German MEP Markus Buchheit (ESN) has questioned the European Commission about when it plans to break up the paving in front of its Berlaymont headquarters and plant trees, arguing that the building's current bare concrete contradicts the EU's own Nature Restoration Regulation. Buchheit also asked which other Commission buildings, patios, roofs, and those of its agencies and delegations will be greened, and at what cost.
The written question, submitted on 9 June 2026, targets the Commission's credibility in applying its own environmental rules. Buchheit recalled that until the 1990s the Berlaymont was surrounded by Japanese cherry trees, which were felled during asbestos removal and replaced by uninterrupted paving. He asks for a timeline and cost estimates for restoring greenery at the Berlaymont and for a list of other Commission properties slated for greening.
a specific location (Berlaymont forecourt), a specific action (breaking up paving, planting trees), and a request for a list of other buildings with deadlines and costs. The MEP is pressing the Commission to practice what it preaches on nature restoration, potentially embarrassing the institution if it cannot show progress.
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether it plans to lead by example on the Nature Restoration Law or whether it considers its own buildings exempt from the regulation's spirit.
---
Policy orientations Buchheit's question pulls in two directions: on one hand, it demands that the Commission apply its own regulation to itself, which could strengthen the law's credibility; on the other, by focusing on a symbolic gesture (planting trees at the Berlaymont), it may implicitly question the law's broader cost-benefit balance. The MEP's group, the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), has generally been sceptical of EU environmental regulation, so the question could also be read as an attempt to expose hypocrisy or impracticality.
Stakeholder impact - European Commission: faces reputational risk if it cannot show it applies its own rules; may need to allocate budget for greening its buildings. - EU taxpayers: would bear the cost of any greening works, which could be significant if extended to multiple buildings. - Environmental NGOs: would welcome any concrete greening of Commission premises as a positive example, but may criticise delays or insufficient ambition. - EU building contractors and landscaping firms: could benefit from new contracts if the Commission proceeds with large-scale greening.
Expected follow-up The Commission's written answer will clarify its plans, if any, and could set a precedent for how EU institutions apply environmental regulations to their own estate. The reply is due by late July 2026.