Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on energy and climate policy published between Monday, 09 March 2026 and Sunday, 15 March 2026. The period saw a significant volume of inquiries directed at the European Commission, touching upon a wide range of critical topics. Key themes include the development and regulation of renewable energy sources, particularly biofuels, wind, and solar power; the build-out and governance of essential energy infrastructure such as electricity grids and hydrogen refueling stations; and the financial mechanisms underpinning the green transition, including State aid rules, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and investment frameworks. Further questions addressed regulatory governance, national implementation of EU directives, industrial competitiveness, and the EU’s energy security amidst geopolitical tensions. In total, this report analyses 42 PQs, of which 15 have been answered by the Commission and 27 remain pending.
❓ Unchecked installation of wind farms in Boeotia and Natura 2000 protection
Nikolaos Anadiotis (NI) submitted P-000806/2026 on 25 February 2026, raising concerns about the licensing and installation of wind farms in Natura 2000 areas in Boeotia, Greece. The question asks how the Commission ensures compliance with the Aarhus Convention and EU environmental directives when licensing procedures lack proper strategic environmental assessments, and whether it intends to launch infringement procedures for any breaches. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Offshore wind: its environmental impact and the EU’s continued support
In E-005053/25, submitted on 22 December 2025, Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE) and colleagues questioned the EU’s strong support for offshore wind, citing a study on its potential negative environmental impacts and concerns about intermittency and costs. They asked if the Commission would reassess its targets and consider redirecting resources to controllable, low-carbon energy like nuclear power. In his response on 10 March 2026, Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission stated that scaling up renewable electricity, including offshore wind, is necessary to achieve decarbonisation objectives and enhance energy resilience. He noted that Member States aim to install 360 gigawatts by 2050 and that all net-zero technologies, including renewables and nuclear, are needed. The Commission also affirmed that environmental impact assessments are essential before permits are granted, in line with the precautionary principle.
❓ Possible breach of EU environmental legislation and use of the ERDF in a solar power project in a Natura 2000 network area in Spain
Dolors Montserrat (PPE) and Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE) submitted E-000855/2026 on 2 March 2026, regarding a high-capacity solar power plant in a Natura 2000 protected area in Alcántara, Spain. The MEPs highlight a public prosecutor’s investigation into an environmental impact statement that allegedly breached EU and national laws, potentially harming protected species. The question asks if the Commission is investigating this potential breach of the Habitats and Birds directives and whether the legal conditions for granting ERDF funding to the project were met. A response from the Commission is pending.
Biofuels & Biomass
❗ Future of the European biofuel industry
In E-000195/26, Kosma Złotowski (ECR) submitted a question on 19 January 2026 regarding the Commission’s definition of ‘advanced biofuels’, their current market share, and future projections. In a response on 10 March 2026, Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission defined advanced biofuels by referencing the Renewable Energy Directive (Annex IX, Part A) and stated that in 2024, they constituted about 30% of total biofuel demand in transport. The Commission expects a significant and growing share of biofuels in road transport to be advanced, in line with its 2040 Target Plan communication, while also noting that the availability of sustainable biomass remains finite.
❓ EU sustainability and certification rules on agricultural crops for bioenergy
Asger Christensen (Renew) asked in E-000752/2026 on 23 February 2026 about the repeated delays in establishing certification rules for intermediate crops used for bioenergy under Annex IX of Regulation (EU) 2022/996. The question highlights the uncertainty this causes for farmers and market stakeholders and asks when the Commission expects to adopt the final rules and what steps will be taken to ensure they are practical and supportive of investment while maintaining sustainability. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Rethinking biofuels: aligning Europe’s transport policy with climate and economic gains
Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) submitted E-005069/25 on 23 December 2025, citing a study that suggests biofuels emit more CO₂ than fossil fuels over their lifecycle and questioning their sustainability. The MEP asked what measures the Commission intends to take to revise the EU’s biofuel strategy and redirect investment towards alternatives like electrification and clean hydrogen. In a response on 9 March 2026, Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission stated that sustainably sourced biofuels have great potential for decarbonising hard-to-electrify transport sectors like aviation and maritime. He emphasized that the Renewable Energy Directive’s sustainability criteria aim to ensure minimal land use impacts and that the Commission continues to support all renewable technologies for a competitive energy transition.
❓ Methodological basis for the high-ILUC classification of soya under the Renewable Energy Directive
In E-000877/2026, submitted on 3 March 2026, Christine Singer (Renew) questioned the Commission’s classification of soya as a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk raw material, which effectively excludes it from biofuel production. The MEP argues this threatens the viability of domestic oilseed processing and the EU’s protein strategy, asking for the methodological basis of this decision and whether the Commission has assessed the risks to EU supply security. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Recognition of the Label Haie (Hedge Label) and possible equivalence with Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III certification
Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D) submitted E-000746/2026 on 23 February 2026, highlighting the dual audit burden on farmers who must obtain both RED III certification and local labels, such as the French ‘Hedge Label’, for biomass from hedges, despite similar criteria. The question asks if the Commission will recognise legal or technical equivalence between RED III certification and local labels to reduce red tape and costs for farmers. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission guarantees as to delays in electricity interconnection projects between Spain and France
Borja Giménez Larraz (PPE) and Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE) inquired on 18 November 2025 about significant delays in electricity interconnection projects between Spain and France, noting the Iberian Peninsula’s low connectivity (E-004586/25). They asked about legal instruments to strengthen European governance and intervention capacity to prevent such delays. In a response on 9 March 2026, Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission confirmed the Commission is working with Member States through the High-Level Group on Interconnections in Southwest Europe to accelerate projects. He highlighted progress on the Biscay Bay interconnection, which will double capacity by 2028, and noted that the Trans-Pyrenean projects are designated as critical energy highways. The Commission’s December 2025 Grids Package aims to accelerate infrastructure development and permitting.
❓ Re-evaluation of the inclusion of Kemijoki Oy’s Ailangantunturi pumped storage hydropower project on the EU PCI list
In E-000904/2026, submitted on 4 March 2026, Maria Ohisalo (Verts/ALE) and Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE) questioned the inclusion of the Ailangantunturi pumped storage hydropower project in Finland on the EU’s list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs). They argue the project lacks cross-border relevance, has an incomplete environmental impact assessment, and faces significant local opposition and environmental risks. The MEPs ask the Commission to explain the evidence for its ‘significant cross-border impacts’, how environmental costs were quantified, and if it will re-evaluate the project’s PCI status. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ EU financing and the Algeciras-Madrid-Zaragoza rail motorway
Borja Giménez Larraz (PPE) inquired on 3 March 2026 about the Algeciras–Madrid–Zaragoza rail motorway, a strategic project co-financed by the EU that is facing significant delays (E-000866/2026). The question asks for a breakdown of EU funding allocated and spent, whether the Spanish Government’s disbursement pace is consistent with its commitments, and what steps the Commission will take to ensure the project’s timely completion. A response from the Commission is pending.
Hydrogen & Power-to-X
❗ EU funding and future use of hydrogen refuelling stations for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV)
A group of S&D MEPs led by Johan Danielsson submitted E-004867/25 on 9 December 2025, questioning the extensive EU funding for hydrogen refuelling stations (HRS) for heavy-duty vehicles, given studies suggesting a market shift towards battery-electric trucks. They asked about the total funding spent and plans for repurposing these assets if they become underused. In his reply on 5 March 2026, Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission detailed that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) has provided EUR 78.07 million (2014-2020) and EUR 266 million (2021-2027) for HRS, with further funding available through the RRF and Cohesion funds. He noted that most Member States have plans to comply with AFIR targets for 2030 and that CEF beneficiaries are responsible for operational decisions after a mandatory 5-year operational period.
❗ German plan for preferential electricity pricing for industry and its compliance with state aid rules
In E-004580/25, submitted on 17 November 2025, Jordan Bardella (PfE) questioned Germany’s plan to introduce a reduced electricity tariff for industry, asking for the Commission’s view regarding EU state aid rules and its compatibility with climate objectives. Executive Vice-President Ribera, in a response on 2 March 2026, clarified that such measures can be assessed under Section 4.5 of the Clean Industrial State Aid Framework, adopted in June 2025. This framework allows Member States to provide temporary relief on high electricity prices, provided that recipient companies invest in decarbonisation. The Commission noted this possibility is open to all Member States and refrained from commenting on specific discussions with any single country.
❓ Approving Solar Package I provisions on repowering photovoltaic systems under State aid rules
Joachim Streit (Renew) asked in E-000940/2026 on 6 March 2026 about the status of Germany’s ‘Solar Package I’ provisions concerning the ‘repowering’ of photovoltaic systems. These provisions, which allow operators to upgrade older systems with more efficient modules without losing their original remuneration rate, are still pending approval from the Commission under State aid rules. The MEP asks if the Commission is currently assessing these provisions and when a decision can be expected. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Financial contribution from the largest emitters for climate adaptation and loss and damage
Pascal Arimont (PPE) asked on 22 January 2026 (E-000245/26) if the Commission would explore using revenue from taxes on super-rich, carbon-intensive investments, or fossil fuel profits to finance climate adaptation in vulnerable regions. In a reply on 3 March 2026, Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission confirmed that the Commission is exploring innovative finance options, including solidarity levies from the fossil fuel sector. He highlighted the EU’s partnership in the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force, which promotes levies on sectors like aviation, and its commitment to broadening the donor base for the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance.
❓ Funding of Important Projects of Common European Interest
In E-000814/2026, submitted on 26 February 2026, Miriam Lexmann (PPE) raised concerns about the uncertainty companies face in securing funding for Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs), even after completing the lengthy recognition procedure. The question asks if the Commission is aware of these problems, whether it plans to change procedures to guarantee funding, and how it follows up with companies and national governments post-recognition. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ STEP Seal award
Kathleen Funchion (The Left) submitted E-000945/2026 on 6 March 2026, asking the Commission to outline what safeguards are in place to ensure that the award of an EU Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) Seal does not influence national planning permission processes or judicial reviews for projects that have not yet concluded these procedures. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ State aid for former ILVA steelworks and continued infringements of the judgment in Case C-626/22
A group of MEPs from The Left, led by Valentina Palmisano, questioned the Commission on 25 February 2026 about its authorisation of a EUR 390 million bridging loan for the former ILVA steelworks in Taranto (E-000791/2026). They argue this aid is incompatible with rules against supporting structurally loss-making companies and violates a Court of Justice judgment requiring the suspension of operations due to health dangers. The MEPs ask how the aid is compatible with EU rules and what action will be taken to enforce the court’s judgment. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
In E-000139/26, submitted on 14 January 2026, Maria Grapini (S&D) raised concerns about the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) applied to fertilisers, warning of significant additional costs for farmers and potential food price increases due to suspended import contracts. She requested a postponement of the mechanism’s implementation. In his reply on 12 March 2026, Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission stated that no postponement is foreseen, as CBAM is essential to level the playing field. However, the Commission has introduced a lower mark-up for the default values used for fertilisers, proposed a one-year suspension of duties on key nitrogen fertiliser imports (excluding from Russia and Belarus), and will propose a fertiliser action plan in 2026.
❗ Risk of demand diversion and negative impacts on the EU aluminium sector under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’s de minimis exemption
Susana Solís Pérez (PPE) submitted P-000326/26 on 27 January 2026, expressing concerns from the Spanish aluminium sector that the CBAM’s de minimis exemption for imports below 50 tonnes per year could incentivize a shift in demand away from EU producers. She asked if the Commission has EU-level data on import volumes to assess this risk. Mr Hoekstra responded on 5 March 2026, explaining that the 50-tonne threshold was a major simplification measure exempting 90% of importers while keeping over 99% of emissions in scope. He assured that the Commission continuously monitors customs data for circumvention and that the CBAM regulation includes safeguards, such as an annual assessment of the threshold and a formal review by 2027.
❓ Alleged favourable treatment of renewable energy projects in Spain during the term of office of current Commissioner Teresa Ribera
Dolors Montserrat (PPE) and Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE) submitted E-000857/2026 on 2 March 2026. The question refers to an investigation by Spain’s Public Prosecutor’s Office into senior officials who allegedly authorised renewable energy projects with environmental impact statements contrary to national and EU law, favouring certain companies during the tenure of Teresa Ribera as minister. The MEPs ask if the Commission is aware of this, whether it could entail a breach of EU law, and if it intends to verify the authorisations and financing of these projects. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Implementation of the EPBD and impact on the supply of rental housing
In E-000738/2026, submitted on 23 February 2026, Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE) raised concerns about the impact of the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) on rental housing supply. Citing the example of France, where prohibiting the rental of low-energy-class buildings has reportedly reduced supply and increased rents, she asks if the Commission has assessed these effects and what financial instruments are available to owners to support upgrades. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Classification of local electricity supply facilities (‘customer facilities’) under internal market law pursuant to Directive (EU) 2019/944
A cross-party group of MEPs led by Andrea Wechsler (PPE) asked in E-000942/2026 on 6 March 2026 about the classification of local electricity supply models like tenant electricity and business parks as ‘distribution systems’ following a recent Court of Justice ruling. They argue this imposes disproportionate regulatory burdens on small-scale installations and ask if the Commission agrees that the current legal framework lacks a proportionate exemption and if it is considering a targeted amendment to Directive (EU) 2019/944. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Taking income inequality into account in European climate policies
Pascal Arimont (PPE) asked on 22 January 2026 (E-000247/26) if the Commission plans to explicitly include income and wealth inequalities in assessing climate responsibilities within the EU, citing a study linking the richest 10% to 65% of global warming since 1990. In a response on 5 March 2026, Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission affirmed that social fairness is addressed in EU climate policies. He pointed to instruments like the Social Climate Fund, the Modernisation Fund, and the Just Transition Mechanism, which are designed to support vulnerable groups, lower-income Member States, and regions most affected by the transition. He added that impact assessments for climate initiatives include analyses of social and distributional impacts on various income groups.
❗ Progress on European Green Deal Targets
In a response on 9 March 2026 to a question (E-004974/25), Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission commented on a European Environment Agency report, confirming good progress in key areas like air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, showing that targets are achievable with political will. The Commission noted that the full impact of recently enacted Green Deal legislation is not yet reflected in indicators and called for timely implementation. While acknowledging that some indicators are off track, particularly concerning production/consumption pressures and climate adaptation, the Commission plans targeted measures through initiatives like the Clean Industrial Deal and the Circular Economy Act. The Commission also highlighted its proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework to allocate at least 35% of the budget to climate and environmental spending.
❓ Concessions
Nicolás González Casares (S&D) submitted E-000761/2026 on 24 February 2026, concerning the Spanish Government’s intention to align its legislation on concessions for the occupation of its maritime-terrestrial public domain with the EU Services Directive. The question notes an existing infringement procedure against Spain’s 2013 Coastal Law for allowing automatic extensions of concessions up to 75 years without a transparent selection procedure. The MEP asks if the Commission considers such automatic extensions to be lawful under the Services Directive. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ EU overstepping its authority in the area of national forest management
Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE) questioned the Commission on 23 February 2026 (E-000740/2026) regarding a letter of formal notice sent to Poland for failing to allow environmental organisations to challenge forest management plans affecting Natura 2000 sites in court. The MEP argues that forest management and judicial remedies are national competences and asks for the legal basis in the Treaties that allows the Commission to impose procedural rules in this area, questioning compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Simplification of Environmental Legislation and the Aarhus Convention
In a reply on 9 March 2026 to question E-004971/25, Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission clarified that the Omnibus package under consideration aims to simplify environmental legislation in areas like industrial emissions and circular economy without lowering environmental standards. The goal is to reduce administrative burden while maintaining ambitious objectives. The Commission stressed that the proposal preserves the principles of the Aarhus Convention, a milestone for environmental good governance, and noted that the Critical Raw Materials Act also upholds the Convention’s applicability.
❗ Impact of LULUCF Regulation on the availability of horticultural peat
A group of Renew MEPs led by Hilde Vautmans asked on 5 January 2026 (E-000008/26) how the Commission will ensure the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation does not harm horticultural peat production, which they describe as crucial for European growers. They argued existing models misclassify horticultural peat, threatening its availability. In his response on 6 March 2026, Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission stated that Member States are responsible for implementing policies to meet their binding national carbon removal targets under the LULUCF Regulation. He noted that greenhouse gas accounting is based on IPCC Guidelines but acknowledged the challenges of replacing peat in horticulture. To address this, the Commission is considering specific provisions for peat use in growing media within the afforestation methodology currently under discussion.
❗ The future of sustainable fuels in the EU’s outermost regions
In E-004966/25, submitted on 16 December 2025, Sérgio Gonçalves (S&D) and André Rodrigues (S&D) highlighted the specific challenges faced by the EU’s outermost regions (ORs) in transitioning to sustainable fuels, such as small market size and geographical isolation. They asked about dedicated funding and measures to ensure infrastructure interoperability. Mr Tzitzikostas responded on behalf of the Commission on 12 March 2026, stating that key EU regulations for maritime and aviation fuels provide special treatment for ORs, including exemptions and extended timelines. He noted that the European Regional Development Fund allocates EUR 256 million to support sustainable fuels in ORs for 2021-2027, and future funding will be available through instruments like the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which maintains higher co-funding rates for OR transport projects.
❓ Measures to protect energy-intensive industries
Ivaylo Valchev (ECR) submitted E-000423/2026 on 3 February 2026, expressing alarm over the decline of Europe’s chemical sector, citing falling investment, plant closures, and dependence on China. The MEP asks how the Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal will guarantee a genuine reduction in energy bills, questions if decarbonisation plans are over-ambitious, and asks if the Commission is prepared to reform the deal, including abolishing carbon quotas. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Potential inclusion of silicon metal and calcium silicon in ferroalloy safeguard measures
In P-000784/2026, submitted on 25 February 2026, Adrián Vázquez Lázara (PPE) noted that the Commission recently imposed safeguard measures on certain ferroalloys but excluded silicon metal and calcium silicon. The question asks if the Commission considers it feasible to extend the measures to include these materials, what procedure would be needed to do so before 2028, and if it plans dedicated monitoring of imports given strong pressure from China. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ European production moved to USA
Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (PPE) asked on 11 February 2026 (E-000576/2026) about European companies relocating production to the USA, motivated by high European costs, over-regulation, and attractive American subsidies. The MEP asks for data on the impact of these relocations on the EU’s GDP and job losses, and questions who is to blame for the lack of a strategy to protect European jobs. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Safeguard measures for the European metal industry
A group of PPE MEPs led by François-Xavier Bellamy submitted E-000930/2026 on 5 March 2026, raising concerns about the exclusion of silicon metal from recent safeguard measures on ferroalloys. They argue that the European silicon metal industry, which is strategically important, faces the same severe difficulties from unfair competition as other ferroalloy producers. The question asks if the Commission recognises the critical situation and if it is prepared to extend the safeguard measures to silicon metal as a matter of urgency. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Commission’s report on the single market and competitiveness
Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) submitted E-000919/2026 on 4 March 2026, pointing to the Commission’s 2026 annual report on the single market, which shows limited progress and stagnating integration. The MEP highlights persistent barriers, weak market surveillance, below-target R&D spending, and high energy prices as undermining EU competitiveness. The question asks what new measures the Commission intends to take to accelerate single market integration and deliver tangible improvements by 2027. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Feasibility of EU climate policy in the transport sector following the revision of provisions on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) obligations in aviation
In E-000913/2026, submitted on 4 March 2026, Piotr Müller (ECR) argues that the Commission’s withdrawal from the 2035 ban on ICE cars was an admission of flawed policy. He suggests a similar scenario is unfolding in aviation with unrealistic thresholds for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). The MEP asks if the Commission acknowledges flawed assumptions regarding ICE cars, why it is pushing for unrealistic SAF obligations, and if it will conduct a full review of aviation climate policy based on real social costs. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan’s withdrawal from the Organisation of Turkic States
Emmanouil Fragkos (ECR) asked on 25 January 2026 (E-000279/26) if the EU considers that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan moving away from the ideology of the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) could lead to stronger cooperation with the EU. The MEP described the OTS as having extreme ideological characteristics and noted its granting of ‘observer’ status to the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’. In a response on 3 March 2026, High Representative/Vice-President Kallas stated that the EU has expressed its concerns to OTS members about actions implying recognition of the entity and recalled Central Asian partners’ commitment to the sovereignty of all states and relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. The EU’s cooperation with the region is driven by its Central Asia Strategy and focuses on a stable, long-term partnership through instruments like Global Gateway.
❓ Gas crisis in Germany
In E-000895/2026, submitted on 4 March 2026, Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN) asked for the Commission’s assessment of the current gas supply security and price developments in Germany, focusing on industrial competitiveness and the social impact on households. The question also seeks information on specific EU-level measures taken since 2024 to curb price volatility, secure storage levels, and reduce dependence on individual supply sources. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Immediate support scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises in the context of the oil crisis caused by war in the Gulf
Ştefan Muşoiu (S&D) submitted P-000941/2026 on 6 March 2026, highlighting the economic pressure on SMEs, particularly on the EU’s eastern flank, from rising fuel prices due to the conflict in the Gulf. Citing the immediate need for support, the MEP asks if the Commission intends to propose an urgent European support scheme for affected SMEs and if it is considering temporary measures to allow Member States more flexibility in granting State aid. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Modernisation of the EU-Andean Trade Agreement
Sebastian Kruis (PfE) asked on 26 February 2026 (E-000817/2026) about the modernisation of the EU-Andean Trade Agreement. The MEP argues the agreement needs to evolve into a strategic partnership to address supply chain vulnerabilities and competition over critical raw materials. The question asks if the Commission intends to launch a formal evaluation, consider including new chapters on critical raw materials and digital trade, and request a negotiating mandate from the Council. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ ‘We’ll go in and take what we need’ – Yevhen Dykyi shocks the EU, but where is the response?
Erik Kaliňák (NI) submitted E-000757/2026 on 24 February 2026, asking for the Commission’s response to statements by Ukrainian veteran Yevhen Dykyi, who suggested Ukraine could use force to take over energy infrastructure in Slovakia and Hungary if supplies are stopped. The question asks how the Commission plans to respond to these threats, what it will do to ensure such statements do not undermine cooperation with Ukraine, and if it will take diplomatic steps to urge the Ukrainian Government to condemn them. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Inquiry regarding EU measures to mitigate the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on EU stability
In E-000893/2026, submitted on 4 March 2026, Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE) asked about the Commission’s plans to address the conflict in the Middle East, which he describes as a war of aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran. The MEP inquires about concrete steps to halt the conflict and specific measures to protect EU citizens from resulting economic volatility, potential migratory waves, and security vulnerabilities. A response from the Commission is pending.
