Quite, however flights for the purpose of building experience towards the PIC requirement for a Part-FCL CPL, the intention clearly, has to be that such experience is not gained through instructional sorties. The instructor is usually present either because there is no-solo insurance clause (I've seen this at some schools in the US), or else the school doesn't feel comfortable signing the 'renter' off for solo. In my experience, the EASA pilot feels they have acted in good faith either because they are ignorant of the spirit in which such experience is intended to be gained or else ignorant of the differences between the two regulatory environments, and easily convinced by a local instructor or flying school management, or both.
...there is likely to be insufficient information in the logbook for this question to be answered (61.51 does not require name of PIC to be recorded).
Agreed, however, if entering these hours in an EASA compliant logbook and recording the names of both the 'PIC' and the 'CFI' sitting in the right-hand seat signing off each entry in the Remarks and Endorsements column, it's fairly evident.