Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions published between Monday, 16.02.2026 and Sunday, 22.02.2026. During this period, 34 questions were addressed to the European Commission, with 16 receiving answers and 18 still awaiting a response. Key themes include the geopolitical dimensions of energy security, particularly concerning Russian gas and infrastructure in the Eastern Mediterranean, the resilience of EU supply chains for critical raw materials and technology, and the implementation of core climate policies such as the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and national recovery plans. MEPs also scrutinised the financing of the energy transition, regulatory frameworks for renewables, and the competitiveness of European industries.
❗ Commission Addresses Wind Turbine Noise Regulation
In a response on 18 February 2026 to question E-000019/2026, Commissioner Roswall clarified the EU’s approach to noise from wind turbines. The response notes that while wind projects are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, they are not covered by specific noise requirements under the Environmental Noise Directive (END) as they are not listed in the Industrial Emissions Directive. The Commission acknowledged that standard noise metrics may not fully address the infrasound or lower frequencies generated by turbines and highlighted its commitment to improving the implementation of the END, including assessing the feasibility of introducing EU-wide noise-reduction targets and limits.
❗ Commission Clarifies Status of Pruning Residues as Biomass
Responding on 17 February 2026 to question P-000028/2026, Commissioner Roswall reiterated the Commission’s position that grass clippings and other residues from pruning and vegetation maintenance cannot be considered ‘by-products’ under the Waste Framework Directive, as their primary objective is not manufacturing. However, this classification does not prevent their use for composting, biomass, or biogas production. The Commission noted that a recent Italian decree classifying such materials as ‘by-products’ for the purpose of an incentive scheme for renewable energy does not appear to contradict EU waste legislation, as long as the directive’s obligations are met.
❓ Geopolitical Risks to Great Sea Interconnector Project
MEP Fidias Panayiotou (NI) submitted question E-000494/2026 on 6 February 2026, raising concerns about the Great Sea Interconnector project linking Greece and Cyprus. The question highlights delays caused by Turkish interventions in the maritime area and asks what measures the Commission will take to ensure the security of energy supply for Cyprus and the EU, how it assesses the impact of geopolitical developments on the project, and whether it will use legal and political tools against non-EU countries obstructing projects of common European interest. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Reaffirms Support for Great Sea Interconnector Amid Delays
In a response on 18 February 2026 to question E-004589/2025, Commissioner Jørgensen confirmed the Commission’s strong political and technical support for the Great Sea Interconnector, an ‘Energy Highway’ initiative. While acknowledging project delays, the Commission is working with Cypriot and Greek authorities to overcome them and is not aware of a new implementation timetable. The response highlights that the project’s funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) is subject to conditions in the grant agreement, including timelines. The Commission also stated it is engaged in emphasizing the project’s EU dimension to third countries to prevent further implementation delays, referencing its expectations for Türkiye in the 2025 Enlargement report.
❓ Concerns Over Potential Illegal Cyprus-Türkiye Electricity Link
MEP Yannis Maniatis (S&D) on 12 February 2026 submitted question E-000627/2026 regarding reports of a planned two-way electricity link between Türkiye and the occupied areas of Cyprus. The question asks if the Commission condemns the project, if it will cease cooperation with entities involved, and if it will commit to not allocating EU funds to it. The MEP also seeks information on any communication between ENTSO-e and representatives of the occupied areas on this matter. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Scrutiny on Planned LNG Facility in Greece’s Pagasetic Gulf
In question E-000497/2026, submitted on 6 February 2026, MEP Maria Zacharia (NI) questions the planned installation of the ‘ARGO’ floating LNG storage and regasification unit (FSRU) in the environmentally sensitive Pagasetic Gulf. The MEP asks if the project’s authorisation complies with EU environmental directives, how the Commission assesses the compatibility of new fossil fuel infrastructure with Green Deal objectives, and whether the project has received or applied for EU funding. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Use of EU Funds for Dam Safety in Spain
MEP Dolors Montserrat (PPE) raised concerns on 5 February 2026 in question E-000462/2026 about the maintenance and safety of state-owned dams in Spain, citing reports of a serious investment gap. The question asks the Commission to detail the EU funds allocated to Spain for dam renovation and safety since 2014, the extent of their implementation, and whether the funds were used for priority preventive maintenance rather than just new investments. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Call for Flexibility in Sustainable Mobility Infrastructure Rules
A group of MEPs led by Julie Rechagneux (PfE) submitted question E-000559/2026 on 10 February 2026, requesting more flexibility in the sustainable mobility infrastructure requirements under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. They argue that the quantitative approach for electric vehicle chargers and bicycle parking fails to account for the actual use of buildings. The MEPs ask if the Commission will propose amendments to allow Member States to adapt the requirements based on objective circumstances like building use, location, and connectivity. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Possibility of Suspending the Emissions Trading System Questioned
MEP Marcin Sypniewski (ESN) asked the Commission on 4 February 2026 in question E-000454/2026 whether it is considering a temporary suspension of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to alleviate the burden on European businesses facing high energy prices and rising costs. The question also probes whether the Commission plans to increase the number of available allowances after 2027, what legislative steps it will take to ensure access to cheaper energy, and if it has analysed the impact of the ETS on carbon leakage. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Defends ETS, Highlighting Support for Island Economies like Malta
In a response on 20 February 2026 to question P-000018/2026, Commissioner Hoekstra addressed the economic and social impacts of the EU ETS on islands. The Commission stated that despite ETS costs applying to 93% of flights from Malta in 2024, passenger numbers have increased compared to 2019, suggesting a limited impact on connectivity. It highlighted that ETS-financed support is available via the Innovation Fund, and a Central Bank of Malta analysis estimated only modest consumer price increases from shipping-related ETS costs. The Commission also noted that Malta receives additional allowances for its large maritime sector and that the Social Climate Fund provides protection for island economies.
❗ Commission Clarifies State Aid Framework for Clean Industrial Deal
Responding on 16 February 2026 to question E-004789/2025, Executive Vice-President Ribera explained the rationale behind the Clean Industrial Deal State aid Framework (CISAF). The framework allows Member States to provide temporary relief from high electricity prices to companies that commit to decarbonisation investments. The Commission ensures such aid does not cause disproportionate competition distortions. The response also pointed to the EU budget’s role in supporting the energy transition and cohesion, highlighting the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028-2034 and the new European Competitiveness Fund, which includes a dedicated window for industrial decarbonisation.
❗ No Postponement for CBAM on Fertilisers, Commission Confirms
Commissioner Hoekstra, in a reply on 17 February 2026 to question E-004930/2025, confirmed that the definitive phase of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will commence on 1 January 2026 with no postponement foreseen for imported fertilisers. To support farmers, the Commission has introduced a lower 1% mark-up for default values used in CBAM calculations for fertilisers and is suggesting a temporary suspension of tariffs for ammonia and urea from countries other than Russia or Belarus. The Commission also noted a legislative proposal that would allow for the temporary suspension of CBAM for specific goods in unforeseen circumstances and plans to propose a fertiliser action plan in the first half of 2026.
❓ MEP Questions Underuse of Brexit Adjustment Reserve by France
In question E-000521/2026 submitted on 9 February 2026, MEP Isabelle Le Callennec (PPE) queried the implementation of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (BAR), noting that France transferred almost 70% of its allocated funds to the Recovery and Resilience Facility via REPowerEU. The MEP asks for the reasons behind the underuse of the BAR by Member States, particularly France, and for details on the measures taken to support the four targeted sectors, with a specific focus on fisheries. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Defends Use of NextGenerationEU Funds for Spanish ‘Pyrenees Plan’
In a reply on 18 February 2026 to question E-004932/2025, Executive Vice-President Fitto addressed concerns about the use of NextGenerationEU funds for the ‘Pyrenees Plan’ in Aragon, Spain. The Commission stated that compliance with the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle is a prerequisite for measures in a recovery and resilience plan (RRP). It confirmed that the Spanish RRP requires project selection criteria to comply with DNSH and EU environmental law. While it is the responsibility of Spanish authorities to ensure compliance during implementation, the Commission noted that if a project like the Benasque cable car is ruled illegal by national courts, it can be replaced by another eligible project.
❗ Commission Clarifies Rules on Nitrogen Emissions for Grid Projects
In a response on 16 February 2026 to question E-004980/2025, Commissioner Roswall explained a recent proposal to accelerate permit-granting for electricity infrastructure. The proposal includes a rebuttable presumption that such projects contribute to a long-term reduction of nitrogen emissions and thus would not require a specific nitrogen assessment under the Habitats Directive. This presumption applies exclusively to electricity infrastructure and not to housing construction. The Commission emphasised that it is for Dutch authorities to identify appropriate measures to reduce nitrogen pollution, which is a key concern in the Netherlands, while balancing other socio-economic objectives.
❓ Commission Queried on Legal Basis for Clean Transport Zones in Poland’s NRRP
MEP Marcin Sypniewski (ESN) submitted question E-000516/2026 on 9 February 2026, seeking clarification on the milestones in Poland’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) concerning clean transport zones. The MEP asks if the requirement for cities over 100,000 inhabitants is a parameter agreed within the Polish NRRP rather than a direct EU law provision, how the Commission assesses compliance, and whether Member States are free to modify national solutions as long as the milestone objective is fulfilled. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Commission Questioned on Palermo Air Quality Infringement Procedure
Following the opening of an infringement procedure against Italy for NO2 pollution, MEP Giuseppe Antoci (The Left) on 10 February 2026 submitted question E-0005642026. The question asks for specifics regarding the Palermo agglomeration, including the years and data used for the decision, the Commission’s assessment of Palermo’s air quality plans, and the technical evidence required to demonstrate a path to compliance. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Compatibility of Waste Fuel Imports in Greece with EU Law Questioned
MEP Maria Zacharia (NI) on 6 February 2026 raised concerns in question E-0004982026 about the co-incineration of imported solid recovered fuel (SRF) and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) by a cement company in Volos, Greece. The question asks how the Commission ensures this practice complies with the proximity principle under the Waste Framework Directive, whether it constitutes ‘recovery’ or ‘disposal’ in light of public health concerns, and if the Commission intends to investigate possible circumvention of EU directives. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Monitors Clean Industrial Deal Implementation
In a response on 16 February 2026 to question P-000126/2026, Executive Vice-President Séjourné confirmed that the Commission is tracking the implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal. Key performance indicators (KPIs) and targets are monitored through the Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report and the online Scoreboard. This annual reporting process informs policy discussions with the Council and Parliament, including on potential further actions needed to reach competitiveness objectives. The 2026 report includes the latest state of play for each KPI.
❓ MEPs Challenge Commission on Critical Raw Materials Strategy
Following a European Court of Auditors (ECA) report, MEP Mihai Tudose (S&D) on 9 February 2026 submitted question E-000513/2026 asking for concrete solutions to remedy supply problems for critical raw materials. The question highlights the ECA’s findings that import diversification has not produced tangible results and that domestic production and recycling face significant bottlenecks, with ten materials needed for the energy transition not being recycled at all in the EU. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Commission’s Green Deal Strategy Questioned Amid Critical Metal Dependency
In question E-000471/2026, submitted on 5 February 2026, MEP Jordan Bardella (PfE) cites a European Court of Auditors report on the EU’s heavy dependence on third countries for critical raw materials. The MEP asks how the Commission can justify pursuing stringent climate targets without first securing strategic supply chains, thereby risking increased external dependence and undermining industrial competitiveness. The question also calls for immediate corrective measures to prevent the Green Deal from leading to a loss of strategic autonomy. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Outlines Measures to Boost Rare Earths Recycling
Executive Vice-President Séjourné, in a reply on 18 February 2026 to question E-004858/2025, affirmed the strategic importance of rare earth elements and the need to reduce external dependencies. The Commission has adopted measures under the RESourceEU Action Plan and an amendment to the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) to accelerate recycling technologies. These include extending product information requirements for permanent magnets to ease their recovery and including pre-consumer waste to support increased recycling. The Commission is also working on setting quotas for recycled content in permanent magnets and has established a financing hub to mobilise EUR 3 billion for projects along the value chain.
❗ Commission Details Monitoring of Strategic Raw Materials Projects
In a response on 18 February 2026 to question E-005026/2025, Executive Vice-President Séjourné detailed the Commission’s efforts to ensure Strategic Projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) contribute to the EU’s security of supply. The Commission is actively monitoring projects, organising pitching sessions with financial institutions, and facilitating offtake agreements. The RESourceEU Action Plan and the planned Critical Raw Materials Centre will further reinforce monitoring tools. The Commission may withdraw a project’s ‘Strategic’ status if it no longer fulfils the necessary criteria.
❓ Commission’s Stance on Swedish Lithium Mine Threatening Water Supply
MEPs Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin (The Left) on 5 February 2026 asked the Commission in question E-000487/2026 about a planned lithium mine in Västanå, Sweden. The question highlights warnings from the municipal water company that the project threatens the drinking water supply for around 100,000 people due to risks of landslides and chemical spills. The MEPs ask if the Commission is aware of the plans, how it is monitoring developments, and whether such a decline in drinking water quality would be consistent with the Water Framework Directive. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Addresses Battery Replaceability Rules for Wearable Devices
Responding on 19 February 2026 to question E-004907/2025, Commissioner Roswall defended the requirement in the Batteries Regulation for user-removable batteries in products, which comes into force in February 2027. The aim is to maximise waste battery collection and prevent premature product obsolescence. The Commissioner disagreed that this undermines the AI sector’s competitiveness. However, the response noted that the regulation includes derogations for safety reasons, allowing batteries to be replaceable by independent professionals instead of end-users. The Commission intends to adopt a delegated act in Q2 2026 to add further product categories, including wearables, to this derogation list.
❗ Automotive Omnibus Proposal Aims for EUR 700 Million in Annual Cost Reductions
In a response on 18 February 2026 to question E-004851/2025, Executive Vice-President Séjourné stated that the ‘Automotive Omnibus’ proposal is expected to lead to substantial cost reductions for the automotive industry, estimated at more than EUR 700 million annually. This is intended to ease the administrative burden and boost global competitiveness. The Commission described the proposal as the first step in a simplification agenda for the industry and noted that it will assess further simplification potential during the evaluation of the type-approval framework regulation.
❓ Hungary’s Legal Challenge to REPowerEU Regulation
In E-000547/2026, submitted on 10 February 2026, MEP Petra Steger (PfE) questions the Commission about Hungary’s action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the REPowerEU Regulation. The question focuses on why the ban on Russian gas imports was pushed through by qualified majority instead of unanimity, the Commission’s assessment of criticism from Hungary and Slovakia, and what guarantees can be provided against the future use of ‘procedural loopholes’ that undermine national sovereignty. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ EU Actively Supporting Serbia’s Energy Diversification from Russia
In a response on 17 February 2026 to question E-004895/2025, Commissioner Kos detailed the EU’s support for Serbia’s energy security. The Commission is in regular contact with Serbian authorities via the EU-Serbia Working Group on Energy and stands ready to convene the Oil Coordination Group if Serbia requests further support. The response highlighted that the EU is actively helping Western Balkan partners, including Serbia, to decrease their dependence on Russian fossil fuels. The EU has provided over EUR 1 billion in financial assistance to Serbia’s energy sector, including a EUR 49.6 million grant for the Serbia-Bulgaria gas interconnector, which has opened Serbia’s market to non-Russian gas sources.
❓ Commission Asked to Promote New Trade Corridors for Greek Exports
MEP Emmanouil Fragkos (ECR) on 8 February 2026 submitted question E-000506/2026, highlighting how infrastructure gaps in the Western Balkans limit the competitiveness of Greek exports to Central and Eastern Europe. The question asks if the Commission intends to promote new trade corridors or intermodal connections in the Balkans, which missing links it considers a priority, and how it will ensure measurable targets for reliability, speed, and interoperability to benefit regional economic convergence. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Ensuring Competitiveness of EU Ports Amid New Regulations
In question E-000518/2026 submitted on 9 February 2026, MEP Benoit Cassart (Renew) asks how the Commission is ensuring that the numerous rules on energy transition, security, and resilience will not compromise the competitiveness of EU ports against major global hubs. The MEP also questions how the Commission will ensure a level playing field for ports with different resources to develop and contribute to the overall competitiveness of the EU’s port system. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Reaffirms Commitment to Trade Defence Instruments
Responding on 17 February 2026 to question E-004802/2025, Commissioner Šefčovič stated the Commission’s commitment to fully using trade defence instruments to help EU industry compete fairly. Regarding calls for faster safeguard measures, the response noted that investigations must adhere to legal conditions and procedural requirements, including the need for evidence from Member States or industry. While provisional measures can be imposed in critical circumstances, definitive measures require a qualified majority of Member States. The Commission also highlighted its outreach to SMEs through initiatives like Access2Markets to help them use trade defence tools.
❗ Commission Monitors Ethanol Imports from Pakistan After Preference Removal
In a reply on 16 February 2026 to question E-004388/2025, Commissioner Hansen confirmed the Commission is closely monitoring ethanol imports from Pakistan after preferential treatment was removed on 21 June 2025. Preliminary data from July to October 2025 showed a 37% decrease in non-fuel imports from Pakistan compared to the same period in 2024. The Commission noted that customs authorities use risk criteria to target controls on goods prone to duty circumvention. The response also mentioned that a political agreement on new Generalised Scheme of Preferences rules for 2027-2036 was reached, with co-legislators opting not to alter provisions for addressing market disturbances.
❓ MEP Questions Adequacy of Anti-Dumping Duties on Chinese Silicon
MEP Mathilde Androuët (PfE) submitted question E-000282/2026 on 26 January 2026, raising alarms about unfair competition from China in the silicon market, which has led a major producer to suspend production at French sites. The question notes that heavily subsidised and underpriced Chinese exports are causing European prices to drop. The MEP asks if the current anti-dumping duties are still adequate and what immediate safeguard measures the Commission will take to protect the European sector from this structural distortion of competition. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Call to Counter Chinese Dominance in Electricity Infrastructure
Citing a report from the European Union Institute for Security Studies, a group of MEPs led by Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain (PfE) asked in question E-000545/2026 on 10 February 2026 about the EU’s heavy dependence on Chinese equipment, particularly solar inverters. The question highlights vulnerabilities and cyber threats and asks if the Commission will follow the report’s recommendations to require European critical infrastructure to be manufactured on EU soil, impose market restrictions, and phase out Chinese components from EU-financed energy projects. A response from the Commission is pending.
