Priority question for written answer P-004902/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE)

In its reply to Written Question P-003652/2025[1] asking for clarification following the ruling in Case C-59/23 Austria v Commission (Paks II nuclear power plant)[2] by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission stated that it 'takes note of the judgment' and 'is analysing its implications,' but provided no further detail on procedural and substantive follow-up.

In this context, could the Commission clarify:

• 1.Whether the annulment requires the Hungarian authorities to submit a new State aid notification under Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and whether such a notification will be made publicly accessible?
• 2.Whether, pending completion of a new State aid procedure following the annulment, Hungary is permitted to continue construction work on Paks II, or whether the standstill obligation under Article 108(3) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies until a new decision is adopted?
• 3.What information the Commission holds on the procurement and the delivery status of the instrumentation and control (I&C) systems for Paks II, and whether such components fall within the scope of the renewed State aid assessment?

Submitted: 10.12.2025

• [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2025-003652_EN.html.
• [2] OJ C, C/2025/5796, 10.11.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5796/oj.