Magnus Brunner

Policy topics Magnus Brunner is active on

What Magnus Brunner has said (80)

• 2026-06-12 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 12.6.2026 Written question The questions raised by the Honourable Member fall under the remit of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA). The Commission will send the reply by eu-LISA to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · Asylum & border control
• 2026-06-09 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 9.6.2026 Written question The Commission is aware of the outflow of individuals with links to the Islamic State from the al-Hol camp and is monitoring the situation closely. In accordance with Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union [1] , national security remains the sole responsibility of the Member States. The Commission does not possess operational information on these individuals, including on whether there are nationals of Member States among them. The EU supports Member States through measures strengthening border security, including the Schengen Information System (SIS) [2] , where competent authorities of Member States can insert alerts on wanted or sought persons, including known individuals from the camps, as well as the Entry/Exit System [3] . The new Screening Regulation [4] , applicable from June 2026, will further enhance security by requiring Member States to identify and screen all irregular migrants and asylum seekers against EU information systems. Moreover, in accordance with the mandate of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), Europol [5] supports actions of the competent authorities of Member States in preventing and combating terrorism and serious crime. The EU as co-lead of the Global Coalition to Defeat Da’esh is also working with international partners — including Syria, which has joined the Coalition in November 2025 — in countering Da’esh, while also supporting efforts to stabilise the situation in the North East Syria camps. On 26 February 2026, the Commission presented the Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism [6] , outlining actions to strengthen Europe’s response to evolving terrorist threats. These include a new SIS information alert and strengthened cooperation and information sharing on individuals potentially posing a terrorist or violent extremist threat. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018R1860; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R1861&qid=1706721891286; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1862/oj/eng. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32025R1534&qid=1759832232382. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1356/oj/eng. [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/794/oj/eng. [6] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/eu-agenda-preventing-and-countering-terrorism-and-violent-extremism_en.”
  Asylum & border control · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-09 “Executive director Lorraine Nolan, Chair of the Management Board Franz Pietsch First of all: welcome to Lorraine in her new role as Executive Director And to all of you: thank you very much for your work! The European Drugs Report 2026 gives us a very good analysis and overview and an evidence base to our approach on how to tackle all the drug related challenges. Drug markets have an impact on Europe's security, on organised crime, on health policy and on social vulnerability. So our approach must cover prevention, treatment and security! The facts we see in the report show an alarming picture. Cocaine is more available today than ever before. Whereas the volume of cocaine intercepted in Europe decreased by more than 20% in 2024, the seizures rose to 97.000. The Report also highlights the human cost of drug use! The latest figures show at least 7,600 overdose deaths in Europe. We see that Drug trafficking is no longer an isolated area of ​​crime. It finances money laundering, corruption, human trafficking, violence and other forms of serious organized crime. It is precisely these highly professional criminal networks that are behind this market. They use state-of-the-art technologies, encrypted communication, international logistics structures and enormous financial resources. At the same time, they exploit social vulnerabilities: social exclusion, lack of prospects, psychological stress and other social challenges create an environment in which drug use and dependence are encouraged. That's why we take a comprehensive approach. The new EU drugs strategy, the Action Plan against drug trafficking, together with proposed new rules for monitoring and controlling drug precursors: They are all part of this comprehensive EU response to the evolving Drug Phenomenon. The Drug Strategy combines public health and social prevention and treatment measures with a consistent security and law enforcement policy. Because we have to reduce both supply and demand. As far as law enforcement is concerned, at the end of last year we presented a European action plan against drug trafficking. The aim is to combat criminal networks along the entire supply chain - from the production countries through the transit routes to the European sales markets. A focus is on the security of our ports. A large part of the cocaine reaches Europe through them. That is why we are strengthening the European Ports Alliance, improving controls and taking targegreted action against the infiltration of ports by organized crime. And there we see already very good results: And we are intensifying cooperation with partner countries in Latin America and beyond. Drug trafficking is a global business - so our response must also be global. We have to do everything to stop new products flooding the market and use the full force of the law to tackle the business model of illegal traffickers. So, thank you very much again for your work. The report provides not only an important evidence base for our future work, but will also feed into the discussions of the European Council next week.”
  Regulation of drug precursors in the EU
• 2026-06-05 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 5.6.2026 Written question The Commission is aware of this statement. According to the Treaties, investigations into the Nord Stream pipelines incident fall solely under the responsibility of the Member State concerned. At the same time, the Commission supports the protection of critical infrastructure in the EU, including submarine cables and energy pipelines, as set out in the ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy [1] . The EU has reinforced its legislative framework with the directive on the resilience of critical entities [2] and the directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union [3] . As a follow-up to the Council Recommendation on strengthening critical infrastructure resilience [4] , Member States adopted in 2024 the EU critical infrastructure blueprint [5] to enhance cooperation at EU level in responding to disruptions with significant cross-border impact. The Commission also adopted in 2025 an EU Action Plan on Cable Security [6] to mitigate future threats to critical maritime infrastructure, which includes measures to strengthen the repair capacities and promote technologies to detect and deter hybrid threats and enhance surveillance and protection of maritime infrastructure. The EU maritime security strategy [7] includes further actions to improve surveillance, protection and resilience of infrastructure, including energy pipelines from conventional, hybrid and cyberattacks. Finally, in December 2025, the Commission launched a EUR 15 million call for proposals [8] to support the implementation of the directive on the resilience of critical entities as well as two calls of EUR 20 million for increasing the repair capacity of cables in the Baltic Sea and EUR 20 million for the deployment of smart sensing cables. [1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy; COM(2025) 148 final. [2] Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC: ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2557/oj. [3] Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive): ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023H0120%2801%29. [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202404371. [6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025JC0009. [7] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52023JC0008. [8] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-provide-eur-15-million-support-critical-entities-resilience-2025-12-10_en.”
  EU-Ukraine relations · Foreign interference in Europe
• 2026-06-04 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 4.6.2026 Written question EU funds are not used to support activities of mosques, Islamic centres or other places of worship. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) supports the restoration and valorisation of cultural heritage, recognising its contribution to socioeconomic and territorial cohesion and its role in addressing identified local needs in the Member States. Across the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods, only a limited number of EU-supported projects focused on the preservation of historic mosque buildings, most of them former or repurposed structures, to preserve and safeguard architectural heritage. For example, based on the Kohesio database, three former mosques were renovated in Greece and one active mosque in Poland that also serves as a Tatar cultural centre. In accordance with Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1149 [1] , the Internal Security Fund (ISF) is to contribute to the specific objective of supporting the strengthening of Member States’ capabilities to prevent and combat crime, terrorism and radicalisation, as well as to manage security-related incidents. In that regard, the ISF supports the implementation of the ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism [2] , including through enhancing the protection of places of worship of all faiths. In the context of shared management, Member States shall ensure that ERDF and ISF support is in line with the EU fundamental rights, equality, and non-discrimination as per Article 9 of the common provisions Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 [3] . [1] Regulation (EU) 2021/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Internal Security Fund , OJ L 251, 15.7.2021, pp. 94 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1149/oj. [2] COM(2026) 101 final: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/eu-agenda-preventing-and-countering-terrorism-and-violent-extremism_en. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj/eng.”
  EU policy on Islam · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2026-06-03 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 3.6.2026 Written question The Commission fully respects the principles of subsidiarity and of Member States’ sole responsibility for national security pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union. The measures announced under ProtectEU Agenda [1] aim to support Member States through enhanced cooperation, information exchange, analytical capacities, and a sharper legal toolbox, without altering this division of competences. The communication is a non-legislative Commission initiative. Like other Commission initiatives, it is transmitted to national parliaments, which may submit opinions under the political dialogue with the Commission. Any future legislative proposals stemming from the communication, including any reinforcement of the role of EU agencies or expansion of analytical and coordination capacities, would be prepared in accordance with the Treaties and with this division of competences, including appropriate involvement and consultation of national parliaments and regional authorities. Conditions and safeguards relating to data protection, fundamental rights and parliamentary scrutiny must be proportionate. The ProtectEU Agenda therefore also underlines that strengthened security action must go hand in hand with robust safeguards, including data protection, fundamental rights and effective oversight, in line with EU law. [1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism; COM/2026/101 final.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Privacy & law enforcement · Surveillance equipment & spyware
• 2026-06-03 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 3.6.2026 Written question The ‘ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism’ [1] is a non-legislative policy document. The terms used in this communication are analytical descriptors reflecting trends as outlined, among others, by the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation [2] , observed in Member States and practitioners’ assessments as well as research stemming from the Knowledge Hub on Prevention of Radicalisation — these do not create new legal categories or offences. References to ‘anti-system ideologies’ or ‘rejection of democratic values’ concern narratives that legitimise violence or seek to replace democratic processes by violent or terrorist means. The Commission is committed to fighting anti-Muslim hatred as defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance Recommendation [3] . EU action is grounded in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU [4] and applicable legislation. Expressions of opinion, including criticism of religions or public policies, are protected under Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter. Intervention is justified only where conduct meets the thresholds set by law, such as incitement to violence, terrorism, hatred or discrimination, as defined in relevant EU and national legislation. Directive (EU) 2017/54 on combating terrorism [5] defines terrorist offences and offences related to terrorist activities, including the public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. [1] COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism, COM/2026/101 final. [2] https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU_TE-SAT_2025.pdf. [3] European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) General Policy Recommendation No 5 (revised) on preventing and combating anti-Muslim racism and discrimination : https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-recommendation-no-5-revised-on-preventing-and-comb/1680a5db32. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng. [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/541/oj/eng.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · EU policy on Islam
• 2026-06-01 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 1.6.2026 Written question The Commission is very attentive to the impact of external conflicts and geopolitical events on EU’s internal security and is closely monitoring the evolution of the terrorist and extremist threat stemming from the conflict in the Middle East, relying on threat assessments produced by the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre and analysis from the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). While the terrorist threat was already high in the EU, Europol has reported a heightened security threat since the beginning of the conflict in Iran, that is duly taken into account. According to the Treaties, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State [1] . The Commission is not competent for the cooperation between national security services. ProtectEU [2] , the European Internal Security Strategy of April 2025, encourages enhanced intelligence-sharing at EU level through the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity, to improve EU-wide situational awareness and support informed policy work at EU level. Under the umbrella of ProtectEU, the Commission adopted on 26 February 2026 a new Agenda to prevent and combat terrorism [3] that sets out a comprehensive strategic framework. It fully takes into account the importance of the external dimension and proposes specific measures to tackle the spillover effects of geopolitical developments on the EU’s terrorism threat landscape. In parallel, the initiatives foreseen under the action plan [4] of the Pact for the Mediterranean will strengthen regional-level security cooperation with partner countries, as well as contribute to establishing new cooperation channels and hence increase situational awareness and operational preparedness in the EU and the Member States. [1] Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union. [2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy; COM/2025/148 final. [3] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism; COM/2026/101 final. [4] https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-presents-first-action-plan-under-pact-mediterranean-2026-04-17_en.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-05-26 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 26.5.2026 Written question The Busmantsi centre operates as a pre-return detention facility. The Return Directive [1] enables Member States to detain for removal purposes illegally staying third-country nationals if there is a risk of absconding or the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process. When imposing detention, Member States have to ensure compliance with the respective safeguards and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. The centre in question also includes a separate closed unit (places) which operates as a centre for applicants for international protection. The detention of applicants for international protection is regulated by Directive 2013/33/EU [2] . The Commission monitors the correct transposition and implementation of applicable EU law, including the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Detention conditions in Bulgaria were evaluated as part of the Schengen evaluation mission [3] which took place in November 2025. The outcome of the evaluation will be reflected in the report to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 and the remedial measures subsequently put in place by Bulgaria to address the recommendations will be monitored. [1] Article 15 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/115/oj?uri=CELEX:32008L0115. [2] In particular Articles 8 to 11 of Directive (EU) 2013/33: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/33/oj/eng. [3] The correct implementation of the return acquis is monitored through the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism in line with Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/922/oj/eng.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-22 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 22.5.2026 Written question While national security remains the competence of Member States, the Commission supports them. On 26 February 2026, the Commission presented the ProtectEU: Agenda to prevent and counter terrorism [1] . As announced in the Agenda, the continued support of the EU agency for law enforcement cooperation (Europol) and EU agency for criminal justice cooperation (Eurojust) to Member States’ law enforcement and judicial authorities will be reinforced through the revisions of the agencies’ mandates. The EU is also strengthening international cooperation, including through agreements on the exchange of personal data between Europol, Eurojust and priority third countries, as well as through capacity building in key regions. Frontex also supports the security of the EU’s external borders On the same day, the Commission also presented a proposal for a directive to combat firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences in the EU [2] to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement against firearms-related crimes. The Entry-Exit System [3] , which became fully operational on 10 April 2026, provides an important added layer of security against terrorist infiltration into the EU. From October 2025 until April 2026, it already allowed for the detection and barring from entering the EU of more than 600 persons considered a security threat. The new Screening Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 [4] , which will become applicable together with the European Pact on Migration [5] in June 2026, will further enhance security. It will facilitate the identification and systematic checks of third-country nationals who have crossed the external borders illegally or are staying illegally on Member States’ territory without having undergone entry checks. [1] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/eu-agenda-preventing-and-countering-terrorism-and-violent-extremism_en. [2] COM(2026) 102 final. [3] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/smart-borders/entry-exit-system_en. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02024R1356-20240522. [5] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-22 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 22.5.2026 Written question An EU-India memorandum of understanding on a comprehensive framework of cooperation on mobility (MoU) was signed on 27 January 2026 [1] . In this context, the European Legal Gateway Office pilot in India [2] will facilitate safe, legal, and well-informed mobility from India to Member States in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Through a dedicated office in India, a support office in the EU and an accompanying digital tool, the European Legal Gateway Office pilot will provide clear and reliable information on mobility pathways and their various skills and qualification requirements in the EU to Indian students, researchers, and professionals in the ICT sector. It will also support EU-based employers and higher education institutions to engage with Indian talent. The European Legal Gateway Office pilot will not be issuing any type of visas, as this is a competence of the Member States. To obtain a visa, third-country nationals, including those benefiting from the services of the European Legal Gateway Office pilot, will need to undergo national immigration procedures, including security checks. There is no intention for the European Legal Gateway Office pilot in India to act as a visa office; it will instead provide information about visa requirements and procedures to interested Indian nationals. [1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7308-2026-INIT/en/pdf. [2] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/launch-european-legal-gateway-office-pilot_en?s=167.”
  Legal migration
• 2026-05-19 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 19.5.2026 Written question The EU Internet Forum provides a collaborative environment to explore responses against terrorism, child sexual abuse, and other crimes online. The handbook in question provides information to support online platforms in their voluntary efforts to keep their users safe and to protect EU fundamental rights, including freedom of expression. The handbook does not equate Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with violent extremism. EU legislation , such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) [1] and the Terrorist Content Online Regulation [2] , includes strong safeguards to protect fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and information online. For example, the DSA introduces transparency requirements and redress mechanism, empowering users to obtain explanations and redress if their content is removed or restricted . These measures aim to ensure that any content moderation aiming to remove illegal and harmful content remains lawful, non-discriminatory and fully aligned with EU values. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/784/oj/eng.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2026-05-19 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 19.5.2026 Written question The Commission proposal for a Return Regulation [1] provides the legal framework setting out the minimum conditions for the establishment of return hubs. Among these minimum conditions, an agreement or arrangement for return hubs may only be concluded with a third country where international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, are respected. The proposal is now subject to negotiations between the co-legislators, which will define the legal conditions for return hubs. The Commission takes note of the discussions among Member States on return hubs. The Commission is not involved in bilateral talks between Member States and third countries on exploring possible future agreements or arrangements on the establishment of return hubs. [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.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-19 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 19.5.2026 Written question ProtectEU [1] embeds in its core the respect for fundamental rights, which is ultimately ensured also by the co-legislators, the Council and the European Parliament. In accordance with EU law, each proposal announced in ProtectEU needs to respect the principle of proportionality. When preparing legislative initiatives, EU Better Regulation rules [2] require the Commission to prepare impact assessments where the possible impacts of the initiatives on fundamental rights are assessed. This evidence-based approach, overseen by the independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board [3] , ensures legislative initiatives are consistent with EU values and allows the co-legislators to take an informed decision. Furthermore, during the preparation for ProtectEU, the Commission consulted the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. As one of the central principles of ProtectEU, the ‘whole of society’ approach intends to involve all stakeholders that can meaningfully contribute to the security of the EU, including citizens, civil society, academia and the private sector. Thus, public consultations made available on the Have Your Say portal accompany all impact assessments. This stakeholder engagement plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability, and in building trust in the drafting and implementation of EU security policies. [1] COM (2025) 148 final. [2] SWD (2021) 305 final. [3] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The rules on the assessment of applications for international protection are laid down in Directive 2011/95/EU [1] and Directive 2013/32/EU [2] . The Commission does not assess the merits of individual applications and related decisions taken by national authorities, as this responsibility falls entirely within the competence of the Member States. When applying these directives, Member States have to respect fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU [3] , including the principle of non-refoulement and the right to an effective legal remedy. The Commission may decide to follow up on an individual case if the latter reveals a general practice of incorrect application of EU law in the Member State concerned or if it relates to a problem of compliance of national legislation with EU law. The Commission closely monitors all Member States’ implementation of the EU asylum rules, including compliance with fundamental rights. [1] Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9-26: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/95/oj/eng). [2] Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp. 60-95, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/32/oj). [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question At this stage, the situation in Iran has not led to increased migratory flows towards the EU. The situation remains highly volatile. The Commission is closely monitoring developments in coordination with Member States, EU agencies, partner countries, international organisations and the European External Action Service, notably through the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Network [1] . This supports situational awareness, forecasting and early warning, enabling better anticipation and preparedness. Member States are responsible for contingency planning across different areas of border and migration management, enabling them to respond to a range of possible scenarios. At EU level, this is complemented by coordination and support measures, including the readiness of EU agencies to provide operational and technical assistance, and flexible EU funding, including emergency support where necessary. In the context of preparations for the Pact on Migration and Asylum [2] , the Commission is supporting Member States in ensuring a well-prepared migration management system by June 2026, including coordinated crisis response. As reaffirmed by leaders during the 19-20 March 2026 European Council, the EU is ready to mobilise its diplomatic, legal, operational and financial tools to prevent uncontrolled migratory movements to the EU and preserve security in Europe. [1] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1366 of 23 September 2020 on an EU mechanism for preparedness and management of crises related to migration, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/1366/oj/eng. [2] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-06 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question Notwithstanding the distribution of competences defined by the EU legal order in relation to policies and individual decisions to regularise the status of illegally staying third-country nationals, in an area without internal borders, Member States’ decisions may have consequences on other Member States and on the EU as a whole. A national residence permit issued by a Member State does not give authorisation to settle freely around the EU, but only to live and work in the Member State that issued it [1] . If a permit holder is found illegally staying or applies for asylum in another Member State, the permit holder must return to the issuing Member State. National authorities must act in a spirit of sincere cooperation for this to happen swiftly. The Commission is advancing a new EU common approach to returns. The proposed Return Regulation [2] , which is currently under negotiation, aims to provide Member States with a more efficient framework to increase returns. Work is ongoing on the digitalisation of return, readmission and reintegration, with a proposal planned in 2026. The forthcoming revision of the regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency [3] will also provide an opportunity to strengthen its role in returns. The Commission monitors the application of EU law in all Member States, including through the Schengen Evaluation Monitoring Mechanism [4] . This is without prejudice to the possibility of using other instruments at its disposal as guardian of the Treaties. [1] Article 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, pp 19-62: ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/convention/2000/922/oj. [2] 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. [3] Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, pp. 1-131. [4] Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 of 9 June 2022 on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013.”
  Asylum & border control · Legal migration
• 2026-05-05 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 5.5.2026 Written question The Commission shares the concerns about organised value added tax (VAT) and customs duty fraud and their impact on Member States and, indirectly, the EU budget, economy and security. Europol’s 2025 Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment confirms [1] that fraud remains a serious and persistent threat. As announced in ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy [2] , the Commission will propose to reinforce the mandates of Europol and Eurojust and modernise the rules to fight against organised crime in 2026. In addition, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates and prosecutes criminal offences affecting EU’s financial interests, while the European Anti-Fraud Office conducts administrative investigations into irregularities against the EU budget. The Commission also supports the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats operational action plan on VAT and Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud [3] . The Commission is currently reviewing the EU’s Anti-Fraud Architecture, to strengthen the protection of the EU’s financial interests. The aim is to modernise the EU’s anti-fraud framework and, thus, strengthen the EU’s capacity to detect and combat crimes affecting the EU budget, including VAT and customs fraud. To implement the follow-the-money approach, the Commission calls for swift transposition of the directive on asset recovery and confiscation [4] . Once operational, the new EU Customs Authority and EU Customs Data Hub [5] will better equip customs to perform risk analysis and further improve cooperation between all law enforcement bodies. Together, these measures will better equip the EU and Member States to disrupt criminal networks and better protect Europe’s security, economy and financial system. [1] https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU-SOCTA-2025.pdf. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0148. [3] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/law-enforcement-cooperation/empact-fighting-crime-together_en. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1260/oj/eng. [5] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs/eu-customs-reform_en.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-05-05 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 5.5.2026 Written question Member States are responsible to assess the merits of return cases in accordance with the Return Directive [1] . This directive applies to illegally staying third-country nationals including minors. When returning a minor, national authorities must take due account of the best interests of the child and family life, notably in proceedings leading to a return decision. Article 24 of the EU Charter establishes that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public or private bodies, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration. It is at the discretion of national authorities and courts to interpret and secure such interests in individual cases. The Return Handbook [2] provides guidance to Member States on the Return Directive, including on the return of minors, although only legal acts produce legally binding effects and can be invoked before a national jurisdiction. Legally binding interpretations of Union law can only be given by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission is in regular contact with all Member States on the implementation of the Pact of Migration and Asylum [3] , including on aspects related to minors in migration. [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. [2] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out return-related tasks, OJ L 339 of 19.12.2017, p. 82. [3] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination · Asylum & border control
• 2026-05-04 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written question The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Middle East and is supporting partner countries, including through cooperation with international organisations. There are currently no indications of increased cross-border movements towards the EU. Preparedness is ensured through the implementation of a comprehensive migration crisis response framework. Member States are responsible for contingency planning concerning border and migration management, which is complemented at EU level by coordination and support measures, including the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Network [1] , the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the operational and technical support of EU agencies, and flexible EU funding. The Commission recognises that Member States at EU external borders may be particularly exposed. The Commission is therefore providing targeted support, including reinforced operational deployments of EU agencies, to help ensure an effective migration management system and it is ready to step up assistance if needed. The Pact on Migration and Asylum [2] offers a comprehensive approach and firm but fair rules to manage migration in a spirit of responsibility and solidarity. This includes strengthening preparedness, ensuring a coordinated crisis response and embedding migration in international partnerships, including the possibility to adapt to exceptional migration-related circumstances, as set out in the Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation [3] . [1] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1366 of 23 September 2020 on an EU mechanism for preparedness and management of crises related to migration, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/1366/oj/eng. [2] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en. [3] Regulation (EU) 2024/1359 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1147, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1359/oj/eng.”
  EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-30 “E-000429/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission While there are no plans to establish a centralised analysis of the ‘Epstein files’ at EU level, the EU has a strong legal and operational framework to support Member States in tackling complex and cross-border crime, including trafficking in human beings and child sexual exploitation. In particular, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) 1 facilitates the rapid and secure exchange of criminal intelligence across the EU and provides advanced analytical support to help national authorities identify links between suspects, financial flows and transnational criminal networks. The Commission recalls that investigation of criminal offences is the competence of national authorities. At the operational level, the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) 2 platform enables Member States to coordinate investigations affecting EU security and transform separate national child sexual exploitation cases into a shared, intelligence led EU response. The victims’ rights policy is equally high on the agenda of the Commission. The overall objective of the Victims’ Rights Directive 3 is to facilitate victims’ access to justice. The recently provisionally agreed revision of the Directive 4 further strengthens all victims’ rights, including rights to support and protection and victims’ access to justice. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). 2 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/law-enforcement-cooperation/empact-fightingcrime-together_en. 3 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57 – 73. 4 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of The Council amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, COM/2023/424 final.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-04-29 “E-000788/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Entry/Exit System (EES) is one of the most modern border management systems in the world contributing to the security of the EU and its citizens. The Commission is aware of media reports on challenges in scaling up biometric registrations under the EES, including alleged delays. While some Member States faced isolated delays, the vast majority of Member States successfully registered border crossings respecting the required thresholds and without significant disruptions or queues attributable to the EES. The Commission diligently monitors the progressive roll out of the EES through daily statistics, close coordination with Member States encountering technical difficulties, targeted support and exchange of best practices on possible solutions. Moreover, the Regulation (EU) 2025/1534 1 provides solutions, such as the full or partial suspension, to address exceptional circumstances, for example extended processing times or technical issues. The Commission is liaising with the sea, air, land and rail carriers, urging Member States to collaborate in ensuring seamless travel for passengers. The legal framework governing the EES requires Member States to submit monthly reports detailing their adherence to rollout plans and identifying deviations or corrective measures. These reports are submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, and the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA) 2 . Consequently, the European Parliament receives regular, transparent updates on the operational status of the EES in each Member State, including implementation difficulties encountered during the phased introduction. For precise figures on the number of Member States reporting issues, the Honourable Members may refer to these reports. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/1534/oj/eng. 2 Article 3(3), Regulation (EU) 2025/1534 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2025 on temporary derogations from certain provisions of Regulations (EU) 2017/2226 and (EU) 2016/399 as regards the progressive start of operations of the Entry/Exit System.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-27 “E-001081/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has asked the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) to provide a reply to the question put forward by the Honourable Member. The reply of the agency will be transmitted by the Commission to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-04-27 “E-001082/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has asked the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) to provide a reply to the question put forward by the Honourable Member. The reply of the agency will be transmitted by the Commission to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-04-24 “P-000804/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In its Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/2323 1 the Commission identified Bulgaria as a Member State facing a significant migratory situation and at risk of migratory pressure. In accordance with Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 on Asylum and Migration Management 2 , a Member State facing a significant migratory situation may request a full or partial deduction of its solidarity contributions. This request is then assessed by the Commission and, based on that assessment, the Council may adopt a decision authorising the deduction of the solidarity contribution. The procedure may be initiated by the Member State concerned and can be asked at any time during the annual migration management cycle. Since Bulgaria has been identified as a Member State at risk of migratory pressure, it has a priority access to the Permanent EU Migration Support Toolbox established by Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 3 . The Commission does not disclose or publish bilateral exchanges with Member States. 1 OJ L, 2025/2323, 14.11.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2025/2323/oj. 2 OJ L, 2024/1351, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1351/oj. 3 Please see footnote 2.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-24 “E-000617/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The EU-India Memorandum of Understanding on a comprehensive framework of cooperation on mobility (the MoU) is a non-legally binding instrument, which does not create any new legal pathways to the EU. In accordance with Article 79(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming to their territory to seek work. Issuing visas also remains a competence of the Member States. To obtain a permit, thirdcountry nationals, including those using the EU Talent Pool 1 and the EU Legal Gateway Office pilot 2 , will need to undergo national immigration procedures, comprising security checks. To register on the EU Talent Pool, jobseekers will have to declare they are not subject to an entry ban. If this is the case, they will not have access to the platform. The MoU fits into the wider context of deepening EU ties with India, alongside the ‘Towards 2030: A Joint India-European Union Comprehensive Strategic Agenda’ 3 , the Free Trade Agreement, the Security and Defence Partnership 4 , as well as other initiatives concluded at the EU-India Summit of 27 January 2026. The EU engages with India on all concerns regarding Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, including on sanctions circumvention. The Summit Statement 5 and the accompanying Strategic Agenda also pave the way for enhanced EU-India cooperation on the clean transition and energy resilience, including energy security and diversification. 1 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-resettlement/work/eutalent-pool_en. 2 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/launch-european-legal-gateway-office-pilot_en?s=167. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/statement_26_224. 4 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-india-sign-security-defence-partnership_en. 5 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5727-2026-INIT/en/pdf.”
  EU-India relations · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-23 “E-000523/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The legal basis for pilot projects of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is Regulation 2019/1896 1 , in particular Article 66(4) thereof, which provides that Frontex may plan and implement pilot projects regarding matters covered by its tasks under that Regulation, and Article 10(1)(x) thereof, which defines the development of pilot projects ‘for the carrying out of activities as provided for in this Regulation’. The activities conducted under the pilot project fall under the activities which may be conducted under pilot projects in the field of the European Border Surveillance system fusion services as listed in Article 28 of Regulation 2019/1896. Furthermore, under Article 73(7) of Regulation 2019/1896, Frontex should make pilot projects with third countries public. As sub-question three falls under the responsibility of Frontex, the Commission has asked the Agency to provide a response to the question raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624. OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, pp. 1. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1896/oj.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-22 “E-000758/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been using the non-legally binding working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition 1 since 2017 as a tool in recognising contemporary forms of antisemitism. The 2018 survey by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) among Jewish Europeans shows that the examples in the definition reflect what the vast majority perceives as antisemitic 2 . The Commission therefore considers the IHRA definition as the benchmark for promoting a rights-based and victim-centred approach to combating antisemitism 3 . Member States endorsed the use of the IHRA definition in Council Conclusions on combating racism and antisemitism, adopted on 4 March 2022. The use of the IHRA definition is consistent with the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021-2030) and was reaffirmed by the Council in 2024 4 . The IHRA definition does not limit freedom of expression as the examples of the definition clearly state that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law. 1 https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism. 2 https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/experiences-and-perceptions-antisemitism-second-surveydiscrimination-and-hate. 3 The drafting of the original working definition took place under the umbrella of the European Union Monitoring Centre and in an OSCE context and included a variety of experts who continue to support the definition. 4 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14245-2024-INIT/en/pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.”
  EU competences on human rights · Jewish culture and antisemitism
• 2026-04-21 “P-000713/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The decision to enter negotiations with the US was taken by the Member States on 16 December 2025 when the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a framework agreement between the EU and the US on the reciprocal exchange of information for security screenings and identity verifications relating to border procedures and visa applications 1 , and appointed the Commission as the EU negotiator. Key priorities for the Commission during these negotiations are to ensure a fair, reciprocal and proportionate information exchange which would bring security benefits to the EU and ensure respect of EU’s standards on the protection of personal data. The visa waiver reciprocity is a principle under the EU's common visa policy and an objective which the EU pursues in a proactive manner in its relations with third countries – including the US. As long as the Commission continues to see sustained progress through its engagement with the US, it considers that full visa reciprocity for all EU nationals can be best achieved through continued diplomatic cooperation with the US, and in close coordination with the Member States concerned. 1 Council Decision (EU) 2025/2640: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/2640/oj/eng.”
  Asylum & border control · Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-04-17 “E-000684/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Germany has invoked serious security risks posed by a persistently high level of illegal migration, the strain on the German asylum reception system, and the impact of the global security situation, in particular Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the security situation in the Middle East as justifications for prolongation of internal border control. The Commission has been conducting consultations with the Member States concerned to support them with alternative and mitigating measures 1 . The Commission is currently assessing all reintroductions of internal border control carried out by the Member States concerned, in line with the revised Schengen Borders Code 2 . No complaint has been lodged under Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 3 . 1 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: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2024/268/oj/eng. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1717 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. OJ L 2024/1717, 20.6.2024: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401717. 3 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version). OJ C 326, 26.10.2012: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A12012E%2FTXT.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-16 “E-000601/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with EU law, Member States must designate competent authorities, in particular to receive applications for international protection, and ensure the access of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to applicants, once disembarked. All Member States involved in search and rescue operations must prioritise saving lives at sea, in accordance with their obligations under EU and international law. When applying EU law, Member States must comply with the principle of non-refoulement. It is the responsibility of every Member State to correctly implement EU law, including in the context of maritime surveillance operations coordinated by Frontex and falling under the scope of Regulation (EU) 656/2014 1 . Alleged violations of fundamental rights and of the principle of non-refoulement, and incidents that result in loss of life at sea must be investigated promptly and thoroughly. In doing so, Member States may also need to ensure that appropriate means are in place to record, preserve, and check evidence, to ensure effective accountability. 1 Regulation (EU) No 656/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/656/oj).”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-16 “E-000574/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The financial penalty imposed on Hungary following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-123/22 1 had accumulated to EUR 800 million by 2 February 2026 (included), comprising the EUR 200 million lump-sum penalty and daily fines accrued since 13 June 2024. To date, over EUR 726 million, including the lump sum and the first eight payment requests for the daily penalty, has been offset from EU budget transfers to Hungary. Of this amount, EUR 539 million has been definitively confirmed following the completion of the necessary legal and administrative procedures. There are no additional penalties, fines or payment obligations currently in force against Hungary with respect to judgments of the Court of Justice other than the judgment referred to above. 1 Case C-123/22: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/SUM/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0123_RES.”
  Rule of law in Hungary · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-15 “E-000580/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission While national security remains solely a competence of the Member States, the EU supports efforts at EU and national levels to prevent and combat, inter alia, organised crime through the existing envelope Internal Security Fund (ISF) 2021-2027 1 . The Commission regularly assesses the implementation of the ISF and collaborates with Member States to address emerging internal security challenges. The Agenda to Prevent and Counter Terrorism adopted on 26 February 2026 2 highlights the need to adopt a security-by-design principle in planning of urban areas, public spaces and places of worship across Europe. It also secures investments for EUR 30 million in projects aimed at improving the overall security of public spaces. The EU already allocates specific funding under ISF for initiatives that address urban security and organised crime and help Member States modernise their police forces and tools. Examples include projects to enhance national operational capabilities, such as purchase of specialised equipment, development and upgrading of communication and information systems for law enforcement authorities, e.g. the recent call for the ‘Uptake of innovative digital technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, by Law Enforcement Authorities’ 3 . These measures aim to strengthen the protection of citizens, public spaces, and critical infrastructure against evolving and increasingly transnational threats while supporting the work of national authorities. For 2028-2034, the Commission has proposed a tripling of funding for internal security policy priorities, inter alia to better address the priorities cited in the question 4 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Internal Security Fund. 2 COM (2026) 101 final. 3 Reference ISF/2026/SA/INNO/3.4.3. 4 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for internal security for the period from 2028 to 2034 COM(2025) 542 final of 16 July 2025 under Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 20282034 and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 COM(2025) 565 final of 16 July 2025.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-04-15 “E-000679/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Entry/Exit System (EES) must be fully operational at all border crossing points of the Schengen area by 10 April 2026. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised by the transport industry regarding the potential EES impact on their operations during summer 2026. To that end, the Commission is facilitating dialogue between the industry and Member States to address remaining challenges and ensure a seamless transition to the full EES operation. The Commission encourages Member States to implement technical and operational solutions to address potentially excessive waiting times and minimise disruptions for travellers and industry operators. These measures include automation through the self-service systems and e-gates, as well as the use of ‘Travel to Europe’ mobile preregistration application. The Commission also urges Member States to address structural issues in border management by ensuring adequate number of personnel and sufficient infrastructure, and by supporting flow managers. The Commission additionally facilitates the exchange of good practices among Member States to enhance travel facilitation. As of 10 April 2026, Member States will have the possibility to partially suspend EES operations during a period of 90 days to address possible excessive waiting times. This period may be extended by an additional period of 60 days if less than 80% of individual files registered during the progressive start of operations contain biometric data.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-14 “E-000492/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Rendering assistance to persons in distress at sea is a moral duty and a legal obligation under international law. Migrant deaths at sea are a tragic reminder of the need for a comprehensive approach to migration management and renewed efforts to combat migrant smuggling. The Commission is committed to preventing dangerous journeys by tackling the root causes of illegal migration and strengthening measures against organised crime along migratory routes while promoting safe and legal pathways. As regards search and rescue (SAR) 1 , the Commission has promoted reinforced information sharing, coordination and cooperation among all relevant stakeholders, including partner countries. Upon requests by the Member States, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) provides technical and operational support to facilitate the safe and effective management of the external borders of the EU. The Agency must act in full compliance with its EU and international law obligations in all its activities and engagements. SAR is a responsibility of national authorities, Frontex, through the provision of services such as aerial surveillance, can support SAR operations and help saving lives at sea, by enabling the Member States to identify situations of potential distress earlier and respond more quickly and effectively. In 2025 alone, 24 877 people were rescued at sea with Frontex support 2 . The Commission is working on the revision of the Frontex mandate, in line with the Commission’s political guidelines 3 , including with the aim of increasing its surveillance capabilities, which are key also to prevent loss of lives at sea. 1 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/search-and-rescue_en. 2 Frontex, 2025 In Brief: https://www.frontex.europa.eu/2025-in-brief/. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-14 “P-000916/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The situation in the Middle East raises significant challenges, including in the area of migration. For the time being, there are no increased migratory flows to the EU. The Commission is monitoring developments, tracking migratory flows through the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Network 1 in cooperation with Member States, the European External Action Service, EU Agencies, as well as the International Organisation for Migration, UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2 and partner countries. As the situation on the ground may evolve rapidly, the EU must be prepared and act decisively to address challenges, mobilising its diplomatic, legal, operational and financial tools. The Commission is addressing the evolving emergency needs on the ground by supporting partner countries, including through cooperation with international organisations in both immediate and longer-term response efforts. National systems need to be fully prepared for the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum 3 and in terms of contingency planning both at the external borders and within the national asylum and migration systems. EU agencies stand ready to provide operational and technical support. Member States’ national programmes under Home Affairs Fund programmes can be used to respond to situations of increased migratory pressure and, if needed, emergency assistance or other forms of additional support can be mobilised. The Commission continues to monitor the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. While progress has been made, work needs to be intensified, and the remaining gaps need to be closed. The Commission supports Member States to ensure the establishment of a well-prepared migration management system, including measures to ensure preparedness, contingency planning and crisis response. 1 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1366 of 23 September 2020 on an EU mechanism for preparedness and management of crises related to migration: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/1366/oj/eng. 2 Known as the UN Refugee Agency. 3 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.”
  EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-14 “E-000405/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission On 29 January 2026, the Commission presented the first European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy 1 , setting out concrete objectives for the next five years. This strategy, together with the reform introduced by the Pact on Migration and Asylum 2 , will help reducing illegal arrivals to the EU and unauthorised secondary movements within the EU, countering the adverse effects these have on migration management and security. There are some issues in the area of migration that remain under the sole responsibility of Member States, and policies and decisions to regularise the status of illegally staying thirdcountry nationals fall into this category. It is important that Member States’ decisions do not affect the correct application of the EU migration and asylum system. A national residence permit issued by a Member State does not give authorisation to settle freely around the EU, but only to live and work in the Member State that issued it. If a person holding a national residence permit is found to be illegally staying in another Member State, or if that person applies for asylum in another Member State, that person must go back to the Member State that issued the residence permit. National authorities must act in a spirit of sincere cooperation for this to happen swiftly. In the context of the Return Handbook 3 , the Commission recommended to take into consideration specific criteria and circumstances when deciding to regularise the status of illegally staying third-country nationals under national law. 1 COM(2026) 45 final: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ce0d294e-5dd9-4e2a-bf6853d9d16fc95a_en?filename=European%20Asylum%20and%20Migration%20Strategy.pdf. 2 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en. 3 C/2017/6505: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2017/2338/oj/eng.”
  Asylum & border control · Legal migration
• 2026-04-13 “E-000396/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are fully responsible for the organisation of their education systems and for the content of teaching. The Commission is supporting curricula developers and educators by providing dedicated resources, including through financing the project ‘addressing antisemitism through education’ implemented by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 1 . The EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030) 2 invites schools across the EU to ensure that all pupils learn about Jewish life in Europe, the Holocaust and antisemitism and mark the annual International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Commission will develop an EU citizenship competence framework to strengthen curricular development in this area. The fight against antisemitism is funded under various funding programmes, for example the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme, Creative Europe, the Erasmus+, the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, the Internal Security Fund and the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Project applications are examined and approved in compliance with the applicable eligibility rules. If there is evidence of a beneficiary acting in violation of applicable legislation, EU values, applicable EU acquis and international law, in the implementation of a project, the Commission and Member States consider the available means to terminate the cooperation and recover the EU funds. Based on a College decision of December 2019, the Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life, together with three staff members, currently leads the implementation of the EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030). As part of mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism, an array of colleagues in many other Commission services contribute to the implementation of the strategy through relevant actions. 1 Strategies to counter antisemitism: a handbook for educators, UNESCO, 2025: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000396116. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021DC0615.”
  Jewish culture and antisemitism · Role of education (social change vs. tradition)
• 2026-04-13 “E-000522/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In January 2026, the Commission presented the first five-year European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy 1 setting out three main objectives: preventing illegal migration and breaking the business model of smugglers; protecting people fleeing war and persecution, while preventing abuse of the asylum system; and attracting talent to boost the competitiveness of the EU’s economy. In addition, thanks to the reforms brought by the Pact on Migration and Asylum 2 , an assertive migration diplomacy, and effective operational cooperation within and outside the EU has led to a reduction in illegal arrivals since 2023. Notwithstanding the distribution of competences defined by the EU legal order in relation to policies and individual decisions to regularise the status of illegally staying third-country nationals, in an area without internal borders the actions of one Member State may have consequences for other Member States and on the EU as a whole. A national residence permit does not give authorisation to settle freely around the EU, but only to live and work in the Member State that issued it 3 . If a person holding a national residence permit is found to be illegally staying in another part of the EU, that person must go back to the Member State that issued it 4 . National authorities must act in a spirit of sincere cooperation for this to happen swiftly. The Commission understands that the conditions being considered for regularisation process in Spain include whether the applicant has a criminal record or poses a threat to public order or security. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52026DC0045. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0609. 3 Article 21, Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, pp 19-62: EUR-Lex 42000A0922(02) - EN - EUR-Lex). 4 Article 23, Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, pp. 19-62: EUR-Lex 42000A0922(02) - EN - EUR-Lex).”
  Asylum & border control · Legal migration
• 2026-04-10 “P-000781/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recalls that the investigation of criminal offences is the competence of national authorities. The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) facilitates the rapid and secure exchange of criminal intelligence across the EU and provides advanced analytical support to help national authorities identify links between suspects, financial flows and transnational criminal networks. At the operational level, the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) platform 1 enables Member States to coordinate investigations and transform separate national child sexual exploitation cases into a shared, intelligence-led EU response. In July 2025, the Commission created the expert group Network for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse 2 to advise the Commission, share best practices, and support the development and implementation of prevention measures. Moreover, the Commission has presented two legislative proposals 3 to prevent and combat child sexual abuse which include provisions to reinforce the prevention of child sexual abuse online and offline, including across borders. Both proposals are being negotiated by the co-legislators and the Commission continues to support the co-legislators in reaching swift agreement, in particular on the rules that determine the possibilities and obligations for online platforms to take action against child sexual abuse. Moreover, the Commission remains committed to combating serious and organised crime, including the disruption of corresponding financial flows, as reflected in ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy 4 . The ‘follow the money’ approach remains a cornerstone of this effort, further reinforced by the adoption of the 2024 Directive on Asset Recovery and Confiscation 5 . 1 https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/empact. 2 C(2025) 5252 final. 3 COM/2022/209 final, COM/2024/60 final. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0148. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=oj:L_202401260.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Privacy & detection of online child abuse · Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-04-10 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 10.4.2026 Written question The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) has concluded status agreements with a number of EU candidate countries. In this context, in 2023, Commission services held an information session for various Ukrainian authorities on the nature and purpose of status agreements, outlining the procedural requirements under Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union . Negotiations are only possible with Council authorisation. A status agreement would provide a legal framework for Frontex to directly support Ukraine’s border management authorities, including with tasks requiring executive powers, once the security situation permits. This would enhance the current cooperation, under the working arrangement between Frontex and the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service. As an EU candidate country, Ukraine will need to bring its border-management framework in line with the EU acquis. As a neighbouring country sharing some 1 300 km of land border with the EU, it is in the EU’s interest that those borders are managed to the highest possible standard. Discussions are ongoing with Member States on how the EU can best support Ukraine in the management of its borders, in particular those it shares with the EU.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-10 “E-000362/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the latest developments raised by the Honourable Members concerning the law that was recently adopted in Greece. The Commission shared its preliminary views on the draft legislation with the Greek authorities during the public consultation period 1 . The matter was also discussed during the recent meetings in January with the Greek Minister of Migration and Asylum. In the exchanges with authorities in Greece, including in the context of the Rule of Law report, the Commission regularly recalled the need for establishing a regular and sustained structured dialogues with civil society organisations, as well as for the simplification of registration requirements to ensure an open and enabling framework for their operation. The importance of structured dialogues with civil society organisations has also been emphasised as part of the recently adopted EU Strategy for Civil Society 2 . The Commission will analyse the adopted law carefully and remain in close contact with the Greek authorities to understand how it is intended to be implemented in practice. The Commission will also continue to monitor the developments in the context of the Rule of Law Report process. The 2026 edition of the Report, currently under preparation, will be published in July 2026. 1 30 December 2025 – 14 January 2026. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0790.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-10 “E-000490/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the threat posed by transnational left-wing extremism, which varies across Member States. Its transnational dimension is increasingly shaped by geopolitical tension which serve as catalysts for cross-border radicalisation. Europol supports Member States in information sharing, in jointly carrying out investigative and operational activities, and in preparing threats assessments, strategic and operational analysis. It focuses on identifying trends and cross-border activities, improving law enforcement cooperation, and ensuring an effective EU response to the threats of serious international and organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism in the EU. The EU has a robust legal framework in place, including the Terrorist Content Online Regulation 1 and the Digital Services Act (DSA) 2 . In particular, the Terrorist Content Online Regulation provides a unique legal framework to counter specifically the dissemination of terrorist content, while the DSA harmonises the rules applicable to intermediary services (including online platforms) and aims to ensure a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, addressing the dissemination of illegal content online and the societal risks that the dissemination of other type of content may generate. In addition, the Commission is working with digital platforms in the framework of the EU Internet Forum to take additional voluntary measures to counter the misuse of hosting services for terrorist or violent extremist purposes regardless the underlying ideology. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 172, 17.5.2021. 2 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-04-08 “E-000548/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Saving lives at sea is a moral duty, as well as a legal obligation for Member States under international law, regardless of the circumstances that have led people to be in distress at sea. All actors involved in search and rescue operations should comply with the relevant international legal framework and act in a lawful, swift, and coordinated way to make sure that those in distress at sea are brought to safety as rapidly as possible. The principle of non-refoulement should be respected. According to information available to the Commission, European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) assets were not present during the incident. Every life lost at sea is a tragedy. It is up to Member State authorities to investigate incidents, such as the one referred to by the Honourable Members, in order to establish the facts and act accordingly. The Commission followed the events on Chios closely and remains in contact with the Greek authorities. As per the information received, an investigation has been launched by the Central Port Authority of Chios which will establish the facts and determine the circumstances of this incident.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-08 “E-000622/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In 2025, there were around 11 000 illegal border crossings (IBCs) at the EU’s eastern border 1 , according to consolidated Frontex data (–36% compared to 2024). At the EU’s external border with Belarus, the authorities of Poland, Latvia and Lithuania reported that, in 2025, there was again a high number of attempts to illegally cross the border. This demonstrates that the weaponisation of migration continues at the EU’s external borders with Belarus. The difference between the data reported by Frontex and by the Member States is that Frontex uses a single definition of attempted IBCs applicable across the EU, while individual Member States collect data based on their own national definition of attempted IBCs. There is currently no commonly agreed EU-wide definition for attempts to cross the border illegally. However, as part of the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, Frontex is working together with the Commission and Member States to establish an EU-wide common data collection on verifiable attempts to cross the border illegally. The Commission therefore does not consider the Frontex data misleading. 1 At the EU external borders with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-04-08 “E-000366/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission On 29 January 2026, the Commission presented the first European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy 1 , setting out the way forward to achieve three objectives: preventing illegal migration and breaking the business of criminal smuggling networks; protecting people fleeing war and persecution, while preventing abuse of the asylum system; and attracting talent to boost the competitiveness of the EU’s economy. The combination of the reforms brought by the Pact on Migration and Asylum 2 balancing solidarity and responsibility, an assertive migration diplomacy, and effective operational cooperation within and outside the EU is already showing results, notably with a significant reduction in illegal arrivals since 2023. Notwithstanding the distribution of competences defined by the EU legal order in relation to policies and individual decisions to regularise the status of illegally staying third-country nationals, in an area without internal borders, Member States’ decisions may have consequences on other Member States and on the EU as a whole. A national residence permit does not give the authorisation to move around the EU, but only to live and work in the Member State that issued it. The EU has clear rules that need to be respected. For example, if a person holding a national residence permit is found to be illegally staying in another part of the EU, or if that person applies for asylum in another Member State, that person must go back to the Member State that issued the residence permit. National authorities must act in a spirit of sincere cooperation for this to happen swiftly. The Commission has not received an official communication from Spain about the draft measure to regularise illegally staying third-country nationals, announced on 27 January 2026 3 . 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM (2026) 45 final, https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ce0d294e-5dd9-4e2a-bf6853d9d16fc95a_en?filename=European%20Asylum%20and%20Migration%20Strategy.pdf. 2 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en. 3 See website of the Ministry for inclusion, social security and migration: https://www.inclusion.gob.es/en/w/elgobierno-inicia-los-tramites-de-un-proceso-de-regularizacion-extraordinaria-para-integrar-a-personasextranjeras-que-ya-viven-en-espana.”
  Asylum & border control · Legal migration
• 2026-04-07 “P-000585/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Since Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, the EU has taken unprecedented visa measures, including the full suspension of the Visa Facilitation Agreement with Russia 1 ; adopting guidelines to promote a common approach regarding examination of visa applications for Russian nationals, including a particularly strict approach for applicants traveling for tourism purposes 2 ; and adopting restrictive rules on issuing of multiple-entry visas to Russian nationals, ensuring that applicants are scrutinised thoroughly and frequently 3 . The Commission is closely monitoring the application of these visa measures by Member States. In its EU Visa Policy Strategy 4 , adopted on 29 January 2026, the Commission has noted that the continued issuance of visas for non-essential travel purposes such as tourism, leisure or unofficial visits by nationals from hostile third countries could pose serious risks to EU’s security, public policy or international relations. To address these risks, the Commission announced in the Strategy that it will consider proposing a new category of targeted restrictive visa measures, which could allow for the general suspension, rejection or restriction of Schengen visa applications submitted by nationals of such third countries, in a proportionate manner and with the necessary safeguards. 1 Council Decision (EU) 2022/1500 of 9 September 2022 on the suspension in whole of the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas to the citizens of the European Union and the Russian Federation. 2 C(2022) 7111 final. 3 C(2025) 7552 final. 4 COM(2026) 43 final.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-31 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 31.3.2026 Written question The amount of the lump sum and daily penalties for Hungary’s continued failure to comply with an earlier judgment in Case C-808/18 [1] was fixed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in Case C-123/22, Commission v Hungary [2] . The Commission continues to enforce the recovery of penalties ordered by the Court by means of offsetting funds allocated to Hungary from the EU budget. The general regime of conditionality [3] has been designed to protect the EU budget, both in its revenue and expenditure sides, from breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States that affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the financial interests of the EU in a sufficiently direct way. The Council, on a proposal by the Commission, in December 2022 [4] adopted measures to protect the EU budget from breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary. These measures are still in place, as Hungary did not adopt adequate remedies. The Commission keeps monitoring the situation in all the Member States. Under the Conditionality Regulation, lack of implementation of judgments is a situation that is indicative of breaches of the principles of the rule of law. For a procedure to start, any such situation must concern the EU budget in a sufficiently direct way and there would be no other procedure under EU law that would allow to protect the EU budget more effectively. [1] https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/jurisprudence?sort=DOC_DATE-DESC&searchTerm=%22C-808%2F18%22&publishedId=C-808%2F18. [2] https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?sort=AFF_NUM-DESC&searchTerm=%22C-123%2F22%22&publishedId=C-123%2F22. [3] Conditionality Regulation, OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, pp. 1-10, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022D2506.”
  Asylum & border control · Rule of law in Hungary · Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2026-03-31 “P-000868/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Thus far, Nicaragua has not officially communicated any change of its visa policy to the Commission, nor the rationale behind its policy change. The Commission is currently establishing facts in order to be able to decide on the best way forward, in coordination with the Member States affected. Visa reciprocity is an important element of EU visa policy. The EU visa reciprocity mechanism 1 requires that third countries, whose citizens enjoy visa-free travel to the EU, such as Nicaragua, grant reciprocal visa-free access to citizens of all Member States. In case of non-reciprocity, the EU can take a series of steps, including temporarily suspending visa-free travel for certain categories of nationals of that third country, as per the rules of the EU visa reciprocity mechanism. Diplomatic contacts with the third country concerned constitute one of the first steps envisaged in the reciprocity mechanism in order to remedy the situation. Such contacts with Nicaragua are ongoing through the EU Delegation in Managua. 1 Article 7 of Regulation 1806/2018.”
  EU relations with left-wing Latin America
• 2026-03-31 “E-000373/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The European Legal Gateway Office in India will cover high-skilled jobs, starting with the information and communication technology sector. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the EU and India on a Comprehensive Framework of Cooperation on Mobility that was signed at the 16 th EU-India Summit on 27 January 2026 contains provisions on supporting skills development and vocational education and training, as well as on facilitating the comparison of skills and qualifications frameworks. These provisions are intended to ensure that prospective migrants are appropriately qualified for positions in the EU. The implementation of the MoU will be carried out within the scope of applicable domestic and EU laws. By offering reliable and trustworthy information and advisory services, the European Legal Gateway Office aims to reduce the risks of misinformation and fraud that can lure aspiring migrants into precarious or even irregular situations. Furthermore, in accordance with the Family Reunification Directive 1 , Member States have the possibility, for a period of 12 months, to perform a labour market test before granting access to employed or self-employed activities to newly arrived family members, limiting any negative impact on their labour market. In compliance with the applicable EU and national law, Member States are free to introduce additional safeguards and their participation in either initiative is voluntary. Readmission cooperation in particular is assessed annually in the framework of the mechanism under Article 25(a) of the Visa Code 2 . 1 Article 14(2), Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ L 251, 3.10.2003, pp. 12: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/86/oj/eng. 2 Article 25(a), Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), pp. 23: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/810/oj/eng.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination · Legal migration
• 2026-03-30 “E-000593/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission At the end of December 2025, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) reported 1 365 deployable category 1 (statutory staff employed by Frontex) 1 , 870 selected category 2 (staff seconded from Member States for a long term) and 4 951 nominated category 3 (staff from Member States provided to Frontex for short-term deployment). Only category 1 is statutory staff of the Agency and therefore recruited and employed by Frontex. The financial arrangements for the staff from Member States seconded to the Agency (category 2) and on financing deployments of category 3 are established respectively in Management Board Decisions 7/2023 2 and 4/2023 3 . As sub-questions two and three fall under the responsibility of Frontex, the Commission has asked the Agency to provide an answer to the question raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible. 1 Statutory staff deployable as members of teams in operational areas in accordance with Article 55 of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. This figure does not include European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) staff and staff for supportive or monitoring functions for the establishment of the standing corps, counted as category 1 staff for the purposes of Annex I. 2 Management Board Decisions 7/2023 of 20 February 2023 adopting the rules on the secondment of category 2 of the European Border and Coast Guard standing corps. 3 Management Board Decision 4/2023 on financing deployments of operational staff, category 3 and category 4 of the European Border and Coast Guard standing corps.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-30 “E-000563/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Resettlement and humanitarian admission are safe and controlled pathways for people who are in need of protection. The first Plan 1 under the Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation 2 covers Member States’ efforts on resettlement and humanitarian admission for 2026-2027. The contributions to resettlement and humanitarian admissions are not determined by the Commission but by the Member States on a voluntary basis. The voluntary contributions for the period 2026-2027 amount to 10 430 admissions. As underlined in the Asylum and Migration Management Strategy 3 , resettlement and humanitarian admission is a tool for an effective migration management. It helps responding to the global resettlement and humanitarian admission needs and strengthen partnerships with third countries, including to support the fight against migrant smuggling networks and cooperation on returns. Before admission in a Member State from a country outside of the EU, Member States need to assess, among other things, whether candidates to resettlement and humanitarian admission committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, represent a danger to the community, public policy, security or public health or have committed a serious crime. In such cases, admission will be refused. 1 Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/2628 of 18 December 2025 on the Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Plan (2026-2027). 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1350 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework, and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy, COM/2026/45 final.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-30 “E-000509/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Every life lost at sea is a tragedy. The Commission is aware of the incident off the coast of Chios and remains in contact with the Greek authorities. As per information received, an investigation has been launched by the Central Port Authority of Chios which will establish the facts and determine the circumstances of this incident. The Commission is committed to step up the fight against smuggling to prevent dangerous journeys, including through the reinforced Global Alliance as well as new tools to track digital and illicit financial activities and a new sanctions regime. In January 2026, the Commission put forward the European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy 1 which sets concrete priorities for the next five years, also focusing on the prevention of illegal migration and on breaking the business of criminal smuggling networks. The Commission is open to contribute to the debate on innovative solutions to counter irregular migration. Any such solutions must fully comply with EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and respect international law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement. 1 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ce0d294e-5dd9-4e2a-bf6853d9d16fc95a_en?filename=European%20Asylum%20and%20Migration%20Strategy.pdf.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-26 “E-000578/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As the question falls under the responsibility of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Commission has asked the Agency to provide a response to the question raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-25 “E-004723/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to supporting Member States in determining the age of illegal immigrants and reducing the risk of their disappearance or kidnapping. The Eurodac Regulation 1 has lowered the age for registering the biometric data of children from 12 years old to 6 years old, and this should inter alia help law enforcement to follow up on cases of disappearances of the children. The Commission encourages the exchange of best practices among Member States to enhance child protection measures. The Commission can provide guidance and financial support through relevant EU programmes. To safeguard the financial interests and the EU budget, the Commission makes use of all means at its disposal based on the legal framework to ensure that the EU funds are used in compliance with the applicable rules. The Commission will therefore not hesitate to take appropriate measures in case of substantiated evidence that EU funds have not been used in accordance with the applicable rules. The Commission works closely with Member States and with Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, the European Asylum Agency and the European Labour Authority to strengthen the EU’s response to organised crime networks active in trafficking in human beings. Europol, as reinforced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2611 2 , is to ensure timely and systematic coordination, exchange of information and to provide analytical and operational support to dismantle criminal networks involved in trafficking in human beings at the request of national law enforcement authorities. A dedicated operational action of the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats Trafficking in Human Beings focuses on child trafficking with a focus on unaccompanied minors. Additionally, the Commission is engaged in dialogue with third countries, including Morocco, to enhance cooperation on migration and security issues. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1358 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of biometric data in order to effectively apply Regulations (EU) 2024/1351 and (EU) 2024/1350 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 2001/55/EC and to identify illegally staying third-country nationals and stateless persons and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L, 2024/1358, 22.5.2024. 2 Regulation (EU) 2025/2611 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794 as regards the strengthening of Europol’s support and enhancing police cooperation, for preventing and combating migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, OJ L, 2025/2611, 22.12.2025.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Asylum & border control · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2026-03-20 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 20.3.2026 Written question Member States can introduce border controls at their internal borders under certain conditions as set out in EU legislation. The Commission is working closely with all the Member States that currently have internal border controls in place, as well as with the Member States affected by the controls. The Commission is currently assessing all notifications of temporary reintroduction of prolongations of border controls at internal borders, including by Germany, in accordance with the revised Schengen Borders Code [1] . In the framework of this assessment, the Commission takes into account the reports submitted by those Member States pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Schengen Borders Code. According to the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code, the conclusion of these assessments should take the form of Commission opinions. The Commission will act in line with its obligations under the Schengen Borders Code. The reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls does not affect the right of EU citizens to move freely, as EU citizens continue to have the right to enter and leave another Member State freely, provided they have a valid identity card or passport and do not pose a threat to public policy, public security or public health. [1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1717 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. OJ L 2024/1717, 20 June 2024.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-19 “E-000621/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission On 19 May 2025, Lithuania filed an application instituting proceedings against Belarus before the International Court of Justice (the ‘ICJ’) for alleged breaches by Belarus of its obligations under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (the ‘Protocol’) 1 and (the ‘Convention’) 2 , for the large-scale smuggling of irregular migrants from Belarus into Lithuania (case Alleged Smuggling of Migrants (Lithuania v. Belarus) 3 . On 17 July 2025, the Registrar of the ICJ notified the EU pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court 4 , that the construction of the Protocol and of the Convention – to which the EU is a party – is in question in this case before the ICJ, and invited the EU to indicate as soon as possible whether it intends to submit observations on this case pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court. As the EU is a Contracting Party to the Protocol and to the Convention 5 , the interpretation of the provisions in question is also likely to directly affect the EU. On this basis, the Commission decided to submit observations, on behalf of the EU, on this case pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court. These observations will be filed in due course in accordance with relevant internal procedures of the EU. 1 Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (adopted 15 November 2000, entered into force 28 January 2004), 2241 UNTS 507. 2 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (adopted 15 November 2000, entered into force 29 September 2003), 2225 UNTS 209. 3 https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/200/200-20250519-pre-01-00-en.pdf. 4 International Court of Justice, Rules of Court (as amended), 1978, https://icj-cij.org/rules. 5 Council Decision 2004/579/EC of 29 April 2004 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime; Council Decision 2006/617/EC of 24 July 2006 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime concerning the provisions of the Protocol, in so far as the provisions of the Protocol fall within the scope of Part III, Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community.”
  Asylum & border control · EU-Belarus relations
• 2026-03-19 “E-000374/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The European Legal Gateway Office pilot will be a one-stop hub to provide information and support the legal and controlled admission to the EU of Indian workers, students and researchers in the Information and Communication Technology sector. There is no specific target number of Indian candidates to be admitted to the EU. In accordance with the Treaties, Member States retain the right to determine the volume of admission of third-country nationals coming to their territory in order to seek work. The estimated cost of the European Legal Gateway Office pilot will be approximately EUR 3 900 000 over the course of 26 months. The Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and India on a Comprehensive Framework of Cooperation on Mobility affirms the commitment of India and the EU to fully cooperate on return and readmission. Furthermore, readmission cooperation with India is assessed annually in the framework of the mechanism of Article 25(a) of the Visa Code 1 . 1 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), pp. 23-25 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009R0810-20240628.”
  Legal migration
• 2026-03-19 “E-000376/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the EU and India on a Comprehensive Framework of Cooperation on Mobility that was signed at the 16 th EU-India Summit on 27 January 2026 1 is a non-legally binding instrument which does not create new commitments or obligations. The MoU recalls that, in accordance with the Treaties, Member States retain the competence to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals for work purposes. The implementation of the MoU will be carried out within the scope of the applicable national and EU laws. Member States participation in activities carried out under the MoU will be voluntary. The European Legal Gateway Office pilot aims at providing information on, and support for, the mobility of workers, researchers and students from India to the EU in the information and communication technology sector. Its overall duration is currently foreseen to be 26 months. The MoU also reaffirms the intention of both India and the EU to fully cooperate on return and readmission. The Commission continuously monitors and reports on migratory flows from India using information from a variety of sources including Frontex. Readmission cooperation with India is assessed annually in the framework of the mechanism of Article 25a of the Visa Code 2 . 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_26_225. 2 Article 25a, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), pp. 23-25, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009R0810-20240628.”
  Asylum & border control · Legal migration
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 18.3.2026 Written question The protection of EU external borders is a high priority for the Commission. Greece has been allocated more than EUR 1.7 billion through the previous and current instruments for financial support for external borders and visa [1] and the Border Management and Visa Policy Instrument (BMVI) [2] to support the management of its borders, including measures at the EU external border in Evros. The Commission has so far focused funding where the needs are the most urgent and where EU funding provides real added value. This has included financing for mobile and stationary units, border surveillance systems and equipment, refurbishment of border crossing points, new installations for IT systems, plus the maintenance of equipment. Going forward, and following the trend observed in the last years, it is clear that the overall needs for border management must be reassessed as part of the preparation of the next Multiannual Financial Framework. With this in mind, in July 2025, the Commission presented its proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2028-2034, which include a proposal for a regulation for the Schengen area, for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas [3] . [1] Regulation (EU) 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa. [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] COM/2025/541 Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for the Schengen area, for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas for the period 2028 to 2034.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 18.3.2026 Written question The Pact on Migration and Asylum promotes a comprehensive approach to migration and is based on a balance between the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, as set out in Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 [1] . The EU Strategy on Asylum and Migration Management [2] places the prevention of illegal migration as one of the key objectives for the EU in the coming years. According to the European Annual Asylum and Migration Report [3] , illegal border crossings at the Union’s external borders decreased by 35% (223 812) in the period July 2024 — June 2025, compared to the period July 2023 — June 2024. Pursuant to Article 56(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351, alternative solidarity measures can be used in the fields of migration, reception, asylum, return and reintegration and border management, focusing on operational support, capacity building, services, staff support, facilities and technical equipment. Article 65(1) of that regulation further specifies that such measures have to be based on a specific request of the benefitting Member State. On 11 March 2025, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal in the form of a regulation establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union [4] . Negotiations between the co-legislators are ongoing. The proposal aims at setting the legal framework for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals to a ‘return hub’ in third country, based on an agreement or arrangement and in respect of international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement. [1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on asylum and migration management, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401351. [2] COM(2026) 45 final. [3] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: The European Annual Asylum and Migration Report (2025), COM(2025) 795 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f449c5d6-bf11-11f0-a612-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. [4] 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, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9565bdd7-ff1a-11ef-9503-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 18.3.2026 Written question There are no comparable EU-level statistics available on the number of age assessment procedures carried out in the Member States and their outcomes. Regulation (EU) 862/2007 on statistics on migration and international protection [1] , as amended in June 2020 [2] , does not require Member States to report such data. Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 [3] provides that, where there are doubts as to whether or not an applicant is a minor, the determining authority may undertake a multi-disciplinary assessment, including a psychosocial assessment, which should be carried out by qualified professionals and should not be based solely on the applicant’s physical appearance or behaviour. The multi-disciplinary assessment should be carried out in a manner that gives primary consideration to the best interests of the child. When inconclusive, it may be followed with a medical examination, to be carried out with full respect for the individual’s dignity. The results from the medical examination and the multi-disciplinary assessment should be analysed together. Where the result of the age assessment is not conclusive or includes an age-range starting from below 18 years, Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 requires Member States to assume that the applicant is a minor. The Asylum and Migration Management Strategy [4] emphasises the importance of deploying and using new technologies, including AI tools, to provide Member States with modern, secure and efficient tools to improve the quality, consistency and timeliness of decision making. In line with the existing regulatory requirements, the Commission plans to set up a Forum for AI on Migration to identify the possible uses of AI. [1] Regulation (EC) 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers ( OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, pp. 23-29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32007R0862). [2] Consolidated text: Regulation (EC) 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/862/2021-07-01/eng. [3] Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive (EU) 2013/32 (OJ L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1767349209985&uri=CELEX%3A32024R1348). [4] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/european-asylum-and-migration-management-strategy_en.”
  Asylum & border control · Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-03-17 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 17.3.2026 Written question The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member and of its consequences. Member States may temporarily reintroduce border control at internal borders in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security [1] . That decision has to be taken on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and the remedies available, and has to be proportionate to the objective pursued. The Commission is in close contact with all Member States concerned, including as regards mitigating measures and possible alternative measures to internal border control. Regarding professional truck drivers, the Commission immediately called on the responsible authorities in France to ensure that drivers had access to essential services and facilities, including food and hygiene. Furthermore, Member States may grant temporary derogations from driving times, breaks and rest periods in the event of exceptional circumstances [2] . Finally, the Commission had called for a meeting of the National Contact Point’s network for transport in January 2026, in light of disruptions to the EU internal market, notably linked to farmers’ protests and other disruptions affecting normal transport flows. The Commission will continue to monitor the road transport disruptions and will take the appropriate coordination measures through the National Contact Point’s network. [1] Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1. [2] Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 1).”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-17 “Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 17.3.2026 Written question The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is a decentralised EU agency and procurement decisions are taken by Frontex under its applicable rules and under its responsibility. The Commission does not directly manage, nor award the Agency’s contracts and does not exercise any supervision role over Frontex’ procurement activities. Accordingly, the Commission is not mandated to receive any information about the reasons leading to unsuccessful tendering procedures due to unsuitable tenders and consequently cannot comment on any deadlines or changes to be introduced where those procedures are to be republished. These elements fall entirely under Frontex’s responsibility as contracting authority. As sub-questions one and three fall under the responsibility of Frontex, the Commission has asked the Agency to provide a response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible. See annexes : Annex 1 , Annex 2”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-16 “E-000335/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As the question falls under the responsibility of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Commission has asked the Agency to provide a response to the question raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Asylum & border control · Surveillance equipment & spyware
• 2026-03-11 “E-004501/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission stands against all forms of antisemitism and firmly condemns it 1 . Antisemitism is incompatible with the core values and principles on which the EU is founded. Antisemitism poses a direct challenge to democracy, the rule of law and social cohesion in Europe. It is not for the Commission to comment on Members of the European Parliament’s behaviour and actions. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combattingdiscrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-antisemitism/eu-strategy-combating-antisemitism-andfostering-jewish-life-2021-2030_en.”
  Jewish culture and antisemitism · EU policy on Islam
• 2026-03-11 “P-000224/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission and Portugal have had exchanges with regard to the assessment of Portugal in the Annual Asylum and Migration Report 1 and the Commission implementing decision (EU) 2025/2323 2 . The Commission provided Portugal with clarifications on the methodology 3 and data used to identify Member States facing a significant migratory situation. The Commission and Member States, including Portugal, will continue to work together to update the data availability throughout the next months. Portugal did not vote against but rather abstained regarding the Council implementing decision (EU) 2025/2652 4 , which established the solidarity pool for 2026. The next annual Council implementing decision establishing the solidarity pool for 2027 will be adopted before the end of 2026. 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: The European Annual Asylum and Migration Report (2025), COM(2025) 795 final, https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f449c5d6-bf11-11f0-a612-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 2 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/2323 of 11 November 2025 pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202502323. 3 Commission Staff Working Document, Methodology for the purposes of Commission implementing decision pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council, SWD(2025) 792 final, https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/80637837-e569-4896-98f22e8b92abf66e_en?filename=Methodology_en.pdf. 4 Council implementing decision (EU) 2025/2642 of 19 December 2025 on the establishment of the Annual Solidarity Pool for 2026, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202502642.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-09 “E-000213/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Member States can introduce border controls at their internal borders under certain conditions as set out in EU legislation. The Commission is working closely with all the Member States that currently have internal border controls in place, as well as with the Member States affected by the controls. The criteria applied by the Commission when assessing notifications of temporary reintroduction or prolongations of border controls at internal borders are those provided for by the Schengen Borders Code 1 as amended 2 , which applies uniformly in the Member States concerned. The Commission services are in the process of assessing the notifications of all reintroductions and their prolongations which have been notified to the Commission. In the framework of this assessment, the Commission services take into account the reports submitted by those Member States pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Schengen Borders Code. According to the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code, the conclusion of these assessments should take the form of Commission opinions. The Commission will act in line with its obligations under the Schengen Borders Code. These opinions will be issued to the Member States concerned. 1 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, 23.3.2016, p. 1. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1717 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. OJ L 2024/1717, 20.6.2024.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-05 “E-004650/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of recent changes to the United States H-1B visa and of the introduction of the Chinese K visa in October 2025. As these measures have been introduced recently, it is too early to assess their concrete impact on international talent flows. The Commission recognises that international students, researchers, highly qualified and skilled workers and innovative entrepreneurs make a key contribution to the Union’s economy and competitiveness by addressing skills shortages and supporting innovation and growth. The EU already has a framework in place to attract international students, researchers and highly qualified workers, notably through the Students and Researchers Directive 1 and the EU Blue Card Directive 2 . In order to complement this framework and reinforce the EU’s attractiveness to international students, researchers, highly qualified and skilled workers, startup founders and innovative entrepreneurs, the Commission adopted an EU Visa Strategy 3 and a Commission Recommendation on Attracting Talent for Innovation 4 . Taking stock of the implementation of the Recommendation, the Commission will assess in 2026 whether targeted legislative adjustments are needed, including the feasibility of targeted amendments to existing EU rules on students and researchers and highly qualified and skilled workers, to adapt them to the innovation and research ecosystems, as well as a targeted EU legal framework for start-up and scale-up founders and innovative entrepreneurs. 1 Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing (recast), OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, pp. 21–57. 2 Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2021 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC, OJ L 382, 28.10.2021, pp. 1–38. 3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on EU visa policy strategy, COM(2026) 43 final. 4 Commission Recommendation of 29.1.2026 on attracting talent for innovation, C(2026) 462 final.”
  Legal migration
• 2026-03-04 “E-000336/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As the questions fall under the responsibility of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Commission has asked the Agency to provide a response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will send the Agency’s reply to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.”
  Asylum & border control · EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood
• 2026-03-03 “E-004684/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission supports the Member States with a view to promoting the integration of third-country nationals residing legally in their territories, in accordance with Article 79 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Promoting and contributing to the effective integration and social inclusion of third-country nationals is a specific objective of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Regulation 1 . Member States are primarily responsible for monitoring the spending of the EU funding implemented in shared management and allocated under programmes. Member States have to report to the Commission on the implementation based on EU provisions 2 . The Commission can also control and monitor the spending under the programmes 3 . As regards direct and indirect management, the Commission systematically monitors EU-funded actions to ensure that funding is used for its intended purpose, and that expenditure is legal and regular. The Commission services report on the control systems and their results in the Annual Activity Reports. In respect to transparency of recipients of the EU budget, the Financial Transparency System provides data on recipients of funding from the EU budget implemented under direct management, and data on the implementing partners under indirect management 4 . When the EU budget is implemented in shared management, Member States remain responsible for making publicly available the list of beneficiaries and financial data of the operations selected during the implementation of their respective programmes 5 . 1 Article 3(2), point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 07 July 2021 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, OJ L 251, 15.7.2021, pp. 1–47, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1147/oj. 2 Article 69 of 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. OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, pp. 159–706. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj. 3 Article 70 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 (full reference under footnote 2). 4 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html: The Financial Transparency System includes information on persons or entities implementing Union funds under indirect management mode as of financial year 2020. In the next multiannual financial framework 2028-2034, the Commission will publish information on recipients of EU funding under all management modes on a centralised website. 5 Article 49 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021(full reference under footnote 2).”
  Asylum & border control · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2026-02-23 “P-000072/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with EU law, the examination of applications for international protection is the responsibility of the Member States. The examination needs to be undertaken individually, objectively and impartially and respect the rules laid down in EU law. In particular, if the applicant is an EU citizen, their application can be declared admissible by another Member State only in very exceptional circumstances listed under Protocol 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 1 . The level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in all Member States is such that all Member States are considered safe countries in relation to asylum matters. This principle is enshrined in the EU Treaties which were agreed by all Member States. In general, the Commission continuously monitors the implementation of the EU asylum acquis through various tools, including through regular exchanges with the Member State authorities and non-governmental stakeholders. In accordance with the Treaties, and among other tools, the Commission retains the prerogative of launching infringement proceedings when it considers that a Member State is not implementing EU law correctly. 1 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PROTOCOLS – Protocol (No 24) on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union Official Journal 115, 09.05.2008 pp. 0305 – 0306.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-02-05 “E-003591/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Investor residence schemes 1 aim to attract investment in exchange of residence rights. Investor citizenship schemes 2 are programmes systematically granting nationality in return for predetermined payments or investments. In a recent judgment 3 , the Court of Justice held that a Member State infringes the principle of sincere cooperation and jeopardises the mutual trust on which EU citizenship is based when it establishes and implements a naturalisation scheme based on a transactional procedure at the end of which the nationality of that Member State and EU citizenship is essentially granted in exchange for predetermined payments or investments 4 . This judgment concerns an investor citizenship scheme, and its findings do thus not relate to investor residence schemes. Currently, EU law does not regulate conditions to grant residence permits to foreign investors based on investor residence schemes. Member States remain free to regulate admission conditions and rights for investors who seek residence in the EU. The Commission has taken initiatives to address the risks of investor residence schemes for security, money-laundering, tax evasion and corruption 5 . The proposed recast of the LongTerm Residents Directive 6 includes rules to prevent foreign investors from abusively acquiring EU long-term resident status, and the Anti-Money Laundering package 7 introduces strict obligations on involved actors and requires Member States to put in place mitigating measures and to monitor and assess the risks 8 . The Commission will continue monitoring the development of this matter in Member States and take action as appropriate and within its competences. 1 Often referred to as ‘golden visa’. 2 Often referred to as ‘golden passports’. 3 Judgment of 29 April 2025, Commission v Malta, C-181/23, EU:C:2025:283. 4 Judgment of 29 April 2025, Commission v Malta, C-181/23, EU:C:2025:283, paragraph 99. 5 As identified in the 2019 Commission report on investor citizenship and residence schemes in the EU, COM(2019) 12 final, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-01/com_2019_12_final_report.pdf. 6 COM(2022) 650 final. 7 In particular: Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive(EU) 2019/1937, and amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849; Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. 8 New rules will apply as of 10 July 2027.”
  Asylum & border control · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2026-02-05 “E-004288/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Recent drone-related incidents affecting the EU’s internal security – from attacks and disruptions targeting critical infrastructure to other malicious uses – underline the urgency of strengthening the EU collective preparedness and response. Regarding the Da-Jiang Innovations (DJI) geo-fencing service, Member States have suspended its use due to inconsistencies identified between the manufacturer’s mapping data and the officially established unmanned aircraft system (UAS) geographical zones within the EU, which may entail both safety and security risks. When operating in the open category, all unmanned aircraft bearing a class identification label are required, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/945 1 , to be equipped with a geo-awareness function that provides timely warnings to the remote pilot when the aircraft is approaching a UAS geographical zone. The challenges posed by drones cut across multiple domains: the protection of European critical infrastructure and public spaces; aviation security; the fight against hybrid threats; the surveillance and safeguarding of EU’s external borders; the prevention and investigation of terrorism and organised crime; as well as the preservation of Europe’s technological sovereignty and defence capabilities. All this requires a unified and strategic response at EU level. The Commission is therefore working on an action plan which will cover the multidimensional aspects of drone security. Its objective will be to enhance EU’s preparedness to prevent impactful incidents, detect better malicious activities and deploy the right capacities to effectively tackle the threats, leveraging technology to protect EU’s border, critical infrastructures and public spaces. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0945.”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure
• 2026-02-04 “E-003594/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Where internal border control has been reintroduced, Member States shall apply mutatis mutandis the rules applicable at the external borders based on Article 32 of the Schengen Borders Code 1 . Member States may issue a decision to refuse entry but remain fully bound by the provisions of the Return Directive 2 . An illegally staying third-country national can be turned back to another Member State under readmission agreements or arrangements, as per Article 6(3) of the Return Directive, or the transfer procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Schengen Borders Code. The Commission is in contact with the authorities of all Member States concerned to ensure full application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 3 , which will be replaced as of 1 July 2026 pursuant to Article 83 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 4 . An effective management of the external borders remains a priority of this Commission. To this end, on 12 October 2025, the Entry-Exit System (EES) 5 became operational 6 , to be followed by the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) 7 in 2026 and the revised Visa Information System (VIS). Once applicable, the instruments of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, complemented by a new legal framework on returns 8 , will contribute to better securing the external borders. The forthcoming revision of the European 1 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, 23.3.2016, pp. 1-52, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/399/oj, as recently amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1717. 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, pp. 98-107, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/115/oj. See judgement of 21 September 2023, ADDE and Others, Case C-143/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:689. 3 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and the mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast); OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp. 31-59, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/604/oj. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on asylum and migration management, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, OJ L, 2024/1351, 22.5.2024, pp.1-71, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1351/oj. 5 Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011. OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, pp. 20–82, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2226/oj. 6 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1544 of 30 July 2025 determining the date from which the Entry/Exit System is to start operations pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJ L, 2025/1544, 31.7.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2025/1544/oj. 7 Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226. OJ L 236, 19.9.2018, pp. 1–71. 8 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.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-01-29 “E-464425/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The applicable rules for granting international protection are laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU 1 , which refers to Directive 2013/33/EU 2 on detention of applicants. The latter sets out grounds and safeguards for detention, without prejudice to other grounds under national law. Under Directive 2008/115/EC (‘Return Directive’) 3 , Member States have the obligation to issue a return decision to illegally staying third-country nationals and to take all necessary and proportionate measures to ensure effective return. When other sufficient but less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively, it allows for detention for the purpose of removal. These directives also set out safeguards to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights during the asylum and return processes, including refugee protection, the principle of nonrefoulement and human rights obligations, which Member States have to respect. Member States are solely responsible for assessing applications for international protection and carrying out return, ensuring compliance with EU law, including the respect of fundamental rights. The Commission cannot intervene in assessing the merits of individual cases. The Commission visited the Busmantsi facility in November 2025, as part of the Schengen evaluation of Bulgaria, to determine if the Bulgarian authorities implement pre-removal detention in line with EU requirements and standards. The outcome of the evaluation will be reflected in the 2025 Bulgaria Report, to be adopted in line with Regulation (EU) 2022/922 4 . It will provide the Commission with a basis for engaging with Bulgaria on structural reforms, including, where necessary, matters related to the use of pre-removal detention. 1 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp. 60-65, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/32/oj. 2 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast), OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp. 96-116, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/33/oj. 3 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, pp. 98–107, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/115/oj. 4 Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 of 9 June 2022 on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013, OJ L 160, 15.6.2022, pp. 1-27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/922/oj.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-01-27 “E-004527/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is swiftly advancing with the implementation of the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021-2030). It has launched the European Sites of Holocaust Memory (ESHEM) initiative, has institutionalised an annual Holocaust Remembrance Conference and has significantly increased funding for Holocaust remembrance initiatives, such as the Network of young European Ambassadors to promote Holocaust Remembrance, through its Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme. Holocaust remembrance is of paramount importance to the Commission as the last Shoah survivors are leaving us and we are at the same time confronted with rising Holocaust denial, distortion and trivialisation. In addition, under Creative Europe programme, the Commission launched the Simone Veil Prize, a new European cultural heritage award to highlight the contribution of Jewish cultural heritage to European culture. The Commission is determined to set in motion all aspects of the EU antisemitism strategy until 2030, including the commitment to support the creation of a participatory European Holocaust Monument in Brussels, linked with pieces of arts in EU capitals. The first step is a feasibility study to explore potential sites and concepts for such a memorial. For the development of a European Holocaust Monument in Brussels, funding opportunities will have to be explored through the new multiannual financial framework, in cooperation with Member States or other EU institutions.”
  Jewish culture and antisemitism
• 2026-01-23 “E-004129/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As set out in the Commission’s replies to E-000955/2023 1 , E-002427/2023 2 and E002983/2025 3 , Member States are competent to maintain law and order and apply public security measures to prevent violence and hooliganism at sports events. As a result, the Commission did not receive specific information about the incident referred by the Honourable Member, as these issues are matters for the national authorities concerned. Member States have established national football information points to increase the effectiveness of police cooperation in connection with football matches with an international dimension 4 . The Council adopted in 2022 a Resolution concerning good practice guidance in respect of police liaison with Supporter Liaison Officers appointed by football clubs and national federations to help prevent and reduce the scale of violence, disturbances and other prohibited behaviour in connection with football matches with an international dimension 5 . 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2023-000955-ASW_EN.html. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 3 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002D0348&qid=1680716577862 (amended by https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007D0412&qid=1680719079722). 5 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13371-2022-INIT/en/pdf.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-01-23 “E-004378/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As the question concerns a possible form of support to Member States by Europol, the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, and refers to several criminal offences, including forms of crime that fall within the scope of Europol’s mandate, the Commission has asked this agency to deliver the reply to the question put forward by the Honourable Member. The reply of the agency will be transmitted by the Commission to the Honourable Member as soon as possible. The Commission is committed to enhancing the capacity of EU agencies and bodies to combat cross-border organised crime. In line with the Political Guidelines 1 and the ProtectEU Strategy 2 , it will propose in 2026 legislation to transform Europol into a truly operational agency, fully delivering on its support role to Member States. The Commission has also proposed to increase the funding for Europol under the next multiannual financial framework to boost the agency's operational capacity. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf. 2 COM(2025) 148 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0148.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-01-23 “E-004528/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As announced in ProtectEU, the EU Internal Security Strategy 1 , the Commission has tasked an Expert Group, in line with Commission Decision C (2016)3301 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups 2 . The group's Terms of Reference, composition and expert names are available in the Register of Expert Groups 3 . Agendas, minutes and submissions will be accessible in the Register or via a website, except when disclosure undermines interest protection set in Article 4, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 4 . To ensure a balanced and inclusive member selection, a public call for applications 5 invited technical experts from both public and private sectors in the areas of home affairs, cybersecurity, telecommunications, big data, standardisation, justice and fundamental rights. The EU Cybersecurity Agency, the EU Data Protection Supervisor, and Europol are also included as members. Other entities, such as the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Eurojust, and the EU Data Protection Board, will be invited on an ad hoc basis. If the expert group finds that there is no technological solution for lawful access to encrypted data that respects fundamental rights and does not undermine cybersecurity, the group is expected to recommend the development of such solutions 6 . The Commission will consider these recommendations in its future policy work. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0148. 2 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/web/meetings/2548/documents/6945. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&groupID=4005. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R1049. 5 See footnote 2, tab ‘Additional information’. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&groupID=4005.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · Surveillance equipment & spyware