty.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

• 1.How does it plan to fund the objectives outlined in the vision, while avoiding reductions in CAP resources and addressing the impact of inflation?
• 2.Does it stand by the proposal for a ‘single fund’ that would merge financing from key policies such as the CAP and cohesion policy, despite concerns about the potential dilution of their specific objectives and priorities?
• 3.How does it intend to safeguard Parliament’s role in shaping the future multiannual financial framework, to ensure that the Union’s actions fully reflect the needs and expectations of its citizens and territories?

Submitted: 22.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001657/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Sérgio Gonçalves (S&D)

The reprogramming of cohesion policy funds to support new areas, including affordable housing and defence industry investments, constitutes a major strategic shift. While it is important to respond to emerging challenges, there is a risk of undermining structural investment goals. The proposed 100 % co-financing rate may reduce financial engagement, while the decision to extend implementation deadlines solely for reprogrammed funds appears unjustified, considering recent exceptional disruptions. Many projects were already reshuffled between instruments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the overlap with the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

Given this:

• 1.Does the Commission not fear that full co-financing and the extension of deadlines for new priority projects will lead the Member States to deprioritise long-term cohesion investments?
• 2.What indicators will be used to assess performance in new areas, particularly housing and defence, and what role will national and regional authorities play in monitoring defence-related investments?
• 3.Does the Commission envisage any of these new areas becoming a permanent part of cohesion policy?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

Question for written answer  E-001654/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jonas Sjöstedt (The Left)

In July 2024, Sweden gave notification of a legislative proposal to introduce sales of alcoholic beverages in Sweden on producers’ sites. The proposal was subject to the standard notification process, with one Member State, as well as a number of stakeholders, regarding the proposal as contrary to the EU Treaties under Articles 34 and 36.

The Commission opted not to comment on the notification. With that in mind:

• 1.Does the Commission regard the Swedish proposal on sales on producers’ sites as compatible with a continued retail monopoly under Article 37 TFEU?
• 2.Does the decision by the Commission not to comment during the TRIS process mean that it shares the Swedish Government’s interpretation of the EU Treaties and therefore does not see any risk of discrimination against other Member States’ producers?
• 3.Why did the Commission opt not to set out its legal appraisal during the notification procedure?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

As stated in the communication on ‘The road to the next multiannual financial framework[1]’, the EU budget must continue to play a central role in promoting the EU’s prosperity, competitiveness, sovereignty, security, resilience, preparedness and global influence, while upholding the highest standards on rule of law and democratic values.

In light of the policy and budgetary challenges the EU is facing for the EU budget to achieve these objectives, the status quo is not an option. Among others, the global political and economic landscape poses challenges of unprecedented magnitude.

The scale of the challenges ahead calls for an ambitious budget, both in size and design. The next long-term budget will have to address the complexities, weaknesses and rigidities that are currently present and maximise the impact of every euro it spends, focusing on EU priorities and objectives where the EU action is mostly needed.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0046

The Commission promotes the uptake of sustainability considerations in public procurement, including those related to the environmental and social impact of the services and products purchased by public buyers, in line with current EU public procurement rules.

It does so through guidance, capacity building initiatives[1], supporting Member State Joint Actions[2] and the EU green public procurement criteria, including specific criteria for the food and catering sector[3].

The Commission is also preparing criteria that could help contracting authorities to introduce, on a voluntary basis, sustainability aspects in the food and catering services that they are buying.

The Political Guidelines 2024-2029[4] announced a revision of the 2014 EU public procurement Directives[5]. At the moment the Commission is carrying out an evaluation of these Directives[6] to assess whether EU public procurement rules work as intended. Once the evaluation is completed the Commission will consider concrete measures and options to shape the new proposal.

It will notably seek to further support ‘best value’ purchases, to reward quality and sustainability as set forward in Vision for Agriculture and Food[7].

• [1] https://public-buyers-community.ec.europa.eu/communities
• [2] https://bestremap.eu/procurement/; https://preventncd.eu/work-packages/wp-05/public-food-procurement-in-public-settings-in-the-eu/
• [3] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f8e9fe10-ff7d-11e9-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
• [4] https://commission.europa.eu/about/commission-2024-2029_en
• [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/23/oj/eng; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/24/oj/eng; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/25/oj/eng
• [6] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14427-Public-procurement-directives-evaluation_en
• [7] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/vision-agriculture-food_en

Question for written answer  E-001656/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Sérgio Gonçalves (S&D)

The Commission’s proposal to allow up to 100 % co-financing for new cohesion policy priorities raises serious concerns about the impact on less developed regions and the outermost regions, which rely heavily on stable long-term cohesion support. Redirecting funding from structural objectives to new thematic areas, without providing additional resources, risks undermining the core mission of cohesion policy. Furthermore, orienting funds towards sectors such as defence, which are often concentrated in more industrialised areas, may exacerbate territorial imbalances and divert resources away from regions that still face significant development gaps.

In this context:

• 1.What guarantees can the Commission offer that less developed regions and the outermost regions will not experience a net loss of cohesion funding?
• 2.Does the Commission not agree that new priorities should be matched with additional funding rather than drawing from existing allocations?
• 3.How will the Commission safeguard territorial balance, particularly where large companies and more developed regions may have a competitive advantage in absorbing redirected funds?

Submitted: 24.4.2025

The automotive industry is a core engine of European prosperity. The sector accounts for EUR 1 trillion in gross domestic product, a third of private research and development investment in the EU and it provides direct and indirect employment to 13 million Europeans.

However, the European automotive sector is at a critical turning point, challenged by rapid technological changes and increasing competition.

Against this background, the President of the Commission in January 2025 launched a Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the European Automotive Industry[1], a collaborative and inclusive process designed to tackle the sector’s most pressing challenges. On 5 March 2025, the Commission put forward an Action Plan[2], which builds on the Strategic Dialogue.

The action plan sets out concrete measures to help secure global competitiveness of the European automotive industry and maintain a strong European production base.

It also includes measures to ensure better support for workers affected by the transition of the sector. In particular, the Commission has proposed to extend the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to also support workers threatened by imminent job displacement.

Additionally, the Commission is working with social partners and Member States to increase European Social Fund Plus funding for the automotive sector, supporting workers who want to reskill and look for new job opportunities.

The Commission is using the mid-term review to incentivise Member States to reprogramme more funding to these ends. Moreover, the Commission will work with social partners to prepare a Quality Jobs Roadmap to be published towards the end of 2025.

• [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_378
• [2] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/89b3143e-09b6-4ae6-a826-932b90ed0816_en?filename=Communication%20-%20Action%20Plan.pdf