We looked into roughly 3,000 MEP questions from the beginning of the term until end of the April 2025 to identify which topics, and Commissioners attract the highest scrutiny from MEPs. 

Key findings: 

- EPP members tabled the most questions (despite being the main party "in power"). This is an indication that the EPP MEPs don't shy away from using formal parliamentary mechanisms to influence the activity of the Executive, trying to keep the Commissioners "in sync" with the views of the largest EP group.  

- EPP MEPs co-sign questions primarily with S&D and Renew, a confirmation of the centrist positioning of EPP. 

- Proportionally, the groups on the fringes (The Left, Patriots, ESN) use this instrument more- this is a common reflex of parties that have little or no representation in the Executive (i.e. they're in "full opposition mode"). 

- The cordon-sanitaire seems to be less pronounced with regards to co-signature of MEP questions, as ECR, Patriots and ESN members did co-sign a few questions alongside members of the centre-left camp.

- Kaja Kallas' portfolio is the most scrutinised by MEPs, followed by Virkunnen, Roswall and Varhelyi

- Among the most mentioned entities are digital companies such as TikTok and Meta, as well as agencies such as EFSA and Frontex 

- Among the most mentioned countries, large trade partners such as United States and China, but also Ukraine, Russia and countries from the Middle-East. 

- The level of detail in the Commissioners' answers is relatively stable regardless of the group of the MEP asking the question. However, questions by EPP and S&D members receive a stronger commitment in terms of concrete follow-up actions.  

The report below provides a general analysis. We provide detailed and tailored reports to our premium subscribers. If you are interested in a trial of our premium services, feel free to contact us at [email protected]. 

1. Questions by Political Group

When looking at the total number of questions submitted by MEPs from each group, members of the EPP accounted for the highest share. While this is partly due to the EPP being the largest political group in the European Parliament, it remains noteworthy that EPP MEPs are actively inquiring the Commission, given the group’s strong representation within the College of Commissioners. This might indicate that EPP members do not consider their political priorities to be sufficiently reflected within the EU executive, particularly at the level of policy units, which they feel they need to keep in check.

When accounting for the size of the political groups, it's noticeable that the groups on the fringes—both left and right—are the most keen on scrutinising the Commission (see chart below). This is not surprising, given the little or no representation in the leadership of the Commission and other EU institutions, which limits their formal influence but also allows them greater political freedom to challenge the policy status quo at the EU level.

These are also the groups whose MEPs are the most visible on social media, as shown by our dedicated analysis of posts by MEPs on X/Twitter. 

2. Cooperations Between Political Groups

We also analysed the number of questions co-signed by MEPs across different groups. Patterns in co-signed questions confirm broader voting dynamics observed in plenary. Namely, MEPs from the current kingmaker group, the EPP, collaborate most frequently with the members of other centrist forces, particularly S&D and Renew, rather than the groups to its right flank. 

This reinforces findings from our previous report which indicates that, despite the broader rightward shift in the Parliament, the EPP continues to align more often with centre-left groups on major policy areas such as digital regulation and climate. The EPP tendency to seek compromises at the centre tempers expectations of a rapid shift toward a deregulation agenda.

The chart below highlights other key findings (click on the black arrows to navigate through the different charts and see the data from the perspective of each political group)

Patterns of co-signature among MEPs from different political groups indicate that the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) occupy a rather different "space" than other nationalist or right-wing formations. Notably, ECR members frequently co-sign initiatives with MEPs from centrist groups such as the Socialists & Democrats (S&D) and Renew Europe, particularly on issues like energy pricing, research, and defence funding—areas where overlapping priorities facilitate cooperation.

This aligns with broader legislative trends, as evidenced by voting records showing that approximately one in three ECR-sponsored amendments are adopted—a success rate that now exceeds that of the Greens/EFA.

By contrast, the Patriots for Europe and the European Sovereignists Network (ESN) remain generally politically isolated. However, exceptions do exist: on specific issues that traditionally garner broad cross-party support (e.g. minority rights, disability policy), some co-signed parliamentary questions include MEPs from ESN/Patriots alongside Greens/EFA or The Left. 

These cases suggest that the cordon sanitaire applied to these groups is not uniform across parliamentary activities. While strict informal barriers remain in place for high-impact areas such as leadership positions in EU institutions, co-signing committee amendments or resolutions, these barriers are more flexibly applied in instruments like parliamentary questions (let alone coalitions when voting). 

This is important to keep track of because, when the political fringes are less divided, they can exert significant pressure on the European Commission. While ideological differences often prevent coordination, there are moments when shared opposition—often around joint criticism of the EU institutions or the policy status quo —unites them. As shown by the vote example below, such convergence occasionally allows the fringes to outvote the political centre, posing a real challenge to the Commission’s agenda. 

3. Which Commissioners are most scrutinised

Security takes the centre stage, with High Representative Kaja Kallas receiving the highest number of questions. While her portfolio centres on foreign policy, many of the questions directed at her also touched on migration management, arms exports, and the allocation of development funding. Conversely, Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has received the lowest number of questions.

This discrepancy can largely be explained by the fact that Commissioner Kallas handled the more politicised and high-profile questions, particularly those at the intersection of defence and foreign affairs. In contrast, Kubilius was primarily tasked with more technical matters focusing on funding mechanisms and industrial development in defence and space sectors.

Similarly, among the most scrutinised Commissioners there is also Henna Virkkunen, who is also heavily involved in supervising the security initiatives in the new European Commission. When it comes to digital issues, MEPs have been particularly active in asking about platform regulation, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce. The volume and tone of questions suggest that Parliament intends to remain closely involved in shaping the upcoming digital agenda. Several major files are expected this term, including the EU Democracy Shield, new rules on addictive design and child protection, the Digital Networks Act, and several AI-related proposals.

Another Executive Vice-President, Stéphane Séjourné has also received many questions on the Commission’s simplification agenda, especially in relation to the automotive sector. Many MEPs are already positioning themselves ahead of the upcoming review of CO₂ emission standards, and the EP's divided stance will pose a challenge for the Commission. Whether the EPP will align with the centre-left or push for more deregulation in line with the right-wing bloc, as seen during the debate on deforestation, will be key in determining how the revision will look.

Conversely, the number of questions addressed to Commissioner Teresa Ribera also remains relatively low. This can be explained by the internal allocation of files: Ribera’s formal responsibilities focus on competition, while the bulk of environment-linked questions are routed through Commissioner Jessika Roswall. She emerged as the main institutional interlocutor on environmental issues, which generated a high volume of questions, particularly around water policy (A new European Water Resilience Strategy was just published in early June).

Also, noticeably underrepresented are questions on research and budget, despite being central to the Commission’s agenda. This is particularly interesting in the context of the green transition, where the issue of how the EU budget will be structured to meet new financing needs remains open.

MEPs are not the only ones who try to engage and influence the European Commission. The Commission staff is regularly consulting socio-economic stakeholders. Check our out study on the meetings between the Commissioners, their cabinets and the leadership of the DGs and the representatives of different economic and social interests. A similar study is also available for the European Parliament. 

4. Most Mentioned Entities 

We also analysed the most frequently mentioned organisations and programmes, persons, and countries in Commission answers.

Among organisations and programmes, large digital companies (such as TikTok and Meta) appear prominently in the Commission's replies, confirming that MEPs are actively seeking greater oversight of how the EU regulates tech platforms. Key concerns include disinformation, foreign influence in elections, and addictive platform design—issues where legislative activity is expected to intensify.

Agencies involved in foreign policy, food safety, and migration are also referenced frequently, reflecting both policy salience and increased scrutiny by Parliament. In the case of the European Food Safety Authority, questions increasingly touch on import standards, pesticide and chemical residues in food, GMOs, and animal welfare, with the work of the Agency being criticised by some of the political factions in the European Parliament, such as MEPs from the Greens/EFA and The Left, but also members of the EPP.

Frontex, the EU’s border and coast guard agency, remains under intense scrutiny from across the political spectrum. Left-leaning MEPs are calling for safeguards to ensure that EU funding does not enable pushbacks or rights violations, while right-leaning groups are pressing for greater investment in border control infrastructure. This political divide places considerable pressure on Frontex to maintain a balanced operational approach, as missteps could have consequences for its political backing, budget, and discharge process. Similar tensions also affect other EU agencies operating in politically sensitive areas.

Among countries mentioned, the pattern confirms that trade and digital issues are a top parliamentary priority. The United States features prominently, with references often tied to ongoing tariff disputes in key sectors such as agri-food, medical devices, aluminium, and steel, and US-based big tech. MEPs are actively trying to shape the Commission’s position on ongoing negotiations, including proposing to leverage EU rules on digital players to make the US reconsider its position.

China appears in a similar context, with repeated references to trade frictions in key sectors—automotive, agri-food, and critical medicinal products. MEPs are also pressuring the Commission to adopt firmer measures against e-commerce practices and imports from third countries, which are seen as undermining EU consumer protection and industrial competitiveness.

At the individual level, interest in platform regulation is reflected in the frequent mention of figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Issues such as content moderation, disinformation, and freedom of expression remain particularly sensitive, as digital platforms face criticism from both ends of the political spectrum—either for excessive moderation or for failing to act sufficiently.

Interestingly, Mario Draghi also appears among the top-referenced individuals The Draghi report has been frequently referenced by EPP and ECR MEPs in the context of ongoing discussions on competitiveness, particularly to support arguments in favour of regulatory simplification or reduction.

5. How do Commissioners answer

We also assessed the content of the Commission’s replies—how concrete they are (specificity level), the degree to which they reflect the views of the MEP asking the question (alignment level), and whether they indicate any follow-up action (commitment level). While the answers are generally prepared by the specialised policy units, it is the Commissioner that assumes the political responsibility of answering MEPs.

The level of specificity remains relatively consistent across political groups, suggesting that Commissioners respond with similar levels of detail, regardless of the MEP’s group affiliation.

However, the level of perceived alignment does show some variation. Replies to MEPs from EPP and S&D, for instance, exhibit slightly higher alignment levels in terms of policy approach. This is likely due to the strong representation of these groups within the College of Commissioners, meaning their political agendas are more directly reflected within the EU executive.

Despite this, the differences are less pronounced than expected, as Commissioners remain diplomatic in their responses to avoid alienating potential support from other political camps.

The more notable difference lies in the level of commitment expressed. Replies to EPP and S&D questions are more likely to include references to upcoming initiatives, planned consultations, or concrete action/implementation steps. This indicates that while all groups receive formal replies, questions from those with stronger political links to the Commission seem to carry more weight in influencing follow-up action.

Furthermore, on our www.eumatrix.eu platform we provide full historic database of MEPs', Governments' and Commissioners' statements and actions (e.g. votes, amendments, meetings, parliamentary questions and Commission's answers) in searchable and exportable format, as well as analysed policy documents, forecasts of electoral and the socio-political trends across the EU, media and social media monitoring and more.