Wednesday 25 February 2026, 9.00 – 12.30 and 15.30 – 18.30
Thursday 26 February 2026 9.00 – 12.30

European Parliament in Brussels, the Spinelli building, room 3G2

Debates (Wednesday):

Mission report on the fact-finding visit to Canary Islands, Spain (15-17 September 2025)

Mission report on the fact-finding visit to Madeira, Portugal (27-29 October 2025)

Structured dialogue with Michael McGrath, Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection.

Petitions

Wednesday

Petition No 2304/2025 by Luis García Enrique (Spanish) on the establishment of a non-invasive national system to improve the recruitment of bone marrow donors in Spain (in the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 1105/2025 by István-László Pap (Romanian) on measures to protect art made by people from Artificial Intelligence in the EU.

Petition No 2009/2025 on alleged non-execution of a European Arrest Warrant and violation of judicial cooperation between Hungary and Poland (possibly in the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 0733/2004 by Loizos Afxentiou (Cypriot), on behalf of the Famagusta Refugee Movement, on the return of the closed area of the occupied town of Famagusta to the original inhabitants (In the presence of the petitioner and the Mayor of Famagusta).

Petition No 1187/2025 by Matea Šverko (Croatian), on behalf of “Inicijativa Dajla”, on alleged violation of EU environmental law by the construction of the port of Dajla-Belveder in Croatia (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 1524/2025 by Jacopo Graziani (Italian), on behalf of the committee Tuteliamo la Salute (‘We protect health’), on the expansion of waste treatment facilities in Veneto and the need to safeguard groundwater resources accordingly (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 1811/2025 by R. L. B. (Spanish) on the construction of a waste facility near a school and its environmental impact in Madrid, Spain (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 0577/2021 and 1033/2021 on Barcelona’s low emissions zone and the new Metropolitan Urban Mobility Plan 2019-2024 (In the presence of the petitioner by remote connection).

Petition No 0288/2022 and 0450/2022 on development projects and alleged violations of EU environmental legislation in the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus (In the presence of the petitioner by remote connection).

Thursday

Petition No 2249/2025 by M. S. (Polish), on behalf of Federation of Trade Unions of Agricultural Producers, on food safety in international trade (Possibly in the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 1904/2025 by Soranib Nathali Hernández de Deffendini (Spanish) on EU Directive 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation in Venezuela (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No. 0063/2025 by S. P. (Italian), with 44 other signatories, on the allegedly unfair legal and economic treatment of teachers at music academies and conservatories vis-à-vis university lecturers in Italy (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No 0987/2022 by José Antonio Galdón Ruiz (Spanish), on behalf of the Consejo General de Ingenieros Técnicos y Peritos Industriales de España, on alleged violation of EU law by Spain regarding the free provision of services due to unjustified professional reservations in favour of architects (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petitions No 2281/2025, 2361/2025, 2414/2025 and 2570/2025 on requesting the review of the compatibility of Spain’s mandatory V16 beacon regulation with EU law.

Petition No 0832/2025 by E. M. (Maltese), on behalf of the L-Iklin Local Council Malta, on nuisances caused by an asphalt processing facility in a residential area in Malta (In the presence of the petitioner).

Petition No. 1559/2025 and 1268/2025 on the accessibility impact of mandatory tethered bottle caps and paper straws in the EU (Possibly in the presence of the petitioners).

Petition No 1201/2025 by Ana Fiala (Czech) on the implementation of the EU carbon trading scheme for private households (In the presence of the petitioner by remote connection).

Date and place of next meeting

Monday 23 March 2026, 15.00 – 18.30 (Brussels)

Tuesday 24 March 2026 9.00 – 12.30 and 14.30 – 18.30 (Brussels)

European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho has welcomed the European Commission’s overall constructive reply to her findings in a series of inquiries concerning urgent decision making.

In its reply, the Commission recognised the importance of ensuring derogations from its standard policy-making rules in the case of urgency are properly recorded and explained. As part of its plans to revise these internal rules, the Commission also indicated it will reflect on ways to be more transparent in its assessments of the need to act urgently.

As set out in the Ombudswoman’s recommendations, the Commission must ensure, as required by the Treaties and case law, a transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive preparation of ‘urgent’ legislative proposals.

The Ombudswoman will now analyse the Commission’s reply in detail before drawing final conclusions. Her analysis will also take into consideration feedback she expects to receive from the complainants.

Background

The Ombudswoman conducted three separate complaint-based inquiries that examined the extent to which the Commission applied its own Better Regulation rules when preparing legislative drafts concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (Omnibus I), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and countering migrant smuggling.

She found a number of procedural shortcomings in how the Commission applied these rules, which taken together amount to maladministration.

In two forward-looking recommendations, the Ombudswoman asked the Commission to ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of the Better Regulation rules and that future urgent preparation of legislative proposals is always transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive. She also made a number of suggestions in light of the upcoming revision of the rules.

I am concerned about the prosecution of Géza Buzás-Hábel, a young teacher and community activist now facing criminal charges and the possibility of imprisonment for organising Pécs Pride in October 2025. His wrongdoing was organising a peaceful march for human rights and equality, and the exercise of one of democracy’s fundamental freedoms: the right to peaceful assembly.

This case is not isolated. Just last month, charges were brought against Gergely Karácsony, the Mayor of Budapest, in relation to the organisation of the 2025 Budapest Pride March.

These developments signal a move backwards as Hungarian authorities implement constitutional and legal amendments, adopted in March and April 2025, which effectively ban peaceful events that promote LGBTI equality. The amendments, which I have previously critiqued, fuel discrimination and shrink civic space.

The indictments must be seen within a wider context of successive measures that target human rights defenders through legal restrictions and stigmatisation.

I call on the Hungarian authorities to drop the charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel and, as the President of the Council of Europe Congress also recently urged, against Gergely Karácsony. Furthermore, I urge them to halt the use of criminal and administrative measures which deter peaceful assembly; to amend or repeal the laws underpinning these restrictions; and to reverse the clampdown on human rights defenders and civic space.

Unlawful developments are being left permanently in place across England because under-resourced councils are running out of time to act, a new report from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reveals today.

‘Losing control: complaints about planning enforcement’, highlights how significant delay by councils is increasing and, in some cases, statutory time limits have passed before councils could act, leaving communities with no legal remedy and developments that breach planning rules standing indefinitely.

Planning enforcement investigations have become a much greater proportion of the Ombudsman's planning work, last year making up nearly half (47%) of all upheld planning and development cases (up from 26% in 2021-22).

The report provides many learning points for councils based on common issues the Ombudsman finds, including:

• Cases where enforcement action has drifted for years without resolution
• Poor communication between planning departments and legal teams causing missed deadlines
• Inadequate processes to manage staff turnover, leading to repeated work and lost evidence
• Councils losing the power to protect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and enforce planning conditions

The report echoes findings from a Royal Town Planning Institute survey, which found 80% of planning enforcement officers said there were not enough staff to carry out the workload, 89% reported case backlogs, and 73% said their authority had struggled to recruit.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Mrs Amerdeep Clarke, said:

"If people lose faith that planning rules will be enforced, they stop raising concerns. We risk a two-tier system: those who follow the law play by the rules, while those who flout them face no real consequences.

"We recognise and welcome Government plans to improve the planning system and boost the nation's economy through increased development. But development without enforcement is a recipe for planning chaos. Without proper resourcing, public trust in the entire system will collapse.

"We also appreciate the immense pressure planning teams are under, and it's encouraging to see so many welcome our findings as evidence to support investment in their services. The case studies we've highlighted show that, with the right resources, teams can make significant improvements that benefit both staff and the communities they serve."

Simon Creer, Director of Communications and External Relations at the Royal Town Planning Institute, said: 

“Enforcement officers are the backbone of the planning system. But as this report shows, years of under-resourcing and challenges in recruitment have led to staff shortages and overwhelming workloads. RTPI research from 2022 into planning enforcement resourcing raised the alarm - unfortunately, this report suggests that there has been little improvement and that, as a result, in some places services are ‘struggling or already broken’.

“If we want to build at scale and meet the government’s ambitious housing targets, we’ll need to make sure there are sufficient enforcement officers in place to ensure the planning system can effectively support delivery and uphold policy standards.”

The report includes questions for councillors and heads of service to help scrutinise their local planning enforcement services and highlights constructive responses from authorities that have committed to recruiting additional staff and improving procedures.