Feed aggregator

Dauer des Videos : 90'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 90'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 90'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Throughout the year, Ask EP responded to enquiries in all 24 official EU languages, reaffirming the European Parliament’s commitment to transparency, multilingualism and accessibility.

This review highlights the key trends, topics and engagement patterns observed in 2025, based on consolidated data from individual enquiries, campaign messages and thematic breakdowns.

Overall volume of enquiries

In 2025, Ask EP received 10 184 individual enquiries and 8 809 campaign messages.

The number of individual enquiries remained high, reflecting citizens’ ongoing need for reliable information on EU policies, institutions and personal circumstances. Campaign enquiries, sent as part of coordinated actions on specific topics, represented a significant share of the messages received, focusing on political, humanitarian and environmental issues.

As in previous years, enquiry volumes fluctuated over the course of the year, with peaks linked to major political developments and legislative debates, demonstrating citizens’ responsiveness to EU-level decision-making.

Most frequent topics in individual enquiries

Individual enquiries to Ask EP in 2025 focused primarily on three main areas, reflecting citizens’ core interests and concerns regarding the EU and its institutions.

• EU democracy, institutional and parliamentary law: This remained the most frequently addressed topic. Citizens sought information on the European Parliament’s role and powers, legislative procedures, parliamentary questions, committee work and the right to petition. These enquiries highlight a sustained public interest in how EU democracy functions on a daily basis.
• Citizens’ rights and justice: A significant number of enquiries related to migration and asylum, fundamental rights, non-discrimination and access to justice. Citizens also contacted Ask EP about the rule of law and the protection of rights in the EU, reflecting the expectation that EU institutions explain and uphold these core values.
• Foreign affairs: Foreign policy remained a major area of concern in 2025. Citizens wrote extensively about the war in Ukraine (including EU support measures, sanctions and humanitarian assistance), the situation in the Middle East (particularly developments in Gaza and broader regional stability), and EU external relations, enlargement and role in promoting peace, democracy and human rights globally.

Together, these three topics accounted for the majority of individual enquiries received in 2025. The chart below shows the relative frequency of each topic.

Alongside these main areas, Ask EP also received a steady flow of enquiries related to visits to the European Parliament, traineeships and employment opportunities, as well as enquiries linked to citizens’ personal situations. These included requests for assistance with financial, legal or cross-border administrative issues, cases of alleged discrimination and questions concerning access to information or social and consumer rights. While neither the Parliament nor its President can intervene directly in these matters, Ask EP provided guidance, information and contact points whenever possible, helping citizens identify the appropriate authorities or available resources.

Campaign messages sent to the European Parliament

Campaign messages are coordinated public reactions to legislative initiatives, political developments and international events, and remained a prominent form of citizen engagement in 2025. These campaigns allowed citizens to collectively express their views and expectations regarding the European Parliament’s role and responsibilities.

The two largest campaigns received in 2025 were on the labelling of foodstuffs derived from new genomic techniques. During ongoing EU negotiations on the authorisation of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, citizens called on the European Parliament to retain mandatory and harmonised labelling requirements to ensure transparency, traceability and consumer choice across the EU. Messages also stressed the importance of maintaining the ban on such products in organic farming, preventing contamination and establishing clear rules on patents linked to new genomic techniques.

Other major campaigns in 2025 focused on foreign affairs, human rights and institutional integrity. Citizens contacted the Parliament about international crises and individual cases, including calls for humanitarian action and civilian protection in conflict zones such as Gaza, Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There were appeals for the release of detained or imprisoned individuals, including academics and human rights defenders. Campaigns also addressed the situation of EU citizens detained abroad, notably those who participated in the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla.

Other campaigns targeted democracy, accountability and ethical conduct, with citizens calling for institutional or disciplinary responses in relation to the actions and public statements of Members of the European Parliament. In addition, citizens mobilised on issues linked to equality and participation, including initiatives highlighting the role of women in peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

Languages used by citizens

In 2025, citizens contacted Ask EP in all 24 official EU languages, underlining the continued importance of multilingual communication. The most commonly used languages remained English, German, French, Spanish and Italian, while messages in other official languages underlined the service’s truly pan-European reach.

Ask EP always replied in the language used by the citizen, ensuring equal access to information for all.

Conclusion and outlook

Throughout 2025, responding to citizens’ enquiries required close cooperation across the European Parliament. Depending on the subject matter, replies drew on expertise from all the Parliament’s administration services. This ensured that citizens received accurate, up-to-date and comprehensive information.

In line with the European Parliament’s commitment to transparency, replies to a selection of campaign messages sent in 2025 are available on the EPRS blog. Answers to frequently asked questions can also be found online, providing citizens with continued access to information beyond individual correspondence.

This 2025 review confirms that citizens remain deeply engaged with the European Parliament and eager to understand, influence and participate in EU decision-making. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP) will continue to serve as a key contact point between citizens and the Parliament, fostering dialogue, transparency and trust.

Stay in touch

If you wish to share your views or request information, you can contact the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP) using the contact form, the Citizens’ app, or by post. We will reply in the EU language in which you write to us.

We look forward to continuing this dialogue in 2026 and beyond!

Your Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)

Durée de la vidéo : 150'

Clause de non-responsabilité : L'interprétation des débats facilite la communication mais ne constitue en aucun cas un enregistrement authentifié des débats. Seuls le discours original ou la traduction écrite révisée du discours original peuvent être considérés authentiques.
Source : © Union européenne, 2026 - PE

While in China this week, Starmer must directly challenge Beijing on its treatment of Hong Kong and of Hong Kongers living abroad, particularly those who now live in Britain.

Hamarosan megjelenik az éttermi szektort célzó, 5+1 pontból álló akcióterv részeként egy vissza nem térítendő támogatást és 2,5%-os kedvezményes hitelt tartalamazó konstrukció modernizálásra, beruházásra, és működésre.  

With RCEP’s first general review scheduled for next year, this is a timely opportunity to assess its relevance and potential amid profound global uncertainty today. 

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Gemäss dem deutschen Botschafter in Bern bringt die Revision des Kriegsmaterialgesetzes dem Nachbarland wenig bis nichts. Der Industrieverband Swissmem widerspricht.

Given the stakes, it is critical to chart a better course through China’s overseas ports presence.

China led the exercise, South Africa hosted it, and India sat it out. 

Die EU und Indien haben sich auf ein Freihandelsabkommen geeinigt. Experte Scholz erklärt, warum der Tag vor allem symbolisch wichtig ist, und was sich beim Handel ändern könnte.

The new strategy pairs "denial defense" with a strategic silence on Taiwan to maximize executive leverage. Yet this design rests on a dangerous gamble.

Dauer des Videos : 15'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 15'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

By Marius Guderjan (Centre for British Studies, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Mario Kölling (Department of Political Science, Spanish National Distance Education University)

Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems something of the past and meanwhile overshadowed by other crises, we should still remember its profound impact on public health, people, employment and businesses. In 2020, the real GDP in the EU fell by more than 6%, which was higher than during the 2008 financial crisis. The management of the crisis was clearly dominated by national as well as by regional and local governments. Nevertheless, the EU also introduced massive economic and fiscal measures and departed from the austerity policy following the 2008 financial crisis. The EU amended its budget, created new loans, activated the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact and expanded the lending capacity of the European Stability Mechanism. Most importantly, the Member States agreed the largest stimulus package in the history of the EU: Next Generation EU (NGEU), which was worth €750 billion financed by joint borrowing.  The key instrument of NGEU was the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), providing €672.5 billion in loans and grants to support reforms and investments undertaken by the Member States.

Given the scale and multilevel nature of the EU’s intervention, our recent JCMS article takes a close look at the EU’s socio-economic responses to the COVID-19 crisis. By analysing existing decision-making procedures and democratic practices, principles of good governance and effective performance, we draw conclusions about the political legitimacy of the RRF and we discuss how the legacy of this measure may shape future governance arrangements.

There is a strong rationale for governments to take fast and extraordinary actions during crises, circumventing and even breaking existing conventions, procedures and rules. However, crisis management may not only challenge the political legitimacy of these actions but may also result in permanent changes to a system of governance. Therefore, we considered who took and authorised decisions and whether this was in line with existing democratic practices, and whether the input legitimacy of the EU’s crisis response (as conceptionalised by Schmidt 2022) was compromised.  Similar to previous crises (as discussed in the literature on new intergovernmentalism, e.g. Puetter 2016 and Bickerton et al. 2014), decisions were dominated by the European Council and the Commission and negotiated behind closed doors. The latter set the RRF’s policy objectives and governance structure to which the former agreed. During 2021 and 2022, Member States then had to submit national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) with detailed targets, milestones, estimated costs and proposals for structural reforms. The RRPs were designed in close bilateral cooperation with the Commission, which gained the authority to decide together with the Council over their implementation.

As during previous crises (see e.g. White 2022 and Kreuder-Sonnen 2016), the newly introduced EU measures lacked transparency, accountability and judicial scrutiny. To capture these, our article also focuses on the RRF’s so-called throughput legitimacy: namely, on its compliance with rules, efficient governance, public engagement and access to information about decision-making processes, and the inclusion of (territorial) interest groups. The RRF is a performance-based instrument that is assessed and disbursed based on the fulfilment of specific milestones and targets outlined in the RRPs. Various criteria (e.g., population size, GDP per capita and unemployment levels) and formats (e.g., the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, performance audits by the European Court of Auditors, Recovery and Resilience Dialogues, evaluation reports) were introduced to enhance the accountability and transparency of allocation of RRF funding. Yet, our article traces various issues regarding the transparency of policymaking. Only two thirds of Member States committed to publishing detailed information about the implementation of the RRPs.

It is often suggested (e.g. by Lindgren and Persson 2010) that the EU’s legitimacy relies largely on its output legitimacy, meaning on its ability to deliver effective results to the satisfaction of its Member States and citizens. It is fair to say that the RRF has supported substantial reforms within the Member States, but rather than stimulating new innovations many RRPs have not dealt with structural challenges and only supported outstanding reforms that would have been carried out anyway. The scope of the RRPs has also varied considerably. While RRPs in Italy, Spain and Greece were ambitious targeting structural challenges of labour markets or tax systems, in northern Member States RRF funding is relatively small in comparison to GDP (less than 1%) and reforms played a minor role in their RRPs. Whereas the RRF financed measures to support employment, living standards and social protection, the funding was insufficient and too short-termed to drive a sustainable green and digital transformation. Inflation and supply shortages increased the costs of investment substantially, and the administrative workload undermined the distribution of funding and delayed the delivery of milestones and targets. We conclude in our article that due to the exclusion of subnational governments in the development of the RRPs in many Member States, the delivery of the RRPs was often inefficient and failed to meet local and regional priorities and needs.

Despite some shortcomings, we suggest that the legitimacy of European crisis governance rests on its ability to deal with complex, transnational issues to the satisfaction of the Member States rather than on its democratic credentials. Whereas this may not come as a big surprise, it is particularly significant to highlight that exceptional provisions introduced during crisis are subsequently adopted and normalised within future governance frameworks. While the Commission and Member States have empowered themselves, place-based principles and multilevel partnerships with subnational governments, which were strengthened during previous decades in areas such as Cohesion Policy, are currently under threat. In its proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, the Commission has adopted the RRF’s approach and seeks to maintain performance-based policy programmes and centralised planning with targets, milestones and structural reforms. This fosters exclusive top-down policymaking at the cost of inclusive bottom-up approaches. Two years of complex negotiations lie ahead, during which adjustments to budget items, the EU’s institutional design and the redistribution of power between the European, national and subnational levels are at stake. We do not know for sure yet what the outcome will be and to what extent it will be the legacy of the crisis.

Marius Guderjan is a Fellow at the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and used to work at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. His research interests include European integration, multilevel governance, intergovernmental relations and territorial politics; including the book Local Government in the European Union.

Website: https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/polwiss/forschung/systeme/polsystem/Team/Marius-Guderjan.html

Mario Kölling is Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Spanish National Distance Education University (UNED), Madrid, and Senior Researcher at the Fundación Manuel Giménez Abad. His research focuses on methodological issues related to territorial decentralisation and multilevel governance. He has published extensively on the European Union budget.

Website: https://www.uned.es/universidad/docentes/politicas-sociologia/mario-kolling.html

The post Legitimacy and legacy of the EU’s socio-economic crisis governance during Covid-19 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Togoville, l’âme du Togo, reste une ville historique et culturelle qui attire beaucoup de chercheurs et de touristes avec ses 10 000 habitants environ qu’elle abrite aujourd’hui.

From initial denials, through later partial acknowledgment and “legalization,” to rapid downsizing and eventual formal closure, the Chinese government’s handling of the re-education camps in Xinjiang suggests a series of unintended shifts.

Russia's Ministry of Finance has proposed legalizing online casinos, a move that could fundamentally reshape the country's gambling industry and bring significant new revenue into the federal budget. The initiative came from Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who suggested that President Vladimir Putin consider lifting the current ban under strict state supervision. Strict Conditions for Legalization The Ministry of Finance proposes removing the ban on online casinos only if several conditions are met. The plan calls for the creation of a special operator by presidential decree, as well as a centralized system for accepting bets through the Unified Betting Transfer Accounting Center, modeled on the existing framework used by bookmakers. The proposal also includes a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on casino revenue, calculated after winnings are paid out. Operators would transfer this tax to the state budget on a monthly basis. Participation would be limited to players aged 21 and older.