A written answer published by the European Parliament clarifies where the European Commission places responsibility for UAP. Answering on its behalf on August 25, Andrius Kubilius says the subject belongs to member states, which can address it according to national security needs.
This is an August response receiving renewed attention through GreWi's September 16 report, not a new September Commission decision.
The scope of the response
The answer to question E-002983/2026 cites France's GEIPAN as an example. It says the Commission is not positioned to verify documents or assess publications on the topic. It also restates a commitment to cooperation on the safety and security of the space environment.
GreWi reports that MEP Moritz Körner's inquiry asked about U.S. documents and statements and whether the Commission rules out UAP. Its interview with Körner frames the reply as the Commission declining responsibility. The official answer itself is the controlling source for what the institution said.
A national example with a defined mission
GEIPAN's own mission description identifies it as a technical service of the French space agency CNES. Its work includes collecting, analyzing, investigating, publishing and archiving reports of unidentified aerospace observations, as well as informing the public.
That offers a concrete route for records and methods within one member state. It does not make GEIPAN a substitute for every country's institutions or establish a shared EU system.
What the answer leaves open
Editorial assessment: a jurisdictional response should not be read as an identification of any sighting, an endorsement of U.S. claims or a finding that no unexplained observations exist. It tells a records researcher where this institution says responsibility sits.
Useful follow-up questions can therefore become more specific: which national body receives reports, what records it publishes, and whether cross-border observations can be compared. A future common approach would need documented responsibilities and data-sharing arrangements. None is established by this short answer.
Hero: original AI-generated conceptual artwork, not evidence or a reconstruction of an encounter.