EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document JOC_2013_371_E_0001_01

Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution

OJ C 371E , 18.12.2013, p. 1–626 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 371/1


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution

(2013/C 371 E/01)

Contents

E-001628/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Turkish exploration work in Cyprus's EEZ

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001629/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Council

Subject: More provocative statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister about Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001630/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: More provocative statements made by Turkish Prime Minister about Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001631/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Marine conservation around Gibraltar

English version

E-001632/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Carbon capture and storage projects

English version

E-001633/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Council

Subject: Turkish F16 fighter planes violate Nicosia Flight Information Region

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001634/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Turkish F16 fighter planes violate Nicosia's Flight Information Region

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001635/13 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Alleged excessive noise and air pollution around London's Heathrow airport

English version

E-001636/13 by Anni Podimata and Elisa Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Incorporation of the countries under adjustment programmes into the European Semester process

Ελληνική έκδοση

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001637/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Breakdown of cybercrime statistics

Svensk version

English version

E-001638/13 by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian aid intended for refugee camps in Tindouf

Version française

English version

E-001639/13 by Vito Bonsignore to the Commission

Subject: Seizure of goods that are a health hazard

Versione italiana

English version

E-001640/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Approved replacement wheels and monopoly

Versione italiana

English version

E-001641/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: VAT on equipment purchased by life-saving voluntary organisations (2)

English version

E-001642/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Forced hysterectomies in India

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001643/13 by Edit Herczog to the Commission

Subject: Conditions attached to call for applications for EU funding in Hungary

Magyar változat

English version

E-001644/13 by Sławomir Nitras to the Commission

Subject: Migration within the EU in response to an asymmetric shock

Wersja polska

English version

P-001645/13 by Eva Ortiz Vilella to the Commission

Subject: Reinstating anti-dumping measures against Chinese mandarin orange imports

Versión española

English version

P-001646/13 by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission

Subject: Possible involvement of a private company in evaluating the legal framework in Cyprus concerning money laundering

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-001647/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Clarifications on the issue of the minimum wage in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001648/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Promotion of vaccines

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001649/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Transnational pooling of snow clearance equipment

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001650/13 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Council

Subject: Employment conditions of officials on leave

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001651/13 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Sanctions against persons responsible for violating human rights in Russia

English version

E-001652/13 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Concerns over adoption laws in Russia

English version

E-001654/13 by Amelia Andersdotter, Nathalie Griesbeck, Marietje Schaake and Paweł Zalewski to the Commission

Subject: Conditions according to which the Commission holds multilingual consultations

Version française

Nederlandse versie

Wersja polska

Svensk version

English version

E-001656/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Iran sentences American Christian to eight years in prison

Versione italiana

English version

E-001657/13 by Alyn Smith to the Commission

Subject: European lobbying donations in the USA

English version

E-001659/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Raising regional weather alerts for citizens of other EU countries transiting through an area being affected by extraordinary weather events

Versione italiana

English version

E-001660/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Subsidies for Rotterdam

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001661/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Labelling of halal chicken

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001662/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro and Jacek Olgierd Kurski to the Commission

Subject: Gazprom's position in the European market

Wersja polska

English version

E-001663/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro and Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission

Subject: Circumvention of customs duties

Wersja polska

English version

E-001664/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro and Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Sanctions against Iran

Wersja polska

English version

E-001665/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Changes to Ukraine's referendum law

Wersja polska

English version

E-001666/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: Rare earth metals

Wersja polska

English version

E-001667/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: Cyber security in the EU

Wersja polska

English version

E-001668/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Optimising recruitment to the European External Action Service

Wersja polska

English version

E-001669/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Heightened tension on the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border

Wersja polska

English version

E-001670/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: Wind energy subsidies in violation of competition principles

Wersja polska

English version

E-001671/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Council

Subject: CIA flights report

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001672/13 by Edite Estrela to the Commission

Subject: Exploitation of Portuguese workers in Switzerland

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001673/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Horsemeat found in beef ready meals

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001674/13 by Isabella Lövin to the Commission

Subject: Longline catches in tuna fisheries agreements

Svensk version

English version

P-001675/13 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: Conclusions of the European Council meeting on the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

Wersja polska

English version

E-001676/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — a comprehensive strategy for the defence sector

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001677/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — review of VAT rates structure

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001678/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Rapes in India

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001679/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: War on Western medicine leaves 25 people dead

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001680/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European debate on rape

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001681/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Flickr.com: private photographs made public

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001682/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — wireless communications

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-001683/13 by Marije Cornelissen to the Commission

Subject: Country-specific recommendation concerning the Netherlands housing market

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001684/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Digital Agenda in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-001685/13 by Olga Sehnalová to the Commission

Subject: Universal mobile phone chargers

České znění

English version

E-001686/13 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Petrol prices in EU Member States among the highest the world

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001687/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights in China: the case of Uyghur prisoner Alimujiang Yimiti

English version

E-001688/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Dismissal of homosexuals from the Turkish army (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001689/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Erdoğan pro-Hamas and anti-Israel (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001690/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Erdoğan wants Ottoman Empire

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001774/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — YouTube ban in Egypt

Versione italiana

English version

E-001691/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Christians sentenced to death for anti-Islam film (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001692/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Anti-Islam film banned in Egypt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001693/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Staff in the Protocol Service assigned to each Commissioner

English version

E-001696/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

English version

E-001700/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

English version

E-001704/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

English version

E-001708/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Costs of Protocol Service

English version

E-001711/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Protocol Service of the Commission

English version

E-001694/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Council

Subject: Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

English version

E-001699/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Council

Subject: Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

English version

E-001703/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Council

Subject: Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

English version

E-001707/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Council

Subject: Costs of Protocol Service

English version

E-001710/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Council

Subject: Protocol Service of the Council

English version

E-001697/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

English version

E-001701/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

English version

E-001705/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

English version

E-001709/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Costs of Protocol Service

English version

E-001712/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Protocol Service of the European External Action Service

English version

P-001713/13 by Herbert Dorfmann to the Commission

Subject: Rules on leaving the country for minors under the age of 14 in Italy

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-001714/13 by Lena Kolarska-Bobińska to the Commission

Subject: Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Wersja polska

English version

E-001716/13 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Deadline for hearing in connection with intercalibration

Dansk udgave

English version

E-001718/13 by Martina Anderson to the Commission

Subject: Tobacco lobbying

English version

E-001719/13 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: Financial assistance for the Palestinian territories

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001720/13 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: Reception and recruitment centre in Mali

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001723/13 by Georgios Toussas to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Demand for immediate release of Palestinian political prisoners from Israeli jails

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001724/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: CDS derivatives

Versione italiana

English version

E-001725/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Counterfeiting in the gambling business

Versione italiana

English version

E-001726/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Separation of credit and speculation

Versione italiana

English version

E-001889/13 by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz to the Commission

Subject: Commission proposal on banking reform

Magyar változat

English version

E-001727/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Flooding of the Archaeological Park of Sybaris

Versione italiana

English version

E-001728/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Putting an end to Internet pornography

Versione italiana

English version

E-001729/13 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Competitiveness of the steel industry

Versión española

English version

P-001731/13 by Erik Bánki to the Commission

Subject: European horsemeat scandal — contamination of beef products with horsemeat within the EU food chain

Magyar változat

English version

E-001734/13 by Erik Bánki to the Commission

Subject: The Single European Sky (SESII) and its future

Magyar változat

English version

E-001735/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Small fruit

Versión española

English version

E-001736/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Competition in the banking sector

Versión española

English version

E-001737/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Abolition of special Employment Ministry unit responsible for social inclusion and the social economy

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001738/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Cyber incidents and network and information security (NIS) incidents

Svensk version

English version

E-001739/13 by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission

Subject: Changes in working conditions due to restructuring

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001740/13 by Adam Bielan to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU-supported projects in Egypt

Wersja polska

English version

E-001741/13 by Adam Bielan to the Commission

Subject: Defence of minority rights in Kosovo

Wersja polska

English version

E-001742/13 by Lorenzo Fontana and Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Violation of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 on tobacco products

Versione italiana

English version

P-001743/13 by Pablo Zalba Bidegain to the Commission

Subject: Wave of expropriations of European companies by Bolivia

Versión española

English version

P-001744/13 by María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora to the Council

Subject: Wave of expropriations of European companies by Bolivia

Versión española

English version

P-001745/13 by Isabelle Thomas to the Commission

Subject: Approval of the fisheries agreement with Norway

Version française

English version

P-001746/13 by Wim van de Camp to the Commission

Subject: Imposition of a tax on aliens by the city of Antwerp

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001747/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: More funding needed for the European Space Agency to address dangers posed by meteorites, asteroids and comets

Versione italiana

English version

E-001785/13 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the Commission

Subject: The situation of foreign lecturers at Italian universities

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001794/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Unequal treatment of foreign language lecturers from abroad in Italy

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001749/13 by Francesca Barracciu to the Commission

Subject: Discriminatory legal, contractual, pay, working and retirement conditions applied to foreign-language lettori and collaboratori e esperti linguistici in Italian universities

Versione italiana

English version

E-002103/13 by Giommaria Uggias to the Commission

Subject: Financial and regulatory discrimination against lettori/collaboratori linguistici in Italian universities

Versione italiana

English version

E-001750/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Seven foreign workers kidnapped in Nigeria

Versione italiana

English version

E-001751/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Catholic priest killed in Zanzibar

Versione italiana

English version

E-001752/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Nine polio volunteers killed in Nigeria

Versione italiana

English version

E-001753/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Somali woman jailed for reporting her rape

Versione italiana

English version

E-001754/13 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Measures to control crime in the Franco-Belgian border region

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001755/13 by Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska to the Commission

Subject: Cross-border footpaths into Belarus, Russia and Ukraine

Wersja polska

English version

E-001757/13 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Use of live animals for testing in the EU during the period 2009-2012

Versión española

English version

E-001759/13 by Raimon Obiols to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and UNRWA

Versión española

English version

E-001761/13 by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission

Subject: Copyright in the internal market

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001762/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Changes to the Ley de Costas (Spanish Coastal Law)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001763/13 by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission

Subject: Fixed-term employment contracts for career entrants

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001764/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Public health and economic impact of fuel trafficking

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001766/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Effectiveness of the Greek special environmental inspectorate

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001767/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Penalties for infringement of environmental legislation in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001768/13 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Use of official languages

Versión española

English version

E-001769/13 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: EU aid volunteers

English version

E-001770/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EEAS conclusions on limited losses resulting from cybercrime

Svensk version

English version

E-001771/13 by Christel Schaldemose, Marisa Matias and Baroness Sarah Ludford to the Commission

Subject: EU action following Parliament's resolution on addressing the EU diabetes epidemic

Dansk udgave

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001772/13 by Marietje Schaake to the Commission

Subject: Progress of the ‘No Disconnect Strategy’ and Mr Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001773/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Growing activism of Hezbollah

Versione italiana

English version

E-001775/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Polygamy in Libya

Versione italiana

English version

E-001776/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Prosecution of sexually assaulted children in Afghanistan

Versione italiana

English version

E-001777/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — North Korea carries out third nuclear test

Versione italiana

English version

E-001778/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Iran smuggling nuclear material through China

Versione italiana

English version

E-001779/13 by David Martin to the Commission

Subject: Effect of salmon farming on sea lice infestation of wild salmon

English version

E-001780/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Conflicts of interest and ‘revolving doors’ in EU institutions

Version française

English version

E-001781/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Animal meal

Version française

English version

E-001783/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Landfill sites in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-001784/13 by Pavel Poc to the Commission

Subject: Cross-border impacts of the ‘Rabensburg West 4’ borehole in Lower Austria

České znění

English version

E-001786/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Will Greece really comply with its obligations?

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001787/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: International organisation and multilateral approaches: business and human rights

Version française

English version

E-001788/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Increasing the transparency and effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies

Version française

English version

E-001789/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Latest developments in the infringement proceedings against Italy No 2010/4227

Versione italiana

English version

E-001790/13 by Paweł Robert Kowal to the Commission

Subject: Employment of Poles in EU institutions

Wersja polska

English version

P-001791/13 by Martin Callanan to the Commission

Subject: Commission's communication budget — cost and tendering process for banners hung on the Berlaymont building; unacceptable delays in responding to MEPs' questions

English version

E-001792/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Directives 2007/46/EC, 2003/37/EC and 2002/24/EC

Versión española

English version

E-001793/13 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: Cost of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement

Versión española

English version

E-001795/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Increase in suicide rate in Spain

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001797/13 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission

Subject: Conclusions of the HighNoon research project

Version française

English version

E-001798/13 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: EU aid for the restoration of Western cemeteries in Algeria

Version française

English version

E-001800/13 by Nora Berra to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Bringing Syria before the International Criminal Court

Version française

English version

E-001801/13 by Nora Berra to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Report on the situation in the southern Mediterranean by the NGO Human Rights Watch

Version française

English version

E-001802/13 by Claudio Morganti, Roberta Angelilli and Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Designations of tourism professions and the use of the ‘Tour Guide ID Card’

Versione italiana

English version

E-001803/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Precautionary measures and public safety — the case of Tezze sul Brenta (VI)

Versione italiana

English version

E-001804/13 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Coding of emergency contact numbers in mobile telephones

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001805/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Deadly attack on a refugee camp in Iraq

Wersja polska

English version

E-001806/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Unemployment in Portugal and its implications for genders, school drop-out rates and the birth rate

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001807/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Collective redundancies at the SUMOL+COMPAL group

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001808/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Restructuring

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001809/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Rising poverty in Portugal and Europe

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001811/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: EU arms exports

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001813/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Annual Growth Survey 2013 measures

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001814/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — economic growth and job creation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001815/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — sectors of economic activity

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001816/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — main negotiation hurdles

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001817/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Economic and political influence

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001818/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Madeira International Business Centre (MIBC) and Fiscal Competitiveness

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001819/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: EU-Brazil business sector cooperation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001820/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: EU policy guidance

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001821/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Energy supply to the EU: restoration of trade relations between Russia and Georgia

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001822/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Developments in EU-Israeli relations

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001823/13 by Paul Rübig to the Commission

Subject: Cross-border parcel postal services

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001824/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Lack of access to the Sabadell-Centre train station waiting area for persons with reduced mobility

Versión española

English version

E-001825/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Fatal accidents every week and hazardous nature of road N-II (Spain) — Ban on lorries travelling on the road — Directive 2008/96/EC of 2008

Versión española

English version

E-001827/13 by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis and Frank Engel to the Commission

Subject: Export bans on medicinal products in Greece

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

English version

E-001828/13 by Marietje Schaake to the Commission

Subject: Self-regulation of online and digital services

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001829/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: EU action on tobacco smuggling in the Kaliningrad region

Versione italiana

English version

E-001830/13 by Salvatore Iacolino to the Commission

Subject: Opportunity for students living abroad to exercise their right to vote

Versione italiana

English version

E-001831/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Agricultural commodity derivatives

Versione italiana

English version

E-001832/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Origin labelling for foodstuffs

Versione italiana

English version

P-002369/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Origin labelling for food products

Versione italiana

English version

E-001833/13 by Alfredo Antoniozzi to the Commission

Subject: The Internal Stability Pact and the freezing of funds belonging to Italian local authorities.

Versione italiana

English version

P-001834/13 by Janusz Władysław Zemke to the Commission

Subject: Defining the capital of an urban area

Wersja polska

English version

E-001835/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Sustainability of international trade in tinned tuna

Versión española

English version

E-001836/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Monitoring of trade in fisheries products

Versión española

English version

E-001837/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Microsoft case — assessment of Windows 8

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001838/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Use of seaweeds as food

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001839/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council

Subject: Participation of ministers in Council meetings

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001840/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council

Subject: Travel costs for Council meetings and meetings of preparatory bodies

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001841/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council

Subject: Number of preparatory meetings

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001842/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Protection and safeguarding of traditional shopkeepers in Italy

Versione italiana

English version

E-001843/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Preventing anomalies in product labelling

Versione italiana

English version

E-001844/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: EU propaganda film costs EUR 700 000

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-002319/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Statement by Günther Oettinger, the European Energy Commissioner

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001845/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Commissioner Oettinger criticises slow progress of Turkish accession

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001846/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkish Government launches ‘rescue campaign’ for Turkish children in Christian / homosexual families

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001848/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Breach of Oslo II

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001849/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: European participation contract

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001850/13 by Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: Bluetongue in the Baltic region

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001851/13 by Claude Turmes to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI)

Version française

English version

P-001852/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Gdim Izik trial

Versión española

English version

E-001855/13 by Sophia in 't Veld to the Commission

Subject: Recovery of incompatible state aid

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001856/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: New French fines (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001857/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Restriction of right to freedom of expression and information gathering (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001858/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: ‘Made in’: new Commission regulation and concerns regarding Article 7

Versione italiana

English version

E-001859/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: ‘Made in’ — Withdrawal of the proposal for a regulation on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries: clarifications regarding the new official statements

Versione italiana

English version

E-001860/13 by Kinga Gál and György Schöpflin to the Commission

Subject: Ethnic incidents in Vojvodina

Magyar változat

English version

E-001861/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Animal meal as feed for farmed fish

Version française

English version

E-001862/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Civil servants leaving the EU institutions to work in the private sector

Version française

English version

E-001863/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the Portimão Centre of the University of the Algarve

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001864/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Child poverty in Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001865/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: The insolvency plan for the Vila Nova de Gaia-based company, Cerâmica de Valadares

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001866/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: New actions to develop EU tourism — 3

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001867/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Maritime tourism in the European Union

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001868/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Suspected granting of state aid to ENVC shipyard (Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001870/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Reprivatisation of ENVC shipyard (Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo) and state aid

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001869/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Notification to the Commission and authorisation of state aid for ENVC shipyard (Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001871/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Structural Funds and reducing income disparities between Greece and the EU average

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001872/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Transposition of EU legislation into Member States' national law

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001873/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Trafficking in horsemeat

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001874/13 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Falun Gong practitioners and organ harvesting

English version

E-001875/13 by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission

Subject: Antimicrobial resistance

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001876/13 by Corien Wortmann-Kool to the Commission

Subject: Switzerland raises motorway vignette price for passenger cars

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001877/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: New actions to develop EU tourism

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001878/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: New actions to develop EU tourism — 2

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001879/13 by Ivo Vajgl to the Commission

Subject: Implementation at EU level of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Slovenska različica

English version

E-001880/13 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Preferred shares

Versión española

English version

E-001881/13 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Investment in European groupings of territorial cooperation

Versión española

English version

E-001882/13 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Scientific research

Versión española

English version

E-001883/13 by Pablo Zalba Bidegain to the Commission

Subject: Free Trade Agreement between South Korea and the European Union

Versión española

English version

E-001884/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Operation of an independent asylum service in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001885/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Committees examining international protection claims

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001886/13 by Sabine Wils to the Commission

Subject: Cost of pesticide poisoning in the world's poorest regions

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001887/13 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission

Subject: Sugar market management and the common organisation of the sugar market after 2015

Version française

English version

E-002381/13 by Philippe Boulland to the Commission

Subject: Managing the sugar market and the common market organisation (CMO) for sugar after 2015

Version française

English version

E-001888/13 by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Edit Bauer, László Tőkés, Alajos Mészáros and Csaba Sógor to the Commission

Subject: Relationship between mobility in the internal market and medical care in the EU

Magyar változat

English version

E-001890/13 by Wim van de Camp to the Commission

Subject: Cyber attack on Dutch computers

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001891/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights defenders in Colombia

Versión española

English version

E-001892/13 by Hubert Pirker to the Commission

Subject: EU-wide harmonisation of eco-stickers for cars using low-emission zones in urban areas

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001893/13 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Reimbursement in respect of leave not taken

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001894/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Companies' responsibility for nuclear disasters

Versión española

English version

E-001895/13 by Reinhard Bütikofer to the Commission

Subject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001896/13 by Reinhard Bütikofer to the Commission

Subject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001897/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Chinese cyber attacks

Versione italiana

English version

E-001898/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Freedom House: ‘Turkey has a poor record with regard to freedom of expression’

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001899/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Shale gas is cheaper than ‘green energy’

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001900/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Death penalty in India

Wersja polska

English version

E-001901/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Food waste

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001902/13 by Mitro Repo to the Commission

Subject: Chimney sweeping, competition policy and the internal market

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

P-001903/13 by Hynek Fajmon to the Commission

Subject: Irregular procedure used by the regulator against energy firm ČEZ in Bulgaria

České znění

English version

P-001906/13 by Pavel Poc to the Commission

Subject: Possible breach of the European energy framework

České znění

English version

E-001904/13 by Sabine Lösing to the Commission

Subject: Aeroceptor research project — drones

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-001905/13 by Anna Záborská to the Council

Subject: European citizens' initiatives — exceptional extension of deadline — implementation by national authorities

Slovenské znenie

English version

P-001907/13 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission

Subject: Claims about probiotics

Version française

English version

P-001908/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major work and disposal procedures for ‘excavated earth and rocks’: request for an immediate assessment of Italian ministerial regulations

Versione italiana

English version

E-001910/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Violation in Greece of Directive 2000/43/EC on equal treatment

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-001911/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Clarifying the Commission's choice of the Detica study as a statistical base for European network and information security policy

Svensk version

English version

E-001912/13 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU-India human rights dialogue

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001914/13 by Lena Kolarska-Bobińska to the Commission

Subject: Energy capacity mechanisms

Wersja polska

English version

E-001915/13 by Andrea Zanoni and Nadja Hirsch to the Commission

Subject: Transport of animals unfit for slaughter in the European Union (follow-up to Written Question E-005205/2012)

Deutsche Fassung

Versione italiana

English version

E-001916/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Pension payments

English version

E-001917/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Mortality in Irish Sea (VIIa) cod

English version

E-001918/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

English version

E-001919/13 by Vicky Ford to the Commission

Subject: Appeals process for ECHA decisions

English version

E-001920/13 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: Rights of artists in the European Union

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-001922/13 by Ulrike Lunacek, Eva Joly and Catherine Grèze to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Belo Monte dam project in Brazil

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

English version

E-001924/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Inclusion of the Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) in the list of huntable species in Italy

Versione italiana

English version

E-001925/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Real-time information on allergenic pollen in the European Union

Versione italiana

English version

E-001926/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen, Lucas Hartong and Auke Zijlstra to the Council

Subject: Admission by Hezbollah member of terrorist activities

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001927/13 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Commission wants to make airlines pay for delays caused by technical failures

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001928/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Creation of a European secret service

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001929/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Illegal eurobonds

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001930/13 by Lena Kolarska-Bobińska to the Commission

Subject: Subsidies for renewable energy

Wersja polska

English version

E-001932/13 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Skills shortage — building renovation

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-001933/13 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — European Union Training Mission (EUTM) Mali

English version

P-001934/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Effects on European agriculture and Europe's agri-food industry of the potential abolition of import duties on rice from Burma/Myanmar

Versione italiana

English version

E-001935/13 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Unspent ERDF appropriations in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-001936/13 by Evelyn Regner to the Council

Subject: Mass arrests in Turkey

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001937/13 by Evelyn Regner to the Commission

Subject: Mass arrests in Turkey

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001938/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

English version

E-001939/13 by Jan Philipp Albrecht to the Commission

Subject: Personal data on 1.46 million customers disclosed in SNCB/NMBS Europe data breach

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-001940/13 by Fiona Hall to the Commission

Subject: Research into the adverse health effects of blue/UV lighting and compact fluorescent lights

English version

E-001941/13 by Fiona Hall to the Commission

Subject: NGO Report — ‘Trading Away Peace: How Europe helps sustain illegal Israeli settlements’

English version

E-001942/13 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission

Subject: Research on bee health

English version

E-001943/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Refrigerant gas

Version française

English version

E-001944/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: The electric car and appropriate facilities: a benefit for few

Versione italiana

English version

E-001945/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Natural disasters and their long-term psychological and physical effects on the population: security measures to implement in emergency situations

Versione italiana

English version

E-001946/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Robin Tax and possible violation of the ban on passing it on: the effect on distorting competition and on consumer protection

Versione italiana

English version

E-001947/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Sense of identity and culture in one's country of origin: the outlook for the new generations

Versione italiana

English version

E-001948/13 by Pino Arlacchi to the Commission

Subject: The rejection of migrants at Italian ports

Versione italiana

English version

E-001949/13 by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Protection of marine and coastal habitats: bollards

Versione italiana

English version

E-001950/13 by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission

Subject: Alternatives to using antimicrobials in animals

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001952/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: UK calls for international response in Syria

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001953/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Pharmacies: cuts in the supply of medicinal products

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001954/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Food scandal in Europe

Versão portuguesa

English version

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001628/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Τουρκικές έρευνες σε Κυπριακή ΑΟΖ

Η Τουρκία, σε ναυπηγείο κοντά στην Κωνσταντινούπολη, ετοιμάζει το σεισμογραφικό Polarcus Samur, στοχεύοντας στη δημιουργία έντασης στην Κυπριακή ΑΟΖ. Θα προβεί σε εκτενείς έρευνες στα τεμάχια (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) ώστε να γνωρίζει η ίδια, ή οι συνεταίροι της, πού θα εγκαταστήσει πλατφόρμα για δημιουργία νέων τετελεσμένων.

1.

Τι προτίθεται να πράξει η ΕΕ για να αποσοβήσει τον κίνδυνο δημιουργίας νέων αρνητικών τετελεσμένων στην περιοχή, τα οποία πιθανόν να θέσουν σε κίνδυνο την ειρήνη στην ευρύτερη γεωπολιτική περιοχή;

2.

Με ποιο δικαίωμα και θράσος η Τουρκία παρεμβαίνει για έρευνες στην Κυπριακή ΑΟΖ;

Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(9 Απριλίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου στην απάντησή της στις προηγούμενες γραπτές ερωτήσεις E-001320/2013 και P-001325/2013 (1).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001628/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Turkish exploration work in Cyprus's EEZ

In a shipyard near Istanbul, Turkey is fitting out the seismographic vessel Polarcus Samur in order to fuel tension in Cyprus’s EEZ. It will carry out extensive exploration in plots 4, 5,6,7 and 8 to establish for itself or its partners where to build a platform to create new faits accomplis.

1.

What will the EU do to avert the risk of creating new adverse

faits accomplis

in the region that could endanger peace in the wider geopolitical area?

2.

What entitles Turkey brazenly to intervene and undertake exploration in Cyprus’s EEZ?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to previous written questions E-001320/2013 and P-001325/2013 (2).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001629/13

προς το Συμβούλιο

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Νέες προκλητικές Δηλώσεις του Τούρκου Πρωθυπουργού εναντίον της Κύπρου

Από της ιδρύσεως του κυπριακού κράτους με το δοτό Σύνταγμα της Ζυρίχης, η Τουρκία δεν έπαψε να επιδιώκει την κατάλυση και εξαφάνιση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας.

Καταγγέλλω τις νέες ύβρεις και χαρακτηρισμούς από τον Τούρκο Πρωθυπουργό που έγιναν στο τουρκο-σλαβικό επιχειρηματικό φόρουμ στην Μπρατισλάβα, στην Ουγγαρία και αλλού, ότι τάχα: Δεν υπάρχει χώρα με το όνομα «Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία» παρά μόνο η Ελληνοκυπριακή «διοίκηση» όπως χαρακτήρισε την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία και η υποτελής στην Άγκυρα «ΤΔΒΚ» ή το «τουρκικό κράτος της Κύπρου».

Και ερωτώ το Συμβούλιο:

Δικαιούται η Τουρκία να καθυβρίζει καθημερινά όχι μόνο την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία αλλά και την ΕΕ στην οποία διεκδικεί θέση και αναγνώριση;

Δικαιούται η Τουρκία να θέλει την ΕΕ, «à la carte»;

Δικαιούται ο Τούρκος Υπουργός Εξωτερικών Νταβούτογλου στο γνωστό βιβλίο του «Στρατηγικό βάθος» να δηλώνει πως: «Ακόμα και ένας Τούρκος να βρισκόταν στην Κύπρο, η Τουρκία οφείλει να ενδιαφέρεται γι’ αυτό το νησί, εξαιτίας της μεγάλης γεωπολιτικής, στρατηγικής και τώρα ενεργειακής αναβάθμισής της»;

Πώς προστατεύει η ΕΕ την ασφάλεια της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από την αδηφάγο και επεκτατική πολιτική της κατοχικής Τουρκίας;

Πώς επιδεικνύει έμπρακτα την κοινοτική της αλληλεγγύη σε ένα κράτος-μέλος της που απειλείται διαρκώς από μια χώρα υπό ένταξη;

Απάντηση

(17 Ιουνίου 2013)

Το Συμβούλιο δεν έχει συζητήσει σχετικά με το συγκεκριμένο θέμα και δεν είναι αρμόδιο να σχολιάζει δημόσιες δηλώσεις πολιτικών προσωπικοτήτων.

Σε ό,τι αφορά τα ζητήματα που τέθηκαν με τις ερωτήσεις της αξιότιμης κυρίας βουλευτού, υπενθυμίζεται ότι η αναγνώριση όλων των κρατών μελών αποτελεί αναγκαία συνιστώσα της διαδικασίας ένταξης. Η ΕΕ υπογραμμίζει επομένως τη σημασία που αποδίδει στην ομαλοποίηση των διμερών σχέσεων μεταξύ της Τουρκίας και όλων των κρατών μελών το συντομότερο δυνατόν.

Η Ένωση έχει δηλώσει επανειλημμένα ότι στηρίζει τις τρέχουσες διαπραγματεύσεις στην Κύπρο που αποσκοπούν σε μια δίκαιη, συνολική και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση του κυπριακού στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ και τις αρχές επί των οποίων εδράζεται η Ένωση. Μια δίκαιη και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση θα συμβάλει στην ειρήνη, τη σταθερότητα και τις αρμονικές σχέσεις στην περιοχή.

Όπως αναφέρεται σε πολλά συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου, πλέον πρόσφατα δε στις 11 Δεκεμβρίου 2012, το Συμβούλιο αναμένει ότι η Τουρκία θα υποστηρίξει ενεργά τις τρέχουσες διαπραγματεύσεις που αποσκοπούν στη διευθέτηση αυτή. Η δέσμευση της Τουρκίας για μια συνολική διευθέτηση και η συγκεκριμένη συμβολή της σε αυτήν έχει καίρια σημασία.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001629/13

to the Council

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: More provocative statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister about Cyprus

Since the foundation of the state of Cyprus with the Zurich Constitution which was imposed on the country, Turkey has relentlessly sought the dissolution and demise of the Republic of Cyprus.

I should like to protest about the new insults and disparaging remarks made about Cyprus by the Turkish Prime Minister at a Turkish-Slav Business Forum in Bratislava, as well as in Hungary and elsewhere. He said that there was no such country as the ‘Republic of Cyprus’, only a Greek Cypriot ‘administration’, as he described the Republic of Cyprus, and the ‘TRNC’ or ‘Turkish State of Cyprus’ (which is dependent on Ankara).

In view of the above, will the Council say:

Is Turkey entitled, virtually on a daily basis, to heap insults not only on the Republic of Cyprus but also on the EU, which it wishes join and from which it wants recognition?

Is Turkey entitled to seek an ‘à la carte EU?

Is Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu entitled to state, as he does in his well-known book ‘Strategic Depth’, that even if there was only one single Turk in Cyprus, Turkey would have to take an interest in this island, because of its rapidly growing importance from a geopolitical, strategic and now energy point of view?

How is the EU protecting the security of the Republic of Cyprus from the voracious and expansionist policy of Turkey, which is occupying part of the country?

How is it demonstrating practical Community solidarity with a Member State which is constantly being threatened by a candidate country?

Reply

(17 June 2013)

This specific matter has not been discussed by the Council, and it is not for the Council to comment on public statements made by political figures.

With regard to the issues raised in the Honourable Member’s questions, it is recalled that recognition of all Member States is a necessary component of the accession process. Accordingly, the EU has underlined the importance it attaches to the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all EU Member States, as soon as possible.

The Union has repeatedly expressed its support for the ongoing negotiations in Cyprus aimed at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. A just and lasting settlement will contribute to peace, stability and harmonious relations in the region.

The Council, as stated in several Council conclusions, most recently on 11 December 2012, expects Turkey to actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at such a settlement. Turkey’s commitment and contribution in concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement is crucial.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001630/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Νέες προκλητικές Δηλώσεις του Τούρκου Πρωθυπουργού εναντίον της Κύπρου

Από της ιδρύσεως του κυπριακού κράτους με το δοτό Σύνταγμα της Ζυρίχης, η Τουρκία δεν έπαψε να επιδιώκει την κατάλυση και εξαφάνιση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας.

Καταγγέλλω τις νέες ύβρεις και χαρακτηρισμούς από τον Τούρκο Πρωθυπουργό που έγιναν στο τουρκο-σλαβικό επιχειρηματικό φόρουμ στην Μπρατισλάβα, στην Ουγγαρία και αλλού, ότι τάχα: Δεν υπάρχει χώρα με το όνομα «Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία» παρά μόνο η Ελληνοκυπριακή «διοίκηση» όπως χαρακτήρισε την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία και η υποτελής στην Άγκυρα «ΤΔΒΚ» ή το «τουρκικό κράτος της Κύπρου».

Και ερωτώ την Επιτροπή:

Δικαιούται η Τουρκία να καθυβρίζει καθημερινά όχι μόνο την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία αλλά και την ΕΕ στην οποία διεκδικεί θέση και αναγνώριση;

Δικαιούται η Τουρκία να θέλει την ΕΕ, «à la carte»;

Δικαιούται ο Τούρκος Υπουργός Εξωτερικών Νταβούτογλου στο γνωστό βιβλίο του «Στρατηγικό βάθος» να δηλώνει πως: «Ακόμα και ένας Τούρκος να βρισκόταν στην Κύπρο, η Τουρκία οφείλει να ενδιαφέρεται γι’ αυτό το νησί, εξαιτίας της μεγάλης γεωπολιτικής, στρατηγικής και τώρα ενεργειακής αναβάθμισής της»;

Πώς προστατεύει η ΕΕ την ασφάλεια της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από την αδηφάγο και επεκτατική πολιτική της κατοχικής Τουρκίας;

Πώς επιδεικνύει έμπρακτα την κοινοτική της αλληλεγγύη σε ένα κράτος-μέλος της που απειλείται διαρκώς από μια χώρα υπό ένταξη;

Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(26 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή εφιστά την προσοχή του Αξιότιμου Μέλους στα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου της 10ης Δεκεμβρίου 2012 τα οποία αναφέρουν ότι η Ένωση εξέφρασε εκ νέου σοβαρές ανησυχίες και κάλεσε την Τουρκία να αποφύγει κάθε είδους απειλή ή ενέργεια κατά κράτους μέλους, ή κάθε πηγή προστριβών ή ενεργειών που θα μπορούσαν να βλάψουν τις σχέσεις καλής γειτονίας και την ειρηνική διευθέτηση των διαφορών.

Τα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου αναφέρουν επίσης πως η Τουρκία δυστυχώς δεν έχει προχωρήσει στην απαραίτητη εξομάλυνση των σχέσεών της με την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, και πως το Συμβούλιο προσδοκά την ενεργή συμμετοχή της Τουρκίας στις διεξαγόμενες διαπραγματεύσεις που στοχεύουν σε μια δίκαιη, συνολική και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση του κυπριακού προβλήματος στο πλαίσιο των ΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας των ΗΕ και σύμφωνα με τις αρχές επί των οποίων εδράζεται η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η δέσμευση της Τουρκίας και η συμβολή της με συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες στη συνολική αυτή διευθέτηση είναι ζωτικής σημασίας.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001630/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: More provocative statements made by Turkish Prime Minister about Cyprus

Since the foundation of the state of Cyprus with the Zurich Constitution which was imposed on the country, Turkey has relentlessly sought the dissolution and demise of the Republic of Cyprus.

I should like to protest about the new insults and disparaging remarks made about Cyprus by the Turkish Prime Minister at a Turkish-Slav Business Forum in Bratislava, as well as in Hungary and elsewhere. He said that there was no such country as the ‘Republic of Cyprus’, only a Greek Cypriot ‘administration’, as he described the Republic of Cyprus, and the ‘TRNC’ or ‘Turkish State of Cyprus’ (which is dependent on Ankara).

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Is Turkey entitled, virtually on a daily basis, to heap insults not only on the Republic of Cyprus but also on the EU, which it wishes join and from which it wants recognition?

Is Turkey entitled to seek an ‘à la carte EU?

Is Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu entitled to state, as he does in his well-known book ‘Strategic Depth’, that even if there was only one single Turk in Cyprus, Turkey would have to take an interest in this island, because of its rapidly growing importance from a geopolitical, strategic and now energy point of view?

How is the EU protecting the security of the Republic of Cyprus from the voracious and expansionist policy of Turkey, which is occupying part of the country?

How is it demonstrating practical Community solidarity with a Member State which is constantly being threatened by a candidate country?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the Council conclusions of 10 December 2012 which state that the Union expresses once again serious concern, and urges Turkey to avoid any kind of threat or action directed against a Member State, or source of friction or actions, which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The Council conclusions also state that Turkey has regretfully still not made progress towards the necessary normalisation of its relations with the Republic of Cyprus, and that the Council expects Turkey to actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. Turkey’s commitment and contribution in concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement is crucial.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001631/13

to the Commission

Chris Davies (ALDE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Marine conservation around Gibraltar

With regard to the area up to 5 km from and around the coast of Gibraltar:

Which Member State(s) is/are legally responsible for supervision and control of fishing activities?

Which Member State(s) is/are legally responsible for activities affecting the seabed?

Are any Natura 2000 sites located within the area and, if so, which Member State(s) is/are responsible for their management and protection?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2013)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the legal responsibilities of Member States in the area in question, as jurisdictional issues concerning these marine waters are a matter for Member States to address in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Additionally, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions E-3840/2009, E-4972/2009, E-7777/2011 and E-4503/2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001632/13

to the Commission

Chris Davies (ALDE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Carbon capture and storage projects

The NER300 funding mechanism was intended to be the principal means by which the European Union would support the development of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, but phase one of the selection process proved a complete failure in this respect.

Will the Commission confirm that, since its decision was announced, it has spoken with all the phase one applicants, many of whom have spent considerable financial sums on developing projects, in order to assess the reasons why they were unable to proceed and seek advice as to what changes must be made if failure is not to be repeated?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2013)

1.

The Commission has not been in direct contact with NER300 applicants as the official interlocutors in the NER300 programme are the Member States and not the Project Sponsors. However, the Commission has interacted with stakeholder groups such as the Zero Emission Platform.

2.

From such interactions, and from the feedback which the Commission has sought from the Member States, we can conclude that in the first NER300 call for proposals high quality applications were received for CCS projects. In fact, the projects that passed the due diligence assessment covered entirely the requirements of the CCS portfolio but they failed at the confirmation stage. Reasons put forward by Member States include funding gaps in public and private contribution, delays in permitting procedures, insufficient maturity and unsynchronised timing of respective national competitions. The second call for proposals will present a new opportunity for CCS demonstration projects. Member States and Project sponsors are therefore being encouraged to swiftly resolve all existing problems with a view to a more successful outcome for CCS projects in the second call for proposals.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001633/13

προς το Συμβούλιο

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Παραβίαση του FIR (Περιοχή Πληροφοριών Πτήσεως) Λευκωσίας από τουρκικά μαχητικά F16

Τη Δευτέρα 28 Ιανουαρίου 2013, δύο τουρκικά μαχητικά F16 προσέγγισαν δύο διαφορετικά αεροσκάφη από τα Ηνωμένα Αραβικά Εμιράτα (ΗΑΕ) και τους ζήτησαν να συμμορφωθούν στις εντολές του παράνομου κέντρου ελέγχου εναέριας κυκλοφορίας του κατεχόμενου χωριού της Τύμπου στην Κύπρο. Τα αεροσκάφη των ΗΑΕ εισήλθαν στον κυρίαρχο εναέριο χώρο της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από μια περιοχή πάνω από την κατεχόμενη πόλη της Αμμοχώστου σε πλήρη συνεννόηση με τους ελεγκτές εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της Περιοχής Πληροφοριών Πτήσεως (FIR) της Λευκωσίας. Το κέντρο ελέγχου του παράνομου τουρκοκυπριακού αεροδρομίου της Τύμπου παρενέβη επανειλημμένως διαβιβάζοντας μηνύματα που ζητούσαν από τον κυβερνήτη του αεροσκάφους των ΗΑΕ να επικοινωνεί με αυτούς με τις συχνότητες εκτάκτου ανάγκης.

Ο κυβερνήτης αρνήθηκε να υπακούσει στις εντολές του παράνομου κέντρου ελέγχου της Τύμπου, οι οποίες έρχονταν σε αντίθεση με αυτές που εξέδωσαν οι επίσημοι ελεγκτές εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της Δημοκρατίας της Κύπρου, οι οποίοι έδωσαν σαφείς οδηγίες που ανταποκρίνονταν πλήρως στα εγχειρίδια του Διεθνούς Οργανισμού Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας.

Μετά την άρνηση του κυβερνήτη να ακολουθήσει τις αντιφατικές οδηγίες, δύο τουρκικά μαχητικά αεροσκάφη F16 προσέγγισαν το αεροσκάφος των ΗΑΕ και πέταξαν από πάνω του, αφήνοντας μια απόσταση μόλις 300 ποδών μεταξύ των αεροσκαφών. Η ταχύτητα, το ύψος και η πορεία του Boeing 777-300 των ΗΑΕ παρέμειναν αμετάβλητα.

Σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασίες καταγραφής συμβάντος στα αεροσκάφη των ΗΑΕ, ο κυβερνήτης συνέταξε γραπτή έκθεση των συμβάντων μετά την προσγείωση της πτήσης.

Δεδομένου ότι παρόμοιες παραβιάσεις του FIR Λευκωσίας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από τουρκικά μαχητικά αεροσκάφη αποτελούν σύνηθες συμβάν, ερωτάται το Συμβούλιο:

Ποια είναι η άποψή του για αυτές τις παραβιάσεις από τις τουρκικές δυνάμεις κατοχής στην Κύπρο, οι οποίες θέτουν σε κίνδυνο την ασφάλεια εκατοντάδων πτήσεων που περνούν από το FIR Λευκωσίας σε καθημερινή βάση;

Θα εξακολουθήσει η ΕΕ να αγνοεί ανεύθυνες και επικίνδυνες ενέργειες, όπως αυτή που διέπραξε ένα υποψήφιο μέλος κατά ενός κράτους μέλους;

Απάντηση

(15 Μαΐου 2013)

Το Συμβούλιο δεν έχει συζητήσει τα συγκεκριμένα θέματα που θίγει η αξιότιμη κ. βουλευτής.

Σε γενικότερο επίπεδο, στη θέση που υιοθέτησε στις 22 Ιουνίου 2012, ενόψει της 50ής συνόδου του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης με την Τουρκία, το Συμβούλιο επανέλαβε την επείγουσα ανάγκη να αντιμετωπιστεί ο κίνδυνος για την ασφάλεια της περιοχής της νοτιοανατολικής Μεσογείου. Το Συμβούλιο εν προκειμένω προσέθετε ότι η απουσία επικοινωνίας μεταξύ των κέντρων ελέγχου εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της Τουρκίας και της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ενέχει σοβαρούς κινδύνους για την ασφάλεια των αεροπορικών μεταφορών. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, υπενθύμισε ότι θα πρέπει να εξευρεθεί κατεπειγόντως επιχειρησιακή λύση σύμφωνη με το ισχύον διεθνές δίκαιο, περιλαμβανομένης και της σύμβασης του Σικάγου.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001633/13

to the Council

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Turkish F16 fighter planes violate Nicosia Flight Information Region

On Monday, 28 January 2013 two Turkish F16 fighter planes approached two different aircraft from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and asked them to obey commands from the illegal air traffic control centre in the occupied village of Tymvou, Cyprus. The UAE aircraft entered the sovereign airspace of the Republic of Cyprus from an area above the occupied city of Famagusta in full consultation with the Nicosia Flight Information Region (FIR) air traffic controllers. The control centre in the illegal Turkish/Cypriot Tymvou airport repeatedly intervened by transmitting messages asking the UAE captain to communicate with them over the emergency frequencies.

The captain refused to obey the instructions from the illegal Tymvou control centre, which contradicted those issued by the Republic of Cyprus’s official air traffic controllers, who gave clear directions that were in full compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) manuals.

Following the captain’s refusal to follow the contradictory instructions, two Turkish F16 fighter aeroplanes approached the UAE aircraft and flew above it, leaving a distance of only 300 feet or less between the aircraft. The UAE Boeing 777-300’s speed, altitude and course remained unchanged.

Following UAE aircraft incident procedures, the captain wrote a written report of the events after the flight had landed.

Given that similar violations of the Republic of Cyprus’s Nicosia FIR by Turkish fighter aircraft are a regular occurrence, the Council is asked to answer the following:

What is its view of such violations by the Turkish occupying forces in Cyprus, which jeopardise the safety of hundreds of flights that pass through the Nicosia FIR on a daily basis?

Will the EU continue to ignore irresponsible and dangerous acts such as this committed by a prospective member against a Member State?

Reply

(15 May 2013)

The Council has not discussed the specific issues raised by the Honourable Member.

On a more general level, the Council, in its position adopted on 22 June 2012, in view of the 50th meeting of the Association Council with Turkey, reiterated the urgent need to address the safety risk in the South-East Mediterranean region. The Council added that the absence of communication between air control centres in Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus was seriously compromising air safety. In this context it recalled that an operational solution in line with applicable international law, including the Chicago Convention, should be found urgently.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001634/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Τουρκικά μαχητικά αεροσκάφη F16 παραβιάζουν την περιοχή πληροφοριών πτήσης Λευκωσίας

Τη Δευτέρα 28 Ιανουαρίου 2013 δύο τουρκικά αερομαχητικά F16 προσέγγισαν αεροσκάφος από τα Ηνωμένα Αραβικά Εμιράτα (ΗΑΕ) και ζήτησαν από τον κυβερνήτη του να υπακούσει στις εντολές του παράνομου κέντρου ελέγχου εναέριας κυκλοφορίας στο κατεχόμενο χωριό Τύμβου της Κύπρου. Το αεροσκάφος των ΗΑΕ είχε εισέλθει στον εθνικό εναέριο χώρο της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από περιοχή πάνω από την κατεχόμενη πόλη της Αμμοχώστου σε πλήρη συνεννόηση με τους ελεγκτές εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της περιοχής πληροφοριών πτήσης (FIR) Λευκωσίας. Το κέντρο ελέγχου στο παράνομο τουρκοκυπριακό αεροδρόμιο Τύμβου παρενέβαλλε επανειλημμένως μηνύματα με τα οποία ζητούσε από τον κυβερνήτη του αεροσκάφους των ΗΑΕ να επικοινωνήσει μαζί του μέσω των συχνοτήτων έκτακτης ανάγκης.

Ο κυβερνήτης αρνήθηκε να υπακούσει στις οδηγίες από το παράνομο κέντρο ελέγχου Τύμβου, που αντιτίθεντο στις οδηγίες των επίσημων ελεγκτών εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, οι οποίες ήσαν σαφείς και συμφωνούσαν πλήρως με τα εγχειρίδια του Διεθνούς Οργανισμού Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας (ICAO).

Μετά την άρνηση του κυβερνήτη να ακολουθήσει τις αντιφατικές οδηγίες, δύο τουρκικά αερομαχητικά F16 προσέγγισαν το αεροσκάφος των ΗΑΕ, πετώντας σε ύψος όχι μεγαλύτερο των 300 ποδιών πάνω από αυτό. Η ταχύτητα, το ύψος και η πορεία του Boeing 777-300 παρέμειναν σταθερά.

Σύμφωνα με τις προβλεπόμενες διαδικασίες, ο κυβερνήτης συνέταξε αναφορά των γεγονότων μετά την προσγείωση του αεροσκάφους.

Με δεδομένο ότι παρόμοιες παραβιάσεις του FIR Λευκωσίας στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία από τουρκικά μαχητικά αεροσκάφη είναι τακτικό φαινόμενο, ζητείται από την Επιτροπή να απαντήσει στα ακόλουθα:

Ποια είναι η άποψή της σχετικά με αυτές τις παραβιάσεις εκ μέρους των τουρκικώνδυνάμεων κατοχής στην Κύπρο, οι οποίες θέτουν σε κίνδυνο την ασφάλεια εκατοντάδωνπτήσεων που περνούν καθημερινά από το FIR Λευκωσίας;

Θα εξακολουθήσει η ΕΕ να αγνοεί ανεύθυνες και επικίνδυνες ενέργειες όπως αυτή, τις οποίες διαπράττει εις βάρος κράτους μέλους ένα κράτος που προσδοκεί να γίνει κι αυτό μέλος της ΕΕ;

Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(5 Απριλίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει την προσοχή του Αξιότιμου Μέλους στη θέση που έλαβε η EE κατά την 50ή σύνοδο του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης ΕΕ-Τουρκίας στις 22 Ιουνίου 2012 όπου επαναλαμβάνεται ότι είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη να αντιμετωπιστεί ο κίνδυνος για την ασφάλεια της περιοχής της νοτιοανατολικής Μεσογείου. Η απουσία επικοινωνίας μεταξύ των κέντρων ελέγχου εναέριας κυκλοφορίας της Τουρκίας και της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ενέχει σοβαρούς κινδύνους για την εναέρια ασφάλεια. Εν προκειμένω, πρέπει να βρεθεί επειγόντως μια λειτουργική λύση.

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει στα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου της 10ης Δεκεμβρίου 2012 που καλούν τη Τουρκία να αποφύγει κάθε είδους απειλή ή ενέργεια κατά κράτους μέλους, ή κάθε πηγή προστριβών ή ενέργειες, που θα μπορούσαν να βλάψουν τις σχέσεις καλής γειτονίας και την ειρηνική διευθέτηση τυχόν διαφορών.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001634/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Turkish F16 fighter planes violate Nicosia's Flight Information Region

On Monday, January 28 2013 two Turkish F16 fighter planes approached an aircraft from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and asked its captain to obey the commands from the illegal air traffic control centre in the occupied village of Tymvou, Cyprus. The UAE aircraft entered the sovereign airspace of the Republic of Cyprus from an area above the occupied city of Famagusta in full consultation with the Nicosia Flight Information Region (FIR) air traffic controllers. The control centre in the illegal Turkish/Cypriot Tymvou airport repeatedly intervened by transmitting messages asking the UAE captain to communicate with them over the emergency frequencies.

The captain refused to obey the instructions from the illegal Tymvou control centre, which contradicted those issued by the Republic of Cyprus’s official air traffic controllers, who gave clear directions that were in full compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) manuals.

Following the captain’s refusal to follow the contradictory instructions, two Turkish F16 fighter aeroplanes approached the UAE aircraft and flew above it, leaving a distance of only 300 feet or less between the aircraft. The UAE Boeing 777-300’s speed, altitude and course remained unchanged.

Following UAE aircraft incident procedures, the captain wrote a report of the events after the flight had landed.

Given that similar violations of the Republic of Cyprus’s Nicosia FIR by Turkish fighter aircraft are a regular occurrence, the Commission is asked to answer the following:

What is its view of such violations by the Turkish occupying forces in Cyprus, which jeopardise the safety of hundreds of flights that pass through the Nicosia FIR on a daily basis?

Will the EU continue to ignore irresponsible and dangerous acts such as this committed by a prospective member against a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable member to the EU's position at the 50th meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council on 22 June 2012 which reiterates the urgent need to address the safety risk in the South-East Mediterranean region. The absence of communication between air control centres in Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus is seriously compromising air safety. In this context, an operational solution should be found urgently.

Furthermore, the Commission refers to the Council conclusions of 10 December 2012 which urge Turkey to avoid any kind of threat or action directed against a Member State, or source of friction or actions, which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001635/13

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Alleged excessive noise and air pollution around London's Heathrow airport

A constituent who resides in south-west London has complained to me about the levels of noise and pollution caused by air transport activities at Heathrow airport.

She has specifically asked whether or not the current levels of air quality and noise pollution, which she believes to be too high in her local area, are in breach of the relevant EU directives protecting the environment and the health and safety of Union citizens.

Could the Commission confirm that EU-wide legislation concerning these matters is in force, and provide information on what stage of the codecision procedure any new or proposed legislation has reached? Which authorities are responsible for monitoring compliance with and enforcing the relevant EU directives on a national, regional or local level in the UK?

Has the Commission raised these matters or similar concerns over air quality and noise levels around Heathrow with the UK Government, the Greater London Authority or any other UK regulatory body, and what, if any, steps to enforce EU directives have been considered or taken?

This issue is not only relevant given the effects that noise and air pollution are having on residents, but also in the light of the public debate on whether to increase air traffic at Heathrow by building a third runway or, alternatively, to invest in a new hub airport at a different location further east of London, such as Stansted or the Thames Estuary.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2013)

The Ambient Air Quality legislation consists of Directive 2008/50/EC (3) and Directive 2004/107/EC (4) (the ‘Directives’) that are already in force. The Commission has launched a comprehensive review of the EU air quality policies to be completed in 2013 (5).

According to the directives establishment of zones and agglomerations for the purpose of air quality assessment and management is an obligation of Member States. Since Heathrow was not designated by the United Kingdom as a separate zone, but was part of the zone UK0001 Greater London Urban Area, the Commission has raised issues concerning the whole zone without invoking matters regarding Heathrow in particular.

The Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (6) addresses the assessment and management of environmental noise. Concerning noise limits, there are currently no ambient noise limits in force at European level, and national authorities are instead responsible. Concerning Heathrow airport, the UK authorities produced an action plan and two noise maps (one referred to the year 2006 and one to the 2011). According to these documents the number of people exposed to environmental noise between 2006 and 2011 has not changed.

According to the directives, the UK nominated the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as the competent authority responsible for both air quality and noise.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001636/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Anni Podimata (S&D) και Elisa Ferreira (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Ένταξη των χωρών που τελούν υπό προγράμματα προσαρμογής στη διαδικασία Ευρωπαϊκού Εξαμήνου

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο αποτελεί μια ουσιαστική διαδικασία διαλόγου και διάδρασης σε όλα τα επίπεδα διακυβέρνησης μεταξύ των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ, καθώς και στο εσωτερικό τους. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο προάγει τη δημοκρατική νομιμότητα, τη διαφάνεια, τον έλεγχο και τη λογοδοσία των κρατικών και ευρωπαϊκών οικονομικών πολιτικών. Παράλληλα, ενισχύει τη λογοδοσία σε σχέση με την αποτελεσματικότητα των συστάσεων και των πολιτικών που εγκρίνονται και εφαρμόζονται, καθώς και σε σχέση με τη συμβατότητά τους με τις πολιτικές και τους στόχους της ΕΕ.

Δυστυχώς η διαδικασία δεν περιλαμβάνει τις χώρες που τελούν υπό προγράμματα προσαρμογής που εφαρμόζονται με χρηματοδοτική στήριξη της ΕΕ και του ΔΝΤ. Η εξαίρεση αυτή συνιστά σαφή διάκριση μεταξύ των κρατών μελών και καθιστά τη διαδικασία άνιση, καθώς δεν υπάρχει δυνατότητα δημοκρατικού διαλόγου και ελέγχου όσον αφορά τις συστάσεις της Τρόικα, τα μέτρα που λαμβάνονται και τα αποτελέσματα των κρατικών πολιτικών.

Η μόνη σύσταση, ουσιαστικά, προς τις χώρες αυτές στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Εξαμήνου είναι να εφαρμόσουν το πρόγραμμα προσαρμογής τους. Το γεγονός αυτό ενισχύει την άποψη των πολιτών και των κοινοβουλίων, ότι οι πολιτικές που εφαρμόζονται στο πλαίσιο των προγραμμάτων προσαρμογής «επιβάλλονται» ή «υπαγορεύονται» από την Τρόικα με ελάχιστο δημοκρατικό διάλογο και ότι εφαρμόζονται υπό καθεστώς πίεσης, καθώς συχνά η λήψη μιας καθυστερημένης δόσης του δανείου εξαρτάται από την έγκριση των πολιτικών αυτών.

Με βάση τα παραπάνω, η Επιτροπή καλείται να απαντήσει στα ακόλουθα ερωτήματα.

Σκοπεύει να προτείνει τη συμπερίληψη των κρατών μελών που τελούν υπό προγράμματα προσαρμογής στο Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο;

Σκοπεύει να προβεί σε ανάλυση και να υποβάλει συστάσεις με βάση την ετήσια επισκόπηση της ανάπτυξης και τη διαδικασία μακροοικονομικών ανισορροπιών 2013;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Μαρτίου 2013)

Τα κράτη μέλη που λαμβάνουν χρηματοδοτική ενίσχυση στο πλαίσιο προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής δεν εξαιρούνται από τη συνήθη διαδικασία συντονισμού των οικονομικών πολιτικών τους στο πλαίσιο του Συμβουλίου. Το Συμβούλιο απευθύνει στα εν λόγω κράτη μέλη συγκεκριμένες συστάσεις είτε στο πλαίσιο του κανονισμού EFSM (7) είτε απευθείας βάσει του άρθρου 136 (8).

Τα προγράμματα προσαρμογής που εγκρίνονται οφείλουν να είναι απολύτως σύμφωνα με τους προσανατολισμούς που έχουν αποφασιστεί στο επίπεδο της Ένωσης.

Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, για τα κράτη μέλη που λαμβάνουν χρηματοδοτική ενίσχυση, οι συστάσεις που διατυπώνονται στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Εξαμήνου συμπίπτουν αναπόφευκτα με τους όρους πολιτικής των προγραμμάτων προσαρμογής. Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί και άλλες μακροπρόθεσμες οικονομικές προκλήσεις, όπως τους στόχους της στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020» για όλα τα κράτη μέλη. Επιπρόσθετα, διεξάγει αρκετές φορές το χρόνο διμερείς συνεδριάσεις με όλα τα κράτη μέλη, ώστε να τεθούν προς συζήτηση οι προκλήσεις που αντιμετωπίζει κάθε χώρα, οι προτεραιότητες της ΕΕΑ (9) και η υλοποίηση της στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020».

Οι χώρες με προγράμματα προσαρμογής θα πρέπει να εστιάσουν στην εφαρμογή του προγράμματος που συμφωνήθηκε από τα εν λόγω κράτη μέλη και οι εκθέσεις που υποβάλλονται στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος θα πρέπει να συνάδουν με το ΕΕ προς αποφυγή άσκοπων επαναλήψεων. Μετά την έγκρισή του από τους συννομοθέτες, η παρακολούθηση στο πλαίσιο του κανονισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου για την ενίσχυση της οικονομικής και δημοσιονομικής εποπτείας των κρατών μελών τα οποία αντιμετωπίζουν ή απειλούνται με σοβαρές δυσκολίες αναφορικά με τη χρηματοοικονομική τους σταθερότητα στη ζώνη του ευρώ θα αντικαταστήσει την παρακολούθηση και την αξιολόγηση του ΕΕ. Η αναστολή αυτή θα ισχύει καθόλη τη διάρκεια του προγράμματος μακροοικονομικής προσαρμογής.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001636/13

à Comissão

Anni Podimata (S&D) e Elisa Ferreira (S&D)

(15 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Inclusão dos países sujeitos a programas de ajustamento no processo do Semestre Europeu

O Semestre Europeu é um processo muito importante de diálogo e interação a todos os níveis de governação entre e nos Estados-Membros da UE. Promove a legitimidade democrática, a transparência, o controlo das e a responsabilidade pelas políticas económicas nacionais e europeias. Reforça igualmente a responsabilidade pela eficácia das recomendações e das políticas adotadas e implementadas, assim como a respetiva compatibilidade com as políticas e os objetivos da UE.

Lamentavelmente, este processo exclui os Estados-Membros sujeitos aos programas de ajustamento implementados com a ajuda financeira da UE e do FMI. A exclusão destes países gera uma clara distinção entre Estados-Membros e torna o processo desequilibrado, já que não é possível um debate democrático sobre e o controlo das recomendações efetuadas pela troika, medidas aplicadas e resultados das políticas nacionais.

De facto, a única recomendação feita a estes países no contexto do Semestre Europeu consiste em aplicar o seu programa de ajustamento. Isso reforça a impressão dos cidadãos e parlamentos de que as políticas aplicadas ao abrigo de programas de ajustamento são «impostas» ou «ditadas» pela troika, acompanhadas de um debate democrático mínimo, e que são adotadas sob pressão, muitas vezes quando a obtenção tardia de uma parcela do empréstimo depende da aprovação dessas políticas.

À luz das anteriores considerações, pede-se à Comissão que responda ao seguinte:

Tenciona propor a inclusão no Semestre Europeu dos Estados-Membros sujeitos a programas de ajustamento?

Tenciona proceder à análise e a recomendações com base na Análise Anual do Crescimento e no Procedimento relativo aos desequilíbrios macroeconómicos 2013?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(20 de março de 2013)

Os Estados‐Membros que beneficiam de ajuda financeira no contexto de um programa de ajustamento económico não estão excluídos do processo normal de coordenação das suas políticas económicas no âmbito do Conselho. O Conselho dirige-lhes recomendações específicas quer no quadro do Regulamento MEEF (10) ou diretamente com base no artigo 136.° (11).

Os programas de ajustamento posteriormente adotados têm que ser totalmente compatíveis com as orientações adotadas a nível da União.

Nestas condições, no caso dos Estados‐Membros que beneficiam de ajuda financeira é inevitável que as recomendações adotadas no âmbito do Semestre Europeu (SE) coincidam com os condicionalismos políticos dos programas de ajustamento. A Comissão também acompanha outros desafios económicos a longo prazo, como os objetivos da estratégia Europa 2020 para todos os Estados‐Membros. A Comissão também realiza, várias vezes por ano, encontros bilaterais com todos os Estados‐Membros para discutir os desafios específicos de cada país, as prioridades da Análise Anual do Crescimento (AAC) (12) e a implementação da estratégia Europa 2020.

Os países sujeitos a programas de ajustamento devem concentrar-se na aplicação do programa por eles acordado e a elaboração de relatórios ao abrigo do programa deve ser coerente com o SE, evitando, ao mesmo tempo, qualquer duplicação desnecessária. Uma vez adotada pelos colegisladores, o acompanhamento no âmbito do Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo ao reforço da supervisão económica e orçamental dos Estados-Membros afetados ou ameaçados por graves dificuldades no que diz respeito à sua estabilidade financeira na área do euro irá, portanto, substituir o acompanhamento e a avaliação no âmbito do SE. Esta suspensão é aplicável durante o período de duração do programa de ajustamento macroeconómico.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001636/13

to the Commission

Anni Podimata (S&D) and Elisa Ferreira (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Incorporation of the countries under adjustment programmes into the European Semester process

The European Semester is a very important process of dialogue and interaction at all levels of governance among and within EU Member States. It promotes democratic legitimacy, transparency, control of and accountability for national and European economic policies. It also increases accountability for the effectiveness of the recommendations and of the policies adopted and implemented, as well as their compatibility with EU policies and objectives.

Unfortunately, this process excludes Member States undergoing adjustment programmes implemented with EU and IMF financial support. Excluding these countries creates a clear distinction between Member States and makes the process unbalanced, since democratic debate on and control over the recommendations made by the Troika, the measures implemented and the outcomes of national policies are not possible.

In fact, the only recommendation issued to these countries in the context of the European Semester is to implement their adjustment programme. This reinforces the impression that citizens and parliaments have that policies implemented under adjustment programmes are ‘imposed’ or ‘dictated’ by the Troika with minimal democratic debate, and that they are adopted under pressure, often when receiving a delayed tranche of the loan depends on such policies being approved.

In the light of the above, the Commission is asked to answer the following:

Does it intend to propose that the Member States undergoing adjustment programmes are included in the European Semester?

Does it intend to provide analysis and recommendations based on the Annual Growth Survey and the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure 2013?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2013)

Member States receiving financial assistance in the context of an economic adjustment programme are not excluded from the normal process of coordination of their economic policies within the Council. The Council addresses to them specific recommendations either within the framework of the EFSM Regulation (13) or directly on the basis of Article 136 (14).

The adjustment programmes that are adopted thereafter have to be fully consistent with the orientations decided at the level of the Union.

In those circumstances, for Member States receiving financial assistance it is inevitable that the recommendations adopted within the framework of the European Semester (ES) coincide with the policy conditionality of the adjustment programmes. The Commission also monitors other long-term economic challenges such as the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for all Member States. It also holds several times a year bilateral meetings with all Member States to discuss country-specific challenges, the priorities of the AGS (15) and the implementation of Europe 2020.

Countries with adjustment programmes should focus on the implementation of the programme agreed by the Member States in question and reporting under the programme should be consistent with the ES while avoiding any unnecessary duplication. Once adopted by co-legislators, the monitoring under the ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area’ will therefore replace the monitoring and assessment of the ES. This suspension will be applicable for the duration of the macroeconomic adjustment programme.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-001637/13

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(15 februari 2013)

Angående: Kan kommissionen göra en uppdelning av statistiken avseende it-brottslighet?

Starten för Europeiska it-brottscentrumets (E3C) verksamhet föregicks av offentliggörandet av COM(2012)0140, i vilket kommissionen uppskattade den globala kostnaden för it-brottslighet till 388 miljoner US-dollar årligen.

I sitt meddelande COM(2007)0267 av den 22 maj 2007 fastställde kommissionen tre huvudkategorier av it-brottslighet. Kan kommissionen göra en uppdelning av statistiken avseende it-brottslighet i enlighet med dessa tre kategorier?

Svar från Cecilia Malmström på kommissionens vägnar

(9 april 2013)

I meddelandet Brottsbekämpning i vår digitala tidsålder: inrättande av ett europeiskt centrum mot it-brottslighet  (16) angav Europeiska kommissionen en uppskattning av de totala kostnaderna för it-brottslighet hämtad ur Norton Cybercrime Report från 2011, som sammanställts av Symantec (17). Definitionen av it-brottslighet som används av Symantec i rapporten (18) omfattar de tre kategorier som anges i meddelandet Att införa en allmän politik för kampen mot IT-relaterad brottslighet  (19) från 2007, men är vidare och inbegriper även andra typer av it-brottslighet som inte anges närmare. Det föreligger därmed inget ett-till-ett-förhållande mellan de tre kategorier som nämns i meddelandet och definitionen som används av Symantec. De uppskattade kostnaderna har inte heller redovisats på ett sätt som gör att de kan fördelas mellan de tre kategorierna.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001637/13

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Breakdown of cybercrime statistics

The launch of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) was preceded by the publication of COM(2012)140, in which the Commission estimated that the annual global costs of cybercrime are USD 388 million.

In its communication COM(2007)267 of 22 May 2007, the Commission defined three major categories of cybercrime. Can the Commission break down the total cost of cybercrime into those three categories?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

In its communication on Tackling Crime in our Digital Age: Establishing a European Cybercrime Centre (20), the European Commission cited an estimate on the total cost of cybercrime taken from the Norton Cybercrime Report 2011, compiled by Symantec (21). The definition of cybercrime used by Symantec, as outlined in its report (22), covers the three categories listed in the 2007 Communication ‘Towards a general policy on the fight against cybercrime’ (23), but also goes farther, including other types of cybercrime that are not further specified. There is hence no direct match between the three categories cited in the communication and the definition by Symantec. Furthermore, no breakdown of the cost estimates is provided that would allow for an allocation of the estimate to the three categories.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001638/13

à la Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(15 février 2013)

Objet: Aide humanitaire destinée aux camps de Tindouf

Chaque année depuis 1993, la Commission européenne attribue via ECHO une somme de 10 millions d'euros aux réfugiés sahraouis des camps de Tindouf, administrés par le Front Polisario.

La Commission européenne prend-elle toutes les mesures qui s'imposent pour s'assurer que cette aide humanitaire parvient bien à ses bénéficiaires? Dans l'affirmative, quelles sont ces mesures, sachant que plusieurs enquêtes de l'OLAF font état de fraudes dans l'attribution de cette aide européenne?

La Commission dispose-t-elle d'informations précises et récentes sur le nombre de réfugiés vivant dans les camps de Tindouf, données que réclame le Haut commissariat aux réfugiés des Nations unies?

Sans cette information cruciale, comment la Commission peut-elle envisager de gérer efficacement une aide humanitaire ciblée?

De même, suite aux déclarations du ministre des affaires étrangères malien, qui affirme qu'il y a des combattants du Front Polisario au nord Mali, la Commission envisage-t-elle de prendre des sanctions contre le Front Polisario qui gère cette aide alimentaire?

Réponse donnée par Mme Georgieva au nom de la Commission

(26 mars 2013)

1.

Les besoins en aide humanitaire dans les camps sont identifiés et quantifiés par les organisations humanitaires présentes sur place telles que le PAM, le HCR, Oxfam, la Croix-Rouge espagnole, Triangle Génération Humanitaire et le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge. En outre, un réseau d'experts humanitaires hautement qualifiés de la Commission est présent sur le terrain pour évaluer les besoins et assurer une supervision régulière des opérations.

2.

Par l'intermédiaire de sa direction générale de l'aide humanitaire et de la protection civile (ECHO), la Commission fournit une aide humanitaire aux 90 000 réfugiés sahraouis les plus vulnérables qui vivent dans les camps du sud-ouest de l'Algérie. Il s'agit là du chiffre de planification utilisé par le Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés sur lequel se fonde la Commission.

3.

Les conclusions des dernières enquêtes menées par l'organe de lutte antifraude de la Commission à la suite d'allégations de détournement de fonds destinés aux réfugiés sahraouis n'ont donné lieu à aucune demande de recouvrement de fonds et n'ont pas nécessité non plus d'engager une quelconque procédure judiciaire ou administrative.

4.

Il est fondamental pour la Commission d'assurer une aide efficace, une bonne gestion financière et le respect des principes humanitaires, ce qui implique que les représentants de la DG ECHO supervisent les opérations tout au long du projet.

5.

La Commission n'a pas été informée de la présence effective de combattants du Front Polisario au nord du Mali.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001638/13

to the Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Humanitarian aid intended for refugee camps in Tindouf

Every year since 1993 the Commission has allocated, through ECHO, a sum of EUR 10 million for Sahrawi refuges in the Tindouf camps, which are administered by the Polisario Front.

Is the Commission taking all the necessary measures to ensure that this humanitarian aid actually reaches its intended recipients? If so, what are these measures, in view of the fact that several OLAF investigations have uncovered fraud in the allocation of this EU aid?

Does the Commission have any specific, recent information on the number of refugees living in the Tindouf camps, information which has been requested by the UN High Commission for Refugees?

Without this vital information, how can the Commission effectively provide targeted humanitarian aid?

Furthermore, following the Malian foreign minister's statements confirming the presence of Polisario fighters in northern Mali, does the Commission intend to impose sanctions against the Polisario Front, which administers this food aid?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

1.

Humanitarian aid needs in the camps are identified and quantified by humanitarian organisations present in the camps such as WFP, UNHCR, Oxfam, the Spanish Red Cross, Triangle Génération Humanitaire and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In addition to that, the Commission has on the ground a network of highly qualified humanitarian experts who carry out needs assessment and monitor the operations regularly.

2.

Through its Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), the Commission is providing humanitarian aid to the 90,000 most vulnerable Sahrawi refugees living in the camps in south-west Algeria. This is the planning figure used by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the basis of which the Commission is working.

3.

The conclusions of the latest investigations carried out by anti-fraud body of the Commission further to allegations of misapplication of funds to the Sahrawi refugees did not lead to any request for recovery of funds or the necessity to initiate any judicial or administrative proceedings.

4.

The Commission

attaches fundamental importance to ensuring aid effectiveness, sound financial management and respect of humanitarian principles, which implies monitoring of the action during the lifetime of the project by DG ECHO's representatives.

5.

The Commission has not been informed of the confirmed presence of Polisario fighters in northern Mali.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001639/13

alla Commissione

Vito Bonsignore (PPE)

(15 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Sequestro di prodotti pericolosi per la salute

Negli ultimi mesi la Guardia di Finanza in Italia ha operato diversi sequestri, in alcuni casi anche di svariate migliaia di pezzi, di prodotti ritenuti pericolosi per la salute dei cittadini e dei consumatori. Questi prodotti sono perlopiù di provenienza cinese, e sono stati rinvenuti articoli non conformi alle direttive dell'Unione europea e del Codice del consumo nazionale.

L'iniziativa si inserisce nelle politiche di contrasto all'evasione delle imposte sul commercio, delle normative di sicurezza e di tutela del consumatore, sviluppate attraverso operazioni coordinate.

Sembra ormai un fatto acclarato, e segnalato anche nelle comunicazioni della Guardia di Finanza, l'esistenza di reti organizzative orientate all'importazione di prodotti pericolosi, contraffatti o comunque non legalmente circolanti nel territorio dell'Unione, facenti capo a società riconducibili alla Repubblica popolare cinese.

Alla luce di quanto sopra può la Commissione far sapere:

Quali siano i programmi che regolano il contrasto, in una prospettiva di mercato unico, all'immissione di prodotti illegali e pericolosi per il consumatore?

Se, in particolare, siano in corso iniziative volte a intercettare le merci illegali alla fonte, ovvero lungo i vettori di immissione sul mercato, conseguendo così risultati migliori rispetto alle attività, più faticose e frammentarie, di contrasto del fenomeno, una volta che le merci siano passate nelle mani dei distributori?

In relazione all'ultimo accordo commerciale con la Repubblica popolare cinese, quali siano i passi adottati dall'istituzione, nell'ambito dei colloqui finalizzati al perfezionamento dell'accordo, in relazione a profili di collaborazione delle autorità cinesi nelle attività di contrasto alla frode?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(12 aprile 2013)

Le procedure per i controlli dei prodotti che entrano sul territorio dell'UE sono definite nel regolamento (CE) n. 765/2008 (24). Le autorità nazionali, qualora lo ritengano necessario e proporzionato, possono vietare l'immissione sul mercato di certi prodotti nonché distruggere o rendere altrimenti inutilizzabili i prodotti che presentino un rischio grave.

Il sistema RAPEX (25) consente alle autorità, comprese quelle doganali, di scambiare informazioni sulle misure adottate. Le informazioni sui prodotti non sicuri di origine cinese sono trasmesse alle autorità cinesi le quali procedono ai necessari interventi (26). Il «Pacchetto sicurezza dei prodotti e vigilanza del mercato», adottato dalla Commissione il 13 febbraio 2013, si prefigge anch'esso di accrescere la sicurezza dei prodotti di consumo.

Per combattere il traffico di prodotti contraffatti che presentino un rischio per i consumatori si sono inserite nella struttura di OLAF (27) le opportune capacità investigative cui si aggiungono le attività operative condotte dagli Stati membri sulle frontiere esterne dell'UE. Tuttavia, a causa delle limitate risorse disponibili, le priorità investigative dell'OLAF sono concentrate su casi rilevanti al fine di smantellare le organizzazioni fraudolente internazionali.

Nell'ambito del sistema di sorveglianza continuativa (Seamless surveillance) con la Cina, le autorità europee e cinesi hanno avviato un progetto congiunto (28) finalizzato a rafforzare i sistemi di controllo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001639/13

to the Commission

Vito Bonsignore (PPE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Seizure of goods that are a health hazard

Italy’s Guardia di Finanza police have made several seizures in recent months of goods deemed to be hazardous to public and consumer health. Several thousands of items were seized in some cases. For the most part these goods originate in China and do not comply with EU directives or national consumer codes.

The seizures form part of a policy of combatting evasion of commercial taxes, safety regulations and consumer protection rules through coordinated operations.

It seems clear now that there are organised networks importing hazardous or counterfeit goods, or goods that are in any event circulating illegally within the European Union. Reports from the Guardia di Finanza police confirm this. These networks can be traced back to companies located in the People’s Republic of China.

1.

Can the Commission clarify which programmes govern measures to stop goods that are illegal and hazardous for consumers entering the single market?

2.

In particular, is action being taken at present to intercept illegal goods at source, or along their channels to market, as better results can be achieved at this level than after these goods have reached the hands of the distributors, when operations become more difficult and piecemeal?

3.

In light of the latest trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China, what steps has the Commission taken, in the context of talks on upgrading the agreement, in regard to ways the Chinese authorities might collaborate on anti-fraud actions?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

The procedures for the controls of products entering the EU are set out in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (29). National authorities, where they deem it necessary and proportionate, can prohibit certain products from being placed on the market and also destroy or otherwise render inoperable products presenting a serious risk.

The RAPEX system (30) allows the authorities, including Customs, to exchange information about adopted measures. Information on unsafe products of Chinese origin is communicated to the Chinese authorities who (31) take actions. The Product Safety and Market Surveillance Package of proposals adopted by the Commission on 13 February 2013 also aims at enhancing the safety of consumer products.

For combating the traffic of counterfeit goods posing a risk to consumers, investigative capacities have been reflected in the OLAF (32) structure, in addition to the operational activities conducted by the Member states at the EU's external border. Nevertheless, due to the limited resources available, the OLAF investigation priorities are allocated to significant cases aimed at dismantling international fraud organisations.

Within the ‘Seamless Surveillance’ with China, European and Chinese authorities launched a joint project (33) with the aim to strengthen control systems.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001640/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(15 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Ruote di ricambio omologate e monopolio

Esiste nel mio paese un'azienda che è l'unico produttore al mondo di ruote di ricambio omologate (cerchioni in lega) ai sensi del Regolamento (CE) n. 124/2006 della Commissione economica per l'Europa delle Nazioni Unite. Tali ruote sono un'esatta riproduzione delle ruote originali prodotte dalle case automobilistiche compresi gli elementi formali e cioè il modello. Esse pertanto sono destinate a sostituire le ruote originali durante l'utilizzo del veicolo, dunque con finalità di ricambio degli originali, e sono soggette alle procedure di omologazione di cui al sopra citato Regolamento (CE) n. 124/2006. L'azienda produce ruote di ricambio omologate di ben 34 marchi di case automobilistiche, svincolando i consumatori dalla scelta obbligata del ricambio del costruttore del veicolo, che verrebbe a trovarsi altrimenti in posizione di monopolio sul mercato dei cerchioni. Questi infatti sono per i consumatori gli unici pezzi di ricambio omologati in concorrenza alle ruote prodotte dalla casa costruttrice dell'autoveicolo, con un risparmio per i consumatori stessi che s'aggira attorno al 70 %. Ciò nonostante, o forse proprio per questo, le case automobilistiche hanno promosso innumerevoli azioni giudiziarie e stragiudiziali nei confronti dell'azienda e dei suoi clienti (grossisti, distributori, ecc.), tutte volte ad escluderla dal mercato. In più, a sostegno delle loro pretese, esse invocano l'esercizio di diritti di privativa, inefficaci se si tiene conto della clausola delle riparazioni prevista dall'art. 110 del Regolamento (CE) n. 6/2002, già prevista tra l'altro, dalla direttiva 98/71/CE.

La Commissione:

È al corrente di questo conflitto commerciale?

È esatto che la normativa comunitaria di cui all'art. 110 del Regolamento (CE) n.6/2002 non distingua (e quindi non faccia eccezioni con riguardo ai cerchioni omologati) tra componenti che debbano essere considerati come pezzi di ricambio finalizzati alla riparazione dei veicoli?

Non conviene che la liberalizzazione del mercato post-vendita nel settore automobilistico è stata voluta dal legislatore comunitario che ha fornito un'ampia e precisa definizione di pezzo di ricambio (cfr. art.1 par. h) del Regolamento (UE) n. 461/2010) all'interno della quale rientrano pertanto anche le ruote omologate?

Non crede che tale incertezza interpretativa penalizzi i consumatori europei e favorisca il monopolio?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(15 aprile 2013)

1.

La Commissione è a conoscenza della controversia cui fa riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare.

2.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 6/2002 del Consiglio su disegni e modelli comunitari

2.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 6/2002 del Consiglio su disegni e modelli comunitari

 (34) non definisce quali prodotti debbano essere considerati una componente di un prodotto complesso utilizzata allo scopo di consentire la riparazione del medesimo (pezzi di ricambio).

3.

Il regolamento (UE) n. 461/2010 della Commissione

3.

Il regolamento (UE) n. 461/2010 della Commissione

 (35) riguarda l'applicazione delle norme dell'UE sugli accordi anticoncorrenziali a talune categorie di accordi verticali nel settore automobilistico. Conformemente alla definizione di cui all'articolo 1, se i cerchioni vengono incorporati o montati in o su un autoveicolo per sostituirne delle parti componenti, possono essere considerati pezzi di ricambio ai fini dell'applicazione del regolamento (UE) n. 461/2010. Tuttavia questa definizione non è vincolante per l'interpretazione della normativa UE in materia di proprietà industriale.

4.

Poiché non vi è stato accordo tra gli Stati membri, la piena liberalizzazione del mercato secondario dei pezzi di ricambio dell'UE nell'ambito della direttiva 98/71/CE non è stata conseguita. Da allora la Commissione ha presentato tre proposte legislative al fine di armonizzare pienamente e completare il mercato interno in questo settore e resta vigile riguardo a qualsiasi cambiamento nelle condizioni di mercato che possa indurla a riprendere i negoziati sulla liberalizzazione della protezione dei disegni e dei modelli dei pezzi di ricambio destinati a ripristinare l'aspetto di prodotti complessi come gli autoveicoli. Tuttavia l'adozione di tale normativa è di competenza del Consiglio e del Parlamento europeo. Inoltre, come ha sottolineato nella comunicazione

4.

Poiché non vi è stato accordo tra gli Stati membri, la piena liberalizzazione del mercato secondario dei pezzi di ricambio dell'UE nell'ambito della direttiva 98/71/CE non è stata conseguita. Da allora la Commissione ha presentato tre proposte legislative al fine di armonizzare pienamente e completare il mercato interno in questo settore e resta vigile riguardo a qualsiasi cambiamento nelle condizioni di mercato che possa indurla a riprendere i negoziati sulla liberalizzazione della protezione dei disegni e dei modelli dei pezzi di ricambio destinati a ripristinare l'aspetto di prodotti complessi come gli autoveicoli. Tuttavia l'adozione di tale normativa è di competenza del Consiglio e del Parlamento europeo. Inoltre, come ha sottolineato nella comunicazione

 (36), la Commissione si è impegnata a sostenere la competitività e la sostenibilità del settore.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001640/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Approved replacement wheels and monopoly

There is a company in Italy which is the sole manufacturer worldwide of replacement wheels (alloy rims) approved under the 2006 Regulation No 124 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. These wheels are in every respect, including their outer appearance and hence the model, an exact copy of the vehicle manufacturers’ original wheels. They are therefore intended to replace the original wheels during the vehicle’s lifetime, i.e. they are manufactured as replacements for original wheels and are subject to approval procedures laid down in the aforementioned 2006 Regulation No 124. The company manufactures approved replacement wheels for 34 makes of vehicle. This frees consumers from having to purchase replacement wheels from their vehicle’s manufacturer, which would otherwise have a monopoly over the market in its wheel rims. These wheels are in fact the only replacements available to consumers which may officially compete with the wheels produced by the vehicle manufacturers themselves, allowing consumers to make savings of around 70%. Notwithstanding this, or perhaps precisely because of this, vehicle manufacturers have brought countless legal and out-of-court actions against this company and its customers (wholesalers, distributors, etc.) all of which aim to bar it from the market. What is more, vehicle manufacturers invoke in support of their claims the exercise of their patent rights, which are however rendered invalid by the repairs clause in Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, already provided for by Directive 98/71/EC.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this trade dispute?

2.

Is it correct that Community legislation, namely Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, does not distinguish (and therefore does make an exception in the case of approved rims) between components which shall be considered as spare parts for the purpose of repairing vehicles?

3.

Does it not think that in providing a broad and precise definition of spare parts in Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) No 461/2010 — a definition which therefore encompasses approved wheels — the Community legislator was encouraging the liberalisation of the after-sales market in the automobile sector?

4.

Would the Commission not agree that this uncertainty in regard to interpretation penalises EU consumers and encourages monopolies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2013)

1.

The Commission is indeed aware of this dispute.

2.

Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs

2.

Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs

 (37) does not define what products should be considered as a component part of a complex product used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product (spare parts).

3.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 461/2010

3.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 461/2010

 (38) concerns the application of EU rules on anticompetitive agreements to certain categories of vertical agreements in the motor vehicle sector. Pursuant to the definition in Article 1 thereof, so long as wheel rims are to be installed in or upon a motor vehicle so as to replace components of that vehicle, they may be considered as spare parts for the purposes of applying Regulation No 461/2010. However, this definition is not binding for the interpretation of EU rules in the field of industrial property.

4.

As there was no agreement among the Member States (MS), a full liberalisation of the spare parts aftermarket in the EU was not accomplished under Directive 98/71/EC. Since then, there were three legislative proposals tabled by the Commission in order to fully harmonise and complete the internal market in this area. The Commission remains watchful to any change in the market conditions that could encourage it to resume negotiations on the liberalisation of design protection of spare parts intended to restore the appearance of complex products such as motor vehicles. It is, however, up to the Council and the EP to adopt such legislation. Moreover, as underlined in the Commission’s Communication

4.

As there was no agreement among the Member States (MS), a full liberalisation of the spare parts aftermarket in the EU was not accomplished under Directive 98/71/EC. Since then, there were three legislative proposals tabled by the Commission in order to fully harmonise and complete the internal market in this area. The Commission remains watchful to any change in the market conditions that could encourage it to resume negotiations on the liberalisation of design protection of spare parts intended to restore the appearance of complex products such as motor vehicles. It is, however, up to the Council and the EP to adopt such legislation. Moreover, as underlined in the Commission’s Communication

 (39), the Commission is committed to support the sector’s competitiveness and sustainability.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001641/13

to the Commission

Chris Davies (ALDE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: VAT on equipment purchased by life-saving voluntary organisations (2)

On behalf of the Commission, Mr Šemeta stated in his reply to Written Question E-000102/2013 that Article 132(1)(p) of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) clarifies that Member States shall exempt from VAT ‘the supply of transport services for sick or injured persons in vehicles specially designed for the purpose, by duly authorised bodies.’

In the case of sick or injured persons being transported off mountain sides or other remote locations it may be impossible to use conventional ambulances.

1.

Does EC law forbid Member States from providing a VAT exemption for vehicles suitable for this purpose, such as Land Rovers, that have been specially designed or adapted to transport sick or injured persons in mountainous or remote locations?

2.

Does EC law forbid Member States from providing a VAT exemption for the medical and other essential equipment, including stretchers, spades, ladders, ropes and other climbing tools, boots and weather-resistant clothing, that may be carried on such specially designed vehicles in order to assist sick or injured persons in mountainous or remote locations?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

Member States do not have the right to implement VAT exemptions which go beyond the framework of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (the ‘VAT Directive’). Although certain activities which are in the public interest are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132 of the VAT Directive, that provision does not provide for an exemption from VAT for every activity performed in the public interest, but only for those which are listed and described in great detail therein.

According to Article 132 (1) (p), Member States shall exempt from VAT ‘the supply of transport services for sick or injured persons in vehicles specially designed for the purpose, by duly authorised bodies’. The term ‘vehicles’ is not restricted to ‘conventional’ ambulances and would possibly also encompass other vehicles if they are specially designed in the meaning of this provision. However, the tax exemption only encompasses the transport services supplied by duly authorised bodies. The VAT Directive does not, generally, provide for a tax exemption for the supply of medical or other equipment that may be carried on a vehicle specially designed for transporting sick and injured people.

According to the legislative rules of procedure at the EU level in the field of VAT, any modification of this legal situation would need the unanimous adoption of a respective legal act by the Council, based on a corresponding proposal from the Commission.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001642/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Αναγκαστικές υστερεκτομές στην Ινδία

Ιδιωτικές κλινικές σε πολλά ινδικές χωριά προβαίνουν σε παράτυπες ιατρικές πρακτικές πιέζοντας γυναίκες να υποστούν μια αδικαιολόγητη υστερεκτομή. Οι γυναίκες, πολλές ηλικίας 20 και 30 ετών, επισκέπτονται τις κλινικές με συμπτώματα όπως μηνορραγία, πόνους περιόδου, λοιμώξεις της ουροδόχου κύστης και πόνους στην πλάτη. Μετά από ένα και μοναδικό υπερηχογράφημα και χωρίς τη διενέργεια βιοψίας, οι γιατροί εκφοβίζουν τις γυναίκες ώστε να νομίζουν ότι χρειάζονται υστερεκτομή, λέγοντάς τους ότι μπορεί να υπάρχει καρκίνωμα στη μήτρα τους.

Για να βοηθηθούν οι οικογένειες που ζουν κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας, το εθνικό σύστημα ασφάλισης υγείας στην Ινδία τους επιτρέπει να λάβουν θεραπεία από ιδιωτικά νοσοκομεία αξίας έως 30 000 ρουπίες (USD 550) ετησίως. Οι ιδιωτικές κλινικές επωφελούνται από αυτό το καθεστώς και εκμεταλλεύονται τους ευάλωτους φτωχούς πολίτες, για να ιδιοποιούνται τα κυβερνητικά κεφάλαια.

Επιπλέον, υπήρξαν και περιπτώσεις γιατρών που ζήτησαν χρήματα για την εκτέλεση της υστερεκτομής, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα είχαν κάνει μόνο μια επιφανειακή τομή, αφήνοντας άθικτη τη μήτρα. Η Επιτροπή καλείται να απαντήσει στα ακόλουθα ερωτήματα:

Είναι ενήμερη η Επιτροπή για αυτές τις αναγκαστικές υστερεκτομές που πραγματοποιούνται στην Ινδία, και που, σε πολλές περιπτώσεις, αφήνουν τις γυναίκες αδύναμες και ευάλωτες και μπορεί να θέσουν την υγεία τους σε κίνδυνο;

Πώς μπορεί η Επιτροπή να συμβάλει στην ενίσχυση των γυναικών στην Ινδία (με προγράμματα, χρηματοδότηση, ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια, εκστρατείες ευαισθητοποίησης, εκπαιδευτικά προγράμματα, κ.λπ.); Ποια από αυτά τα μέτρα έχουν ήδη ληφθεί από την ΕΕ;

Απάντηση του κ. Piebalgs εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(5 Απριλίου 2013)

Η «απάτη της μήτρας» αφορά την εικαζόμενη αφαίρεση μητρών από χιλιάδες γυναίκες, που βρίσκονται κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας, χωρίς τη συναίνεση τους και αναίτια, από ιδιωτικά νοσοκομεία: η εν λόγω απάτη έχει γνωστοποιηθεί από τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης και οργανώσεις της κοινωνίας των πολιτών. Ωστόσο, ο ακριβής αριθμός των περιπτώσεων δεν είναι γνωστός καθότι δεν μπορεί να υπολογιστεί από επίσημες πηγές. Δεν έχει διεξαχθεί καμία συνολική έρευνα που θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί αντιπροσωπευτική για όλη τη χώρα.

Το 2010, οι κυβερνήσεις του Άντρα Πραντές και του Μαχαράστρα προσάρμοσαν τα από το κράτος επιχορηγούμενα ασφαλιστικά τους συστήματα έτσι ώστε να απαγορεύονται οι υστερεκτομές σε ιδιωτικά νοσοκομεία αφότου έρευνες αποκάλυψαν ότι οι μήτρες ορισμένων ασθενών είχαν αφαιρεθεί απλώς για να ζητηθεί μεγαλύτερη αποζημίωση από τον εκάστοτε ασφαλιστικό φορέα. Το 2012, μετά τους ισχυρισμούς για εξαναγκαστική αφαίρεση μητρών φτωχών γυναικών με απώτερο σκοπό την εκμετάλλευση των ασφαλιστικών παροχών (στην ινδική πολιτεία Μπιχάρ) η κυβέρνηση του ως άνω ομόσπονδου κράτους προέβη σε έρευνες, που διενεργήθηκαν από τους διοικητές περιφέρειας, σε όλα τα ιδιωτικά νοσοκομεία στα οποία το ποσοστό των υστερεκτομών υπερέβαινε το 25% του συνόλου των εγχειρήσεων.

Η ΕΕ συνεργάζεται με τη κυβέρνηση της Ινδίας και με ινδικούς οργανισμούς της κοινωνίας των πολιτών από τις αρχές του 1990, με στόχο τη βελτίωση της υγείας των μητέρων, τη μείωση της παιδικής θνησιμότητας και την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών.

Η ΕΕ στηρίζει την κυβέρνηση της Ινδίας με ολιστικό τρόπο, π.χ. μέσω του προγράμματος «Εθνική αποστολή για την αγροτική υγεία/την αναπαραγωγική υγεία και την υγεία του παιδιού», το οποίο αποβλέπει στον περιορισμό των περιφερειακών ανισοτήτων κατά τη παροχή υπηρεσιών στους τομείς της υγείας των μητέρων, της αναπαραγωγικής υγείας και της υγείας του παιδιού.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001642/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Forced hysterectomies in India

Private clinics in many Indian villages engage in malpractice by pushing women into having unnecessary hysterectomies. Women, many in their 20s and 30s, visit the clinics with symptoms such as heavy periods, period pain, bladder infections and backache. Following a single ultrasound scan and without performing a biopsy, doctors scare women into thinking that they need a hysterectomy by telling them that they may have a cancerous growth in their uterus.

To help families living below the poverty line, a national health insurance scheme in India allows them to receive treatment from private hospitals worth up to 30 000 rupees (USD 550) each year. Private clinics take advantage of this scheme and exploit the vulnerable poor as a way to obtain the government funds.

In addition, there have also been cases of doctors claiming money for performing hysterectomies, when in fact they had made only a superficial incision, thereby leaving the uterus intact. The Commission is asked to answer the following:

Is the Commission aware of these forced hysterectomies that are taking place in India, which in many cases leave women weak and vulnerable and may put their health at risk?

How can the Commission help to empower women in India (programmes, funding, humanitarian aid, awareness campaigns, education programmes, etc.)? Which of these steps have already been taken by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

The ‘Uterus scam,’ includes the alleged removal of uteruses of thousands of Below Poverty Line (BPL) women without their consent, or necessity, by private hospitals; it has been reported in the Media and by Civil Society organisations. The exact number of cases is however not known as this could not be proven by official sources. There has not been any comprehensive survey done which could be representative for the whole country.

In 2010, the Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra governments adjusted their state-sponsored insurance schemes to disallow hysterectomies in private hospitals after surveys disclosed that uteruses of a number of beneficiaries were removed merely to claim higher insurance amounts. In 2012, following allegations of the forced removal of poor women’s uteruses for insurance benefit (in the Indian state of Bihar) the state Government initiated inquiries under district magistrates against all such private hospitals at which more than 25% of all surgeries are hysterectomies.

The EU has engaged with the Government of India and Indian civil society organisations since the early 1990s, on improving maternal health, reducing child mortality and protecting women's rights.

The EU is supporting the Government of India in a holistic way, e.g. through the National Rural Health Mission/Reproductive and Child Health programme, aimed at reducing regional inequalities in the provision of services in the areas of maternal health, reproductive and child health.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-001643/13

a Bizottság számára

Herczog Edit (S&D)

(2013. február 15.)

Tárgy: Magyarországi uniós pályázat kiírásának feltételei

A magyar sajtó szerint több száz vállalkozás és kistelepülés maradt hoppon egy tavaly meghirdetett uniós pályázaton (TÁMOP-6.1.2-11/1) (40), mert a kiírás olyan feltételt is szabott, aminek egyetlen jelentkező sem felelhetett volna meg, a Nemzeti Fejlesztési Ügynökség (NFÜ) mégis befogadta 58 pályázó pályázatát. Az NFÜ elismerte a szabálytalanságot, hogy a kiírás ellenére az első napon gyorspostai kézbesítéssel beérkezett pályázatokat is befogadta. Indoklása szerint a könnyített elbírálású pályázatok szabályai alapján az azonos napon beérkezett pályázatokat egy időben beérkezettnek kell tekinteni, és ezek támogatása csak akkor lehetséges, ha az adott nap valamennyi, formailag megfelelő pályázatának támogatására elegendő forrás áll rendelkezésre. A második napon beérkezett pályázatok forrásigénye (7,9 milliárd forint) meghaladta a rendelkezésre álló keretet, ezért azokat kizárták.

Az ügyben a következő kérdést kívánom feltenni:

Valóban EU-s előírás az, hogy könnyített elbírálású pályázatok esetében az azonos napon beérkezett pályázatok befogadása csak az említett feltételekkel történhet?

Ha igen, akkor nem volna-e indokoltabb valamilyen objektív szelekciót alkalmazni, amennyiben az egy napon beérkezett nagyszámú, formailag megfelelő pályázat összértéke meghaladja a keretösszeget?

Ha viszont az előírás nem a bizottsági joganyagból következik, akkor ellenőrzi-e a Bizottság azt, hogy az egyes tagországokban meghirdetett pályázatok technikai követelményei egyenlő esélyeket biztosítsanak valamennyi potenciális pályázó részére?

Hogyan lehet orvosolni az ügyben érintett szervezetek sérelmét, s mit kell tennie az NFÜ-nek, valamint mit kellene tennie az ügyben érintett nemzeti hatóságoknak, hogy további hasonló esetek ne történhessenek meg?

Andor László válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. április 12.)

1–2. Az uniós jogszabályok nem írják elő a megosztott irányítású forráselosztási eljárások szabályait. A műveletek kiválasztására szolgáló rendszer kialakítása a tagállamok feladata. A tagállamok ugyanakkor kötelesek az EU költségvetési rendeletében meghatározott, a hatékony és eredményes pénzgazdálkodásra, az átláthatóságra és a megkülönböztetésmentességre vonatkozó alapelveket tiszteletben tartani.

3.

A Bizottság végez ellenőrzéseket a műveletekre és az irányítási és kontrollrendszerre vonatkozóan. Egy ilyen ellenőrzés a műveletek kiválasztásának folyamatára is kiterjedhet. Amennyiben az ellenőrzés során hiányosságot vagy szabálytalanságot tárnak fel, korrekciós intézkedésekre kerül sor (megszakítás, kifizetések felfüggesztése, pénzügyi korrekció).

4.

Amennyiben egy pályázó úgy véli, jogait megsértették, először a nemzeti közigazgatáshoz vagy bírósághoz kell fordulnia. Amennyiben megállapítást nyer, hogy az irányítási és kontrollrendszer (vagy annak egy része) nem felel meg az uniós vagy a nemzeti jogszabályoknak, a nemzeti hatóságoknak korrekciós intézkedéseket kell tenniük, különben a Bizottság fog ilyen intézkedéseket hozni.

Az Európai Bizottsághoz a közelmúltban több panasz érkezett egyes, az ESZA által társfinanszírozott magyarországi projektek pályázati felhívásának irányítására vonatkozóan; ezek nyomán a Bizottság felkérte a magyar hatóságokat a helyzet értékelésére. A válasz kézhezvétele után a bizottsági szolgálatok elemezni fogják a kapott információkat, és amennyiben szükséges, határozni fognak a következő lépésekről.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001643/13

to the Commission

Edit Herczog (S&D)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Conditions attached to call for applications for EU funding in Hungary

According to the Hungarian press, several hundred businesses and small settlements had their funding applications rejected out of hand when they responded to an EU call for applications issued last year (TÁMOP-6.1.2-11/1) (41), because the call stipulated a condition with which not a single applicant could have complied, yet the National Development Agency (NFÜ) accepted the submissions of 58 applicants. The National Development Agency acknowledged the irregularity which had been occasioned by its acceptance — contrary to the provisions of the call for applications — of the applications which were received by express mail on the first day. According to its justification, the rules applicable under the streamlined award procedure required it to regard applications received on one and the same day as having arrived simultaneously, so that it was only possible to accept them if sufficient funding was available to accept all the formally correct applications received on the same day. The funding required by the applications received on the second day (HUF 7.9 bn) exceeded the budget available, and they were therefore excluded.

1.

Is it true that it is an EU rule that, in the case of streamlined funding award procedures, applications received on the same day can only be accepted under the conditions stated above?

2.

If so, would it not be more justifiable to use some kind of objective selection procedure if the large number of formally correct applications received on the same day requires total funding which exceeds the budget?

3.

If on the other hand the rules are not derived from Commission law, does the Commission monitor whether the technical consequences of calls for applications issued in individual Member States ensure equal opportunities for all potential applicants?

4.

How can the damage which has been suffered by the organisations affected in this case be remedied, and what should the National Development Agency — and the national authorities which are implicated in the case — do to prevent any recurrence of this?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

1 and 2. EU legislation does not prescribe the modalities of funding award procedures within shared management. It is the responsibility of the Member States to set up the system for selection of the operations. However, the Member States must respect the principles of sound financial management, transparency and non-discrimination foreseen in the EU Financial Regulation.

3.

The Commission performs audits on operations and management and control systems. The process of selection of operations can be part of such an audit. If, during an audit, a deficiency or irregularity is identified, corrective measures are applied (interruption, suspension of payments, financial correction).

4.

If an applicant suspects that his/her rights were violated, s/he should first turn to the national administrative or judicial proceedings. If the management and control system (or its part) is found non-compliant with EU or national legislation, the national authorities must take corrective measures, otherwise the Commission will.

The European Commission has recently received complaints about the management of some calls for proposals concerning the ESF co-financed projects in Hungary and requested the Hungarian Authorities to provide their assessment. Following the receipt of the reply, the Commission Services will analyse the information provided and decide on the next steps, if any.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001644/13

do Komisji

Sławomir Nitras (PPE)

(15 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Migracje wewnątrz UE jako reakcja na szok asymetryczny

Zgodnie z teorią ekonomii jednym z mechanizmów dostosowawczych podczas szoków asymetrycznych we wspólnych obszarach walutowych jest migracja siły roboczej. Kryzys finansowy z 2008 r., którego rezultatem był kryzys zadłużenia niektórych krajów strefy euro, spowodował właśnie tego typu szok, z którego skutkami obecnie walczymy. W związku z tym pragnę zapytać szanowną Komisję:

Czy szanowna Komisja dysponuje informacjami wskazującymi na to, że obywatele krajów przeżywających problemy gospodarcze migrują za granicę bądź w obrębie własnych krajów w większym stopniu niż przed kryzysem?

Które ośrodki gospodarcze i regiony UE, w ocenie szanownej Komisji, mają największe szanse na przyciągnięcie obywateli innych krajów UE?

Jakie długookresowe skutki gospodarcze miałoby utrzymanie się wspomnianych trendów migracyjnych?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji

(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)

1.

Analiza przeprowadzona w 2012 r.

1.

Analiza przeprowadzona w 2012 r.

 (42) potwierdziła zwiększenie ruchów migracyjnych z państw Europy Południowej oraz Irlandii i krajów bałtyckich w kierunku innych państw UE. Ostatnie dane (3 kwartał 2012 r.) pochodzące z badań aktywności ekonomicznej ludności UE (43) wskazują, że liczba skłonnych do przemieszczania się obywateli UE aktywnych ekonomicznie, mieszkających krócej niż cztery lata w innym państwie UE, wzrosła najwięcej (w porównaniu z 3 kwartałem 2008 r.) wśród Greków (+147 %), Łotyszy (+76 %), Hiszpanów (+60 %), Węgrów (+53 %) i Irlandczyków (+37 %). Niemniej jednak dostępne dane statystyczne wykazują, że w ujęciu bezwzględnym ten wzrost jest niewielki w porównaniu z ogółem ludności aktywnej ekonomicznie w krajach pochodzenia migrantów, szczególnie w przypadku obywateli państw Europy Południowej (44).

2.

Największe szanse na przyciągnięcie obywateli UE skłonnych do przemieszczania się mają państwa o niskim poziomie bezrobocia oraz istotnym niedobrze pracowników lub wykwalifikowanej siły roboczej. Innymi czynnikami przyciągającymi może być język lub istnienie społeczności z kraju pochodzenia danej osoby (poprzez efekt sieci). Ostatnie dane (3 kwartał 2012 r.) pochodzące z badań aktywności ekonomicznej ludności UE wykazują, że Zjednoczone Królestwo i Niemcy są obecnie dwoma głównymi państwami docelowymi, w których aktywni ekonomicznie obywatele UE skłonni do przemieszczania się osiedlili się w ostatnich czterech latach.

3.

W perspektywie długookresowej wysoka emigracja – w szczególności wśród absolwentów szkół wyższych – może wpłynąć negatywnie na potencjał wzrostu gospodarczego oraz system opieki społecznej w krajach pochodzenia emigrantów

3.

W perspektywie długookresowej wysoka emigracja – w szczególności wśród absolwentów szkół wyższych – może wpłynąć negatywnie na potencjał wzrostu gospodarczego oraz system opieki społecznej w krajach pochodzenia emigrantów

 (45). Dane pochodzące z badań aktywności ekonomicznej ludności UE potwierdzają, że udział osób z wykształceniem wyższym jest większy wśród osób migrujących w ostatnim czasie niż wśród ogółu ludności aktywnej ekonomicznie (46). Jednak aktualny poziom mobilności wydaje się zbyt niski, by wywołać w stopniu istotnym zjawisko „drenażu mózgów” (47), należy też wziąć pod uwagę tymczasowy charakter mobilności oraz potencjalne korzyści dla osób migrujących pod względem doświadczenia i umiejętności.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001644/13

to the Commission

Sławomir Nitras (PPE)

(15 February 2013)

Subject: Migration within the EU in response to an asymmetric shock

According to economic theory, one of the adjustment mechanisms during asymmetric shocks in common currency areas is labour migration. The financial crisis of 2008, which led to the debt crisis in certain eurozone countries, caused just such a shock, the effects of which we are now fighting. In this regard:

Does the Commission have any information indicating that citizens of countries experiencing economic problems are migrating, either abroad or within their own country, to a greater extent than before the crisis?

Which economic centres and regions in the EU does the Commission believe are most likely to attract citizens of other EU countries?

What long-term economic effects would the continuation of such migration trends have?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2013)

1.

An analysis conducted in 2012

1.

An analysis conducted in 2012

 (48) confirmed an increase of mobility flows from Southern European countries as well as Ireland and the Baltics to other EU countries. Recent (2012Q3) EU-LFS (49) data indicate that the number of economically active EU mobile citizens established since less than 4 years in another EU country has increased the most (compared to 2008Q3) among Greeks (+147%), Latvians (+76%), Spaniards (+60%), Hungarians (+53%) and Irish (+37%). Nevertheless, available statistics show that in absolute terms the rise is limited, in comparison with the overall labour force in the origin countries, particularly for Southern European citizens (50).

2.

The countries most likely to attract mobile EU citizens are those with low unemployment and substantial skill or labour shortages. Other pull factors may be language and the existence of a community from the origin country (due to the network effects). Recent (2012Q3) EU-LFS data indicate that the UK and Germany are currently the two main destination countries where economically active EU mobile citizens established since less than 4 years.

3.

In the long-run, high emigration, especially of tertiary graduates, may impact negatively on the growth potential and welfare system of the sending countries (51). EU-LFS data confirm that the share of tertiary educated persons is higher among the recent movers than in the overall active population (52). However, the current measured levels of mobility seem low to result in a sizable phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ (53) and one should also consider the temporary nature of mobility and the potential gains among the movers in terms of experience and skills.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-001645/13

a la Comisión

Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)

(18 de febrero de 2013)

Asunto: Prórroga medidas antidumping frente a importaciones de mandarinas de China

Los productores españoles de mandarinas en conserva tienen que hacer frente cada año a la fuerte competencia de las producciones de China, cuyas exportaciones por debajo de los costes de producción constituyen una fuerte amenaza para la subsistencia de las industrias españolas. Las empresas españolas, repartidas entre Valencia y Alicante, emplean a 3 000 operadores, y esos puestos de trabajo pueden peligrar si la Unión Europea no mantiene en esta y en las próximas campañas las medidas antidumping frente a ese país. El precio de importación de las mandarinas chinas se sitúa en torno a la mitad de los costes que han de asumir los productores españoles por tener que cumplir exigencias de seguridad alimentaria y sociales mucho más elevadas.

El Comisario europeo de Comercio, Karel de Gught, tiene previsto restablecer en breve las medidas antidumping que quedaron interrumpidas a la espera de la modificación del reglamento comunitario que fue anulado por el Tribunal de Justicia el pasado año tras las denuncias presentadas por importadores alemanes en contra del procedimiento utilizado para el cálculo de los derechos arancelarios. No obstante, las medidas antidumping dejarían de aplicarse en diciembre de este año una vez cumplido el período de cinco años previsto en la reglamentación.

Muchos operadores han aprovechado ese vacío legal para la importación de mandarinas chinas a precios muy competitivos desde que comenzó la campaña de comercialización, el pasado mes de noviembre.

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión aplicar las medidas antidumping con carácter retroactivo?

¿Tiene intención de iniciar de nuevo una investigación sobre la situación del mercado con vistas a prorrogar en los próximos años las medidas antidumping aplicadas a las exportaciones chinas?

Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión

(19 de marzo de 2013)

El 22 de febrero de 2013, a propuesta de la Comisión, el Consejo publicó un Reglamento de Ejecución por el que se reestablece un derecho antidumping definitivo sobre las importaciones de determinados cítricos preparados o conservados (principalmente mandarinas, etc.) originarios de la República Popular China (Reglamento de Ejecución (UE) n° 158/2013 del Consejo, de 18 de febrero de 2013 (54)). Mediante este Reglamento se aplican dos sentencias de los Tribunales de Luxemburgo, la primera de 17 de febrero de 2011 en el asunto T-122/09, en la que el Tribunal General anuló el Reglamento en el que se establecían las medidas originales vigentes en la medida en que afectaban a dos exportadores, y la segunda de 22 de marzo de 2012 en el asunto C-339/10, en la que el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo declaró nulo ese mismo Reglamento.

En lo que respecta a la retroactividad, la Comisión examinará este asunto con detenimiento cuando se disponga de estadísticas de importaciones de mandarinas en conserva procedentes de China. Una vez se disponga de estas estadísticas, volverán a comunicarse las conclusiones a las partes, así como a los Estados miembros en el marco del Comité Antidumping y Antisubvenciones. La Comisión volverá a tomar una decisión sobre este asunto y, en su caso, se transmitirá una propuesta al Consejo.

En cuanto a la posible revisión del Reglamento por el que se establecen las medidas vigentes, se recuerda que las medidas expirarán el 31 de diciembre de  2013 salvo en caso de que se inicie una revisión antes de dicha fecha a petición de la industria de la Unión.

La legislación también prevé la posibilidad de solicitar una revisión de las medidas, en caso de que haya suficientes indicios razonables de que las medidas, o el nivel de estas, ya no sean apropiados para un cambio en la situación del mercado.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001645/13

to the Commission

Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Reinstating anti-dumping measures against Chinese mandarin orange imports

Each year, Spanish producers of tinned mandarins must face aggressive competition from China, whose exports, sold at less than production costs, pose a serious threat to their future viability. These producers, spread between Valencia and Alicante, employ 3 000 people whose jobs could be threatened if the EU does not reinstate anti-dumping measures against China this season and continue to impose them. The import price of Chinese mandarins represents about half the production costs borne by the Spanish producers, who have to comply with much more stringent food safety and labour standards.

The Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, plans to reinstate shortly the anti-dumping measures suspended pending amendment of the EU regulation that was annulled by the Court of Justice last year following German importers’ complaints about the calculation of tariff duties. The measures in question were at any rate due to expire in December 2013, when the five-year term imposed by the regulation comes to an end.

Many companies have taken advantage of this loophole to import Chinese mandarins at rock-bottom prices since the start of the marketing year in November 2012.

Does the Commission intend to apply anti-dumping measures on a retroactive basis?

Does it intend to open a new investigation into the market situation with a view to restoring anti-dumping measures against Chinese exports in the coming years?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

On 22 February 2013, following a proposal by the Commission, the Council published an implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 (55)). This regulation implements two judgments by the Courts in Luxembourg, the first of 17 February 2011 in case T-122/09 where the General Court annulled the regulation setting the original measures in place in so far as it concerns two exporters and the second of 22 March 2012 in Case C-339/10, where the European Court of Justice declared invalid the same Regulation.

As to the issue of retroactivity, this matter will be carefully considered by the Commission when statistics of imports of canned mandarins from China are available. Once these statistics are available, conclusions will again be submitted to parties as well as to the Member States in the framework of the Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Committee. A decision will again be taken by the Commission on the matter and a proposal will eventually be transmitted to the Council.

As to the possible revision of the regulation setting the measures in place, it is recalled that the measures will expire on 31 December 2013 unless a review is initiated before that date at the request of the Union industry.

The law also provides for the possibility to request a review of the measures, if there is sufficient prima facie evidence that the measures or their level are no longer appropriate in view a change in the market situation.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-001646/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)

(18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Πιθανότητα εμπλοκής ιδιωτικής εταιρείας για την αξιολόγηση του νομοθετικού πλαισίου στην Κύπρο για το ξέπλυμα βρώμικου χρήματος

Στην συνεδρίαση της περασμένης Δευτέρας, το Eurogroup απαίτησε να εμπλακεί ιδιωτική εταιρεία για την αξιολόγηση της εφαρμογής του νομοθετικού πλαισίου στην Κύπρο, απόφαση που είναι θεσμικά και πολιτικά απαράδεκτη.

Ως εκ τούτου, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή,

— Ποια η θέση της για το εν λόγω ζήτημα;

— Πώς εξηγείται η παραγνώριση των διεθνών οργανισμών όπως της FATF, του IMF καιτης Moneyval;

— Έχει ακολουθηθεί στο παρελθόν η ίδια πρακτική σε άλλα κράτη μέλη; Αν ναι, σε ποια;

— Διασφαλίζεται η τήρηση των κανόνων τραπεζικής εχεμύθειας εάν ζητηθεί αυτή ηαξιολόγηση από ιδιωτικό οίκο;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(3 Απριλίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή διεξάγει επί του παρόντος συζητήσεις με τους εταίρους της στην Τρόικα σχετικά με τον αποτελεσματικότερο τρόπο αξιολόγησης του νομοθετικού πλαισίου. Στις 4 Μαρτίου 2013, η ευρωομάδα πληροφορήθηκε πως η νέα κυπριακή κυβέρνηση συμφώνησε σε ανεξάρτητη αξιολόγηση της εφαρμογής του πλαισίου καταπολέμησης της νομιμοποίησης εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες στους χρηματοπιστωτικούς οργανισμούς της Κύπρου.

Η FATF και η Moneyval διενεργούν αξιολογήσεις των μελών τους με βάση τις συστάσεις της FATF. Μολονότι οι εν λόγω αξιολογήσεις περιλαμβάνουν κριτήρια που σχετίζονται με το νομικό πλαίσιο, η υφιστάμενη αξιολόγηση της Κύπρου από την Moneyval (που δημοσιεύτηκε τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2011) δεν καλύπτει σε βάθος την εφαρμογή, εξ ου και η ανάγκη της νέας αξιολόγησης.

Η συγκεκριμένη κατάσταση στην οποία βρίσκεται η Κύπρος δεν έχει προκύψει κατά τρόπο συγκρίσιμο σε άλλα κράτη μέλη. Συνεπώς, η πρακτική αυτή δεν έχει υιοθετηθεί σε άλλα κράτη μέλη.

Οι όροι αναφοράς εξακολουθούν να τελούν υπό οριστικοποίηση και θα σέβονται την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ). Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στη δήλωση της ευρωομάδας της 4ης Μαρτίου 2013 σχετικά με την Κύπρο (56).

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001646/13

to the Commission

Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Possible involvement of a private company in evaluating the legal framework in Cyprus concerning money laundering

At last Monday's meeting, the Eurogroup demanded that a private company be engaged to evaluate the implementation of the legal framework in Cyprus concerning money laundering. This is both institutionally and politically unacceptable.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What is its position on this issue?

Why are international organisations, such as the FATF, the IMF and Moneyval, not being involved instead?

Has it already adopted this practice in other Member States? If so, in which ones?

Are any measures being taken to ensure compliance with banking secrecy rules should a private firm be hired to carry out such an evaluation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2013)

The Commission is in discussion with its Troika partners on the most effective way forward of evaluating the legal framework. On 4 March 2013, the Eurogroup has been informed that the new Cypriot government has agreed on an independent evaluation of the implementation of the anti-money laundering framework in Cypriot financial institutions.

The FATF and MONEYVAL carries out evaluations of their members against the FATF Recommendations. Whilst these contain criteria relating to the legal framework, the existing MONEYVAL evaluation of Cyprus (published in September 2011) does not cover implementation in depth, hence the need for this review.

The specific situation in Cyprus has not arisen in a comparable manner in other Member States. Hence this practice has not been adopted in other Member States.

The Terms of Reference are still being finalised and will respect applicable laws (including EC law). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 4 March 2013 Eurogroup statement on Cyprus (57).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-001647/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Διευκρινίσεις για το θέμα του κατώτατου μισθού στην Ελλάδα

Στις 14.2.2013, ο εκπρόσωπος του Ευρωπαίου Επίτροπου, κυρίου Ρεν, αναφερόμενος στην κοινή απάντηση ερώτησής μου και ανάλογης του συναδέλφου μου κ. Κωνσταντίνου Πουπάκη, ανέφερε τα εξής:

«Λυπάμαι που η απάντηση του κ. Ρεν σε κάποιους ευρωβουλευτές παρερμηνεύτηκε σοβαρά στην Ελλάδα. Για την ιστορία: ο Αντιπρόεδρος κ. Ρεν ποτέ δεν σχολίασε επερχόμενες μειώσεις του κατώτατου μισθού, όταν απάντησε σε αυτές τις ερωτήσεις. Αυτό που είπε απαντώντας στις ερωτήσεις που έγιναν είδηση, ήταν: “Αναθεώρηση του συστήματος για τον ελάχιστο μισθό προβλέπεται για το 2014, με στόχο να βελτιωθεί και να γίνει πιο αποτελεσματικό όσον αφορά την αύξηση της απασχόλησης, την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας και τη βελτίωση της ανταγωνιστικότητας της οικονομίας. Οι κοινωνικοί εταίροι θα συμμετάσχουν σε αυτήν την αναθεώρηση”. Ο κ. Ρεν, δεν ανακοίνωσε τίποτα καινούριο σε αυτή την απάντηση, απλώς επανέλαβε αυτά που συμφωνήθηκαν την περίοδο της τελευταίας αναθεώρησης τον Νοέμβριο του 2012, όταν συμφωνήθηκε στην αναθεώρηση του Μνημονίου για την Ελλάδα ότι πράγματι θα υπάρξει αναθεώρηση του συστήματος του κατώτατου μισθού, το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2014. Δεν υπήρξε καμία σαφής ή σιωπηρή συμφωνία ότι θα υπάρξουν επιπλέον μειώσεις των μισθών. Ο σκοπός αυτής της αναθεώρησης είναι απλώς να αφήνει ανοιχτή την δυνατότητα “αλλαγής” του πλαισίου για τον κατώτατο μισθό και να διασφαλίζει ότι αυτή η πιθανότητα εξετάζεται βάσει μιας “δομημένης ανάλυσης” των οικονομικών εξελίξεων και των εξελίξεων στην αγορά εργασίας, μέσα σε ένα συνεκτικό πλαίσιο. Δεν υπάρχει καμία προειλημμένη απόφαση για το αποτέλεσμα αυτής της αναθεώρησης».

Ταυτόχρονα, στην Ελλάδα, οι αρμόδιοι Υπουργοί, μεταξύ άλλων, δήλωσαν ότι «Δεν τίθεται θέμα μείωσης του κατώτατου μισθού. Είναι ένα ζήτημα στο οποίο η κυβέρνηση έχει συγκεκριμένη θέση, δεν μειώνεται ο κατώτατος μισθός και έχει ήδη κατέβει σε πολύ χαμηλά επίπεδα».

Με τη βεβαιότητα ότι δεν θα χρειαστεί να εξαντληθεί ο χρόνος της επείγουσας ερώτησής μου, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Προκειμένου να μην υπάρξουν περαιτέρω «παρερμηνείες», μπορεί ο Επίτροπος να διαβεβαιώσει κατηγορηματικά ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δεν πρόκειται να θέσει ζήτημα ή να συναινέσει στη μείωση, με οποιαδήποτε μορφή, του κατώτατου μισθού στην Ελλάδα, και ότι συμφωνεί με αυτό που λέει η ελληνική κυβέρνηση ότι «δεν τίθεται θέμα μείωσης του κατώτατου μισθού, ο οποίος έχει ήδη κατέβει σε πολύ χαμηλά επίπεδα»;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(25 Μαρτίου 2013)

Σύμφωνα με τα μνημόνια που συμφωνήθηκαν μεταξύ της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης και της Επιτροπής — εκ μέρους των κρατών μελών της ζώνης του ευρώ — της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας (ΕΚΤ) και του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου (ΔΝΤ), αναθεώρηση του πλαισίου για τον κατώτατο μισθό προβλέπεται να πραγματοποιηθεί το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2014.

Η αναθεώρηση του συστήματος για τον κατώτατο μισθό θα γίνει με σκοπό να καταστεί απλούστερο και αποτελεσματικότερο όσον αφορά την προώθηση της απασχόλησης και την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας και να συμβάλει στη βελτίωση της ανταγωνιστικότητας της οικονομίας. Οι κοινωνικοί εταίροι θα διαδραματίσουν καθοριστικό ρόλο στην αναθεώρηση αυτή.

Δεν υφίσταται καμία απολύτως προειλημμένη απόφαση σχετικά με την αναθεώρηση.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001647/13

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Clarifications on the issue of the minimum wage in Greece

On 14 February 2013, Commissioner Rehn’s representative stated, in a joint answer to my question and to a related question tabled by my colleague, Konstantinos Poupakis:

‘I regret that Mr Rehn's answer to some MEPs has given rise to serious misunderstandings in Greece. For the record: Vice-President Rehn did not comment on upcoming cuts in the minimum wage when he answered these questions. What he actually said in response to these questions and was reported was this: “Provision is being made for a review of the minimum wage system for 2014, with the aim of improving it and making it more effective in terms of boosting employment, combating unemployment and improving the competitiveness of the economy. The social partners will be participating in this review.” Commissioner Rehn did not say anything new in this answer, merely reiterating what had been agreed at the time of the previous review in November 2012, when it was agreed, in the revision of the Memorandum for Greece, that there would indeed be a review of the minimum wage system in the first quarter of 2014. There was no express or implied agreement that there would be any further reductions in wages. The purpose of this review is simply to leave open the possibility of a “change” in the framework for the minimum wage and ensure that this possibility is examined on the basis of a “structured analysis” of economic developments and labour market trends within a coherent framework. No decision has been taken which in any way pre-empts the outcome of this review.’

At the same time, the Greek ministers responsible replied, inter alia, that: ‘There is no question of reducing the minimum wage. It is an issue on which the government has a well-defined position. There will be no reduction in the minimum wage, which has already been reduced to a very low level.’

Bearing in mind the urgency of this question, will the Commission say:

In order to avoid further ‘misunderstandings’, can the Commissioner confirm categorically that the Commission will not raise this issue, or agree to reduce, in any form, the minimum wage in Greece, and that it agrees with what the Greek Government has said, namely that ‘there will be no reduction in the minimum wage, which has already been reduced to a very low level’?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

According to the memoranda agreed between the Greek Government and the Commission — on behalf of the euro area member states — the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a review of the minimum wage framework shall take place by the first quarter of 2014.

The review of the minimum wage system will be undertaken with the view to possibly improve it's simplicity and effectiveness to promote employment and fight unemployment and help the competitiveness of the economy. The social partners will have a role to play in this review.

There is absolutely no pre-judgment on that review.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001648/13

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(18. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Förderung von Impfstoffen

Impfstoffe sind ein wichtiges Mittel, um langfristig die Kosten im Gesundheitswesen zu senken und den Menschen Krankheit und Leiden zu ersparen. Die Kommission fördert die Entwicklung von Impfstoffen für HIV, Malaria und Tuberkulose.

1.

Finanziert die Kommission die Entwicklung von Impfstoffen für weitere Krankheiten, oder fördert sie diese anderweitig?

2.

Wenn ja, für welche Krankheiten wird eine solche Impfstoffentwicklung gefördert, und auf welchen Betrag beläuft sich die Förderung?

3.

Finanziert die Kommission den Einsatz von Impfstoffen in der EU?

4.

Wenn ja, in welchen Mitgliedstaaten wird der Einsatz welcher Impfstoffe gefördert?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(23. April 2013)

Die Kommission fördert die Erforschung und Entwicklung von Impfstoffen über die Forschungsrahmenprogramme (RP). Aus dem laufenden 7. RP fördert die Kommission die Verbundforschung im Bereich der Impfstoffentwicklung mit mehr als 188 Mio. EUR. Von diesem Betrag werden 45 Mio. EUR in Forschungsprojekte investiert, die die grundlegende Vakzinologie betreffen, und 70 Mio. EUR in die Erforschung und Entwicklung von Impfstoffen für Krankheiten außer HIV/AIDS, Malaria und Tuberkulose. Tatsächlich hat die Kommission die Entwicklung von Impfstoffen für eine Reihe von Krankheiten gefördert, etwa Influenza (15 Mio. EUR), Durchfallerkrankungen (11,5 Mio. EUR), Helminthen (9 Mio. EUR), Leishmaniase (9 Mio. EUR), West-Nil-Virus (4,5 Mio. EUR), Hepatitis C (4,5 Mio. EUR), Buruli Ulcer (4,5 Mio. EUR) und Chikungunya-Fieber (4,5 Mio. EUR).

Darüber hinaus fördert die Kommission über ihre Entwicklungspolitik mit 2,5 Mio. EUR bzw. 5 Mio. EUR Maßnahmen, die auf den Aufbau von Kapazitäten und den Technologietransfer ausgerichtet sind, um die Beteiligung von Forschungszentren in Afrika und die erfolgreiche Durchführung klinischer Versuche zur Entwicklung von Impfstoffen für HIV, Malaria und Tuberkulose zu ermöglichen.

Für die Impfpolitik sind in erster Linie die Mitgliedstaaten zuständig. Die Kommission finanziert den Einsatz von Impfstoffen in der EU nicht. Mit der Empfehlung des Rates zur Impfung gegen die saisonale Grippe (2009/1019/EU) (58) werden die Mitgliedstaaten aufgerufen, Aktionspläne oder Strategien festzulegen und durchzuführen, die darauf abzielen, die Durchimpfung gegen die saisonale Grippe zu verbessern. Darüber hinaus trägt die Kommission zur Sensibilisierung im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung der Immunisierung bei. In diesem Zusammenhang hat sie im Oktober eine „Konferenz über den Impfschutz von Kindern: Fortschritte, Herausforderungen und Prioritäten für weitere Maßnahmen“ (59) organisiert.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001648/13

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Promotion of vaccines

Vaccines are an important means of making long-term healthcare savings and preventing illness and human suffering. The Commission is promoting the development of vaccines for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis.

1.

Is the Commission financing the development of vaccines for other diseases or promoting them in some other way?

2.

If so, for which diseases is the development of vaccines being promoted and how much financial support is being provided?

3.

Is the Commission funding the use of vaccines in the EU?

4.

If so, in which Member States is the use of vaccines being promoted? Which vaccines are involved?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2013)

The Commission, through the framework Programmes for Research (FP), provides financial support to vaccine research and development activities. From the current 7th FP (FP7), the Commission has supported collaborative vaccine research with more than EUR 188 million. This includes EUR 45 million invested in research projects addressing basic vaccinology, and EUR 70 million to discover and develop vaccines for diseases other than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The Commission has indeed supported the development of vaccines for a number of diseases, including influenza (EUR 15 million), diarrhoeal diseases (EUR 11.5 million), helminths (EUR 9 million), leishmaniasis (EUR 9 million), West Nile Virus (EUR 4.5 million), hepatitis C (EUR 4.5 million), Buruli ulcer (EUR 4.5 million) and Chikungunya (EUR 4.5 million).

In addition, the Commission, through its development policy, has supported action aimed at building capacity and transferring technology to allow the participation of research centres in Africa and the successful conduct of clinical trials for the development of vaccines for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, with respectively EUR 2.5 and EUR 5 million.

Vaccination policy is primarily a responsibility of Member States. The Commission does not fund the use of vaccines in the Union. The Council Recommendation on seasonal influenza vaccination (2009/1019/EU) (60) encourages Member States to adopt and implement action plans or policies aimed at improving seasonal influenza vaccination coverage. Furthermore, the Commission helps raise awareness on the importance of immunisation. In this context it organised a ‘Conference on Childhood immunisation: progress, challenges and priorities for further action’ (61) in October 2012.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001649/13

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(18. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Grenzüberschreitender Räummittelaustausch

In Österreich wurden in diesem Winter große Mengen an Neuschnee registriert. Dies führte in vielen Städten zu Verkehrsproblemen. In einigen anderen EU-Mitgliedstaaten gab es ebenfalls hohen Schneefall und dadurch ähnliche Probleme.

1.

Gibt es auf EU-Ebene Programme oder Initiativen, um im Bedarfsfall Schneeräumfahrzeuge, Salzreserven oder andere Räummittel aus weniger betroffenen Ländern in stärker betroffene Länder zu entsenden?

2.

Wenn nicht, plant die Kommission, ein solches Programm einzurichten oder den Mitgliedstaaten vorzuschlagen, entsprechende Abkommen zu schließen?

Antwort von Frau Georgieva im Namen der Kommission

(22. April 2013)

1.

Es gibt keine derartigen Programme oder Initiativen auf EU-Ebene. Allerdings kann ein betroffener Mitgliedstaat, dessen Ressourcen erschöpft sind, mithilfedes Gemeinschaftsverfahrens für den Katastrophenschutz

1.

Es gibt keine derartigen Programme oder Initiativen auf EU-Ebene. Allerdings kann ein betroffener Mitgliedstaat, dessen Ressourcen erschöpft sind, mithilfedes Gemeinschaftsverfahrens für den Katastrophenschutz

 (62) Hilfe beantragen. Dieses Verfahren dient zur Förderung einer verstärkten Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Union und den Mitgliedstaaten bei Katastrophenschutzeinsätzen in Notfällen aller Art, einschließlich extremer Wetterverhältnisse. Im Jahr 2010 erlebte beispielsweise das Vereinigte Königreich einen ungewöhnlich strengen Winter und erbat über das Gemeinschaftsverfahren die Ermittlung von Streusalzbeständen in anderen Mitgliedstaaten zum sofortigen Kauf.

2.

Außer der Überarbeitung des Gemeinschaftsverfahrens, das weiter gestärkt werden soll, gibt es zurzeit keine weiteren Initiativen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001649/13

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Transnational pooling of snow clearance equipment

This winter Austria has experienced very heavy snowfall, leading to traffic problems in many cities. Heavy snowfall has also occurred in a number of other EU Member States, causing similar problem.

1.

Do any programmes or initiatives exist at EU level to despatch snow ploughs, salt reserves or other snow clearance equipment or material from less affected to more affected Member States, where the need arises?

2.

If not, does the Commission intend to draw up a programme of this kind or propose that Member States conclude agreements to this end?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2013)

1.

No, there are no such programmes or initiatives at EU level. However, when the capacities of an affected Member State are exhausted, it can request assistance via the European Civil Protection Mechanism

1.

No, there are no such programmes or initiatives at EU level. However, when the capacities of an affected Member State are exhausted, it can request assistance via the European Civil Protection Mechanism

 (63) (the Mechanism) which facilitates reinforced cooperation between the Union and the Member States in civil protection assistance in all types of emergencies, including severe weather conditions. For example, in 2010 the United Kingdom experienced unusually severe winter weather and activated the Mechanism requesting to facilitate identification of road salt supplies in other Member States, available for immediate purchase.

2.

There are currently no other initiatives, other than the revision of the abovementioned EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which will be reinforced.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001650/13

an den Rat

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)

(18. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Beschäftigungsverhältnisse beurlaubter Beamter

1.

Welche Vorschriften und Verfahren gibt es im Generalsekretariat des Rates für Beamte, die neben ihrer Tätigkeit im Generalsekretariat des Rates einer anderen bezahlten Tätigkeit nachgehen wollen, auch einer Tätigkeit auf Honorarbasis? Wie viele Personen gehen neben ihrer Arbeit im Generalsekretariat des Rates noch einer anderen bezahlten Tätigkeit nach?

2.

Welche Vorschriften und Verfahren gibt es für Beamte in unbezahltem Urlaub, die in diesem Urlaub einer bezahlten Tätigkeit — sei es in einer Festanstellung oder auf Honorarbasis — nachgehen? Wie viele Personen im Generalsekretariat des Rates sind unbezahlt beurlaubt? Wie viele gehen einer anderen bezahlten Tätigkeit nach?

3.

Wie sieht der Rat die Reputationsrisiken aufgrund derartiger Beschäftigungsverhältnisse?

Antwort

(2. Mai 2013)

1.

Nach Artikel 12b des Beamtenstatuts muss der Beamte, der eine Nebentätigkeit gegen Entgelt oder ohne Entgelt ausüben will, hierfür die vorherige Zustimmung der Anstellungsbehörde einholen.

Um diese Zustimmung zu erhalten, muss der betreffende Beamte bei der Anstellungsbehörde auf dem Dienstweg einen ordnungsgemäß ausgefüllten Antrag auf Ausübung der Nebentätigkeit zusammen mit den dazugehörigen Nachweisen einreichen.

Die Zustimmung kann nur dann verweigert werden, wenn die Tätigkeit die Leistungsfähigkeit des Beamten beeinträchtigen kann oder mit den Interessen des Organs nicht vereinbar ist. Ferner muss der Beamte die Anstellungsbehörde über jede Veränderung der Nebentätigkeit informieren, die eingetreten ist, nachdem er die Zustimmung eingeholt hat.

Nach den internen Vorschriften des Generalsekretariats des Rates zu Nebentätigkeiten sind berufsmäßig ausgeübte Erwerbstätigkeiten oder Tätigkeiten für ein kommerzielles Unternehmen nicht zulässig.

Lehr‐ oder andere Unterrichtstätigkeiten (bis zu 60 Stunden pro akademischem Jahr) und die Ausübung eines öffentlichen Amts im Sinne des Artikels 15 des Beamtenstatuts sind die Tätigkeiten, für die die Zustimmung am häufigsten beantragt und im Allgemeinen auch gewährt wird.

2012 gab es bei den gemäß Artikel 12b des Beamtenstatuts gemeldeten und genehmigten Tätigkeiten 21 Fälle von entgeltlicher Tätigkeit und im laufenden Jahr gibt es bis jetzt neun derartige Fälle.

2.

Beamte, die Urlaub aus persönlichen Gründen nehmen, dürfen nur dann einer entgeltlichen oder unentgeltlichen Berufstätigkeit nachgehen, wenn sie hierfür zuvor die Genehmigung vonseiten der Anstellungsbehörde erhalten haben. Artikel 12b des Beamtenstatuts gilt entsprechend.

Dem an den Beamten übermittelten Beschluss über die Gewährung eines Urlaubs aus persönlichen Gründen liegt ein Formular bei, mit dem der Beamte die Zustimmung zu einer Nebentätigkeit beantragen kann. Dieses Formular muss ausgefüllt werden, wenn eine Nebentätigkeit geplant ist.

Zur Zeit befinden sich 110 Beamte des Generalsekretariats des Rates in Urlaub aus persönlichen Gründen; 63 von ihnen haben die Zustimmung zur Ausübung einer Erwerbstätigkeit beantragt und auch erhalten.

3.

Wie bereits erwähnt, muss jede Nebentätigkeit eines Beamten der Anstellungsbehörde gemeldet und kann der entsprechende Antrag von ihr abgelehnt werden, wenn die Tätigkeit mit den Interessen des Organs nicht vereinbar ist oder die Leistungsfähigkeit des Beamten beeinträchtigt.

Jeder Beamte, ob im aktiven Dienst oder im Urlaub aus persönlichen Gründen, unterliegt Artikel 12 des Beamtenstatuts, der ihn verpflichtet, sich jeder Handlung und jedes Verhaltens zu enthalten, die dem Ansehen seines Amtes abträglich sein könnten. Gegen einen Beamten, der gegen diese Verpflichtung verstößt, kann eine Disziplinarstrafe verhängt werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001650/13

to the Council

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Employment conditions of officials on leave

1.

What are the rules and procedures in the Council Secretariat applicable to officials wishing to take another paid job — including on a fee basis — alongside their jobs in the Council Secretariat? How many persons have another paid job, alongside their work in the Council Secretariat?

2.

What rules and procedures are applicable to officials on unpaid leave who take another paid job during this leave, on either a permanent or a fee basis? How many people in the Council Secretariat are on unpaid leave? How many of these have another paid job?

3.

What is the Council’s position on the risk to its reputation arising from employment conditions of this nature?

Reply

(2 May 2013)

1.

Pursuant to Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, an official wishing to engage in an outside activity, whether paid or not, shall first obtain the permission of the Appointing Authority.

In order to obtain such permission, the official concerned must send to the Appointing Authority, through his/her immediate superior, a duly completed request to carry out the external activity, together with the appropriate supporting documents.

Such permission can be refused only if the activity in question is such as to interfere with the performance of the official's duties or is incompatible with the interests of the institution. The official must also inform the Appointing Authority of any change in a permitted outside activity which occurs after the official has sought such permission.

According to the internal rules of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) on external activities, gainful activities on a professional basis or activities related to a commercial company are not permitted.

The activities for which permission is most frequently requested, and usually granted, are teaching or other educational activities (up to 60 hours per academic year) and the exercise of public office within the meaning of Article 15 of the Staff Regulations.

Of the activities declared and permitted on the basis of Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, there were 21 cases of paid activity in 2012 and there are currently 9 cases of paid activity this year.

2.

Officials taking leave on personal grounds may engage in a professional activity, whether gainful or not, only after having received permission from the Appointing Authority to do so. Article 12b of the Staff Regulations applies

mutatis mutandis

.

The decision granting permission for leave on personal grounds, sent to the official concerned, is accompanied by the relevant form with which the official can request permission for an external activity. Completion of this form is compulsory if an external activity is envisaged.

Currently 110 officials of the GSC are on leave for personal grounds, of whom 63 have applied for, and been granted, permission to engage in gainful activities.

3.

As mentioned above, any external activity officials wish to engage in must be declared and may be refused by the Appointing Authority if it is incompatible with the interests of the institution or interferes with the performance of the official's duties.

Every official, whether in service or on personal leave, is bound by Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that he or she must refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely upon his/her position. Officials in breach of that obligation are liable to disciplinary action.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001651/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Syed Kamall (ECR)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Sanctions against persons responsible for violating human rights in Russia

I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned about violations of human rights in Russia.

What consideration has the Vice-President/High Representative given to proposing an EU equivalent of the US Magnitsky Act, which would restrict the movement, use of properties and financial services within the EU of persons responsible for violating human rights in Russia?

Answer given by High-Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The EU has for a long time been insisting on the need for a proper investigation that ensures that any person responsible for the death of Mr Magnitsky and for the corruption scandal he uncovered is brought to justice. The EU raised the case again at the EU-Russia Summit on 21 December and during the Commission visit to the Russian government on 21-22 March 2013. Our position is clear: only a credible and thorough judicial investigation will help creating confidence in the rule of law in Russia.

Therefore, as I said in my statement of 20 March, the Russian decision to close this case prematurely, while at the same time opening a posthumous trial against Magnitsky himself is an additional source of concern as to the state of the due process of law in the Russian Federation.

We have taken note of the Sergey Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act in the US which was signed into law by President Obama on 4 December 2012. Initiatives already taken in the European and some national Parliaments underscore the importance the European public attaches to this and similar cases. The EEAS will continue to make clear our expectation that the investigation of this case be resumed and taken forward appropriately.

Sanctions are a part of an integrated and comprehensive EU policy approach and are considered a measure of last resort. Restrictive measures should only be considered in specific situations and in accordance with established EU guidelines. They are a preventive instrument, which would require the highest level of political support and could only be introduced by unanimous agreement of EU Member States.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001652/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Syed Kamall (ECR)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Concerns over adoption laws in Russia

I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned about a new adoption law passed in Russia.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware that two of the USA’s successful athletes at the London Paralympics, Jessica Long and Tatyana McFadden, were both adopted from Russia?

What representations will the Vice-President/High Representative make to the Russian Government about the recent decision of Russia’s State Duma to ban US citizens from adopting Russian children from the country’s orphanages, many of which house orphans in conditions of the most appalling nature that can lead to premature death?

Does the Vice-President/High Representative see this as a breach of human rights?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of the Russian authorities’ response to the Sergey Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act in the US, which was signed into law by President Obama on 4 December 2012.

The issue of the rights of the child is high on the EU’s agenda. This question, and the situation of children in Russian orphanages in particular, have been addressed with the Russian Federation at three consecutive meetings of EU-Russia human rights consultations. The last time this was discussed was on December 7, 2012, not long before the adoption law was passed by the Russian Duma. The rights of the child were also one of key issues addressed during the EU field visit to Moscow and St Petersburg in spring of 2012. On this occasion the EEAS, together with the EU Delegation in Moscow, met with a number of NGOs working on this issue. The EU also regularly meets and discusses children rights issues with the Russian children ombudsman Pavel Astakhov.

The EEAS will continue following these developments in the Russian Federation very closely.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-001654/13

à la Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) et Paweł Zalewski (PPE)

(18 février 2013)

Objet: Critères utilisés par la Commission pour l'organisation de ses consultations multilingues

Dans le cadre de ses consultations publiques sur la protection du savoir-faire des entreprises et des chercheurs (64), la Commission élabore des questionnaires en ligne, consultables par les citoyens dans toutes les langues des États membres; l'outil IPM (initiative d'élaboration interactive des politiques) leur permet d'apporter leurs contributions. Cette avancée dans le processus de consultation de la Commission est très encourageante. Cependant, dans le cas des procédures civiles visant à faire respecter les droits de propriété intellectuelle et de la consultation publique sur l'efficacité des procédures et l'accessibilité des mesures (65), le questionnaire n'est accessible qu'à la condition de demander préalablement le lien pour y accéder, à l'unité responsable de la consultation. Par surcroît, après avoir suivi cette procédure, les citoyens se voient proposer un questionnaire rédigé uniquement en anglais.

1.

Sur quels critères la Commission s'est-elle basée pour décider que la consultation du questionnaire sur les secrets d'affaires devrait être rendue accessible aux citoyens dans toutes les langues de l'Union européenne?

2.

Sur quels critères la Commission s'est-elle basée pour décider que la consultation du questionnaire sur les procédures civiles relative au respect des droits de la propriété intellectuelle ne serait pas accessible dans toutes les langues de l'Union européenne?

3.

Pourquoi la Commission a-t-elle considéré ces deux consultations différemment en termes d'accessibilité des citoyens?

Réponse donnée par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission

(15 avril 2013)

1.

Le questionnaire sur la protection du savoir-faire des entreprises et des chercheurs représentait la première consultation sur le sujet. Afin d'assurer un nombre satisfaisant de réponses étant donné le caractère technique et a priori peu attractif pour le grand public du sujet, il a été décidé de préparer un questionnaire relativement court, traduit dans toutes les langues.

2.

Le questionnaire sur les procédures civiles visant à faire respecter les droits de propriété intellectuelle étant en revanche particulièrement long en raison de la complexité du sujet et du fait qu'il constituait une nouvelle étape d'un processus de consultation engagé depuis la fin 2010. La première consultation du public sur ce sujet s'appuyait d'ailleurs sur un rapport de la Commission traduit dans toutes les langues

2.

Le questionnaire sur les procédures civiles visant à faire respecter les droits de propriété intellectuelle étant en revanche particulièrement long en raison de la complexité du sujet et du fait qu'il constituait une nouvelle étape d'un processus de consultation engagé depuis la fin 2010. La première consultation du public sur ce sujet s'appuyait d'ailleurs sur un rapport de la Commission traduit dans toutes les langues

 (66).

3.

La Commission s'efforce en tous cas d'assurer la meilleure accessibilité du public aux consultations dans les limites des ressources à sa disposition, ce qui signifie qu'elle doit faire des choix puisqu'elle ne peut faire appel qu'à un nombre restreint de traducteurs, dans les limites du budget consacré à cette activité (financée par les contribuables). Si elle a dû pour la deuxième consultation portant sur le respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle prendre en compte la taille du document et les coûts considérables qu'entrainerait la traduction dans l'ensemble des langues officielles de l'Union européenne, elle a cependant traduit le document en trois langues (FR, DE, EN) et allongé la période de consultation de trois à quatre mois. Afin d'améliorer l'accessibilité de la consultation, elle a introduit la possibilité de remplir en plusieurs fois le questionnaire, ce qui explique la procédure d'enregistrement préalable.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001654/13

aan de Commissie

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) en Paweł Zalewski (PPE)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Voorwaarden waaronder de Commissie raadpleging uitvoert in meerdere talen

In haar openbare raadpleging over de bescherming van bedrijfs‐ en onderzoeksknowhow (67) heeft de Commissie aan burgers vragenlijsten  ter beschikking gesteld in de talen van alle lidstaten, met behulp van een IPM-programma voor vragenlijsten bij raadpleging. Dit is een zeer bemoedigende ontwikkeling aangaande de raadplegingprocedures van de Commissie. In het geval echter van de openbare raadpleging aangaande civielrechtelijke handhaving van intellectuele eigendomsrechten, de effectiviteit van de procedure en de toegankelijkheid van de maatregelen (68), wordt de vragenlijst pas beschikbaar gesteld na de nadrukkelijke aanvraag van een link aan de afdeling die verantwoordelijk is voor de raadpleging. Zelfs na deze procedure is de vragenlijst enkel voor burgers toegankelijk in het Engels.

1.

Op basis van welke criteria heeft de Commissie besloten om de raadpleging aangaande bedrijfsgeheimen in alle talen van de Europese Unie voor burgers beschikbaar te stellen?

2.

Op basis van welke criteria heeft de Commissie besloten om de raadpleging aangaande de civielrechtelijke handhaving van intellectuele eigendomsrechten niet in alle talen van de Europese Unie voor burgers beschikbaar te stellen?

3.

Wat is de reden dat de Commissie deze twee raadplegingen verschillend behandelt wat betreft toegankelijkheid voor de burgers?

Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie

(15 april 2013)

1.

De vragenlijst over de bescherming van bedrijfs‐ en onderzoeksknowhow was de eerste raadpleging over dit onderwerp. Aangezien het een technisch onderwerp betreft dat op het eerste gezicht weinig aantrekkelijk is voor het grote publiek, is besloten om een relatief korte vragenlijst op te stellen en die in alle talen te vertalen om zo toch voldoende antwoorden te verkrijgen.

2.

De vragenlijst over de civielrechtelijke handhaving van intellectuele-eigendomsrechten was daarentegen erg lang omdat het een complex onderwerp betreft en omdat met de lijst een nieuwe fase wordt ingegaan van het raadplegingsproces dat eind 2010 is aangevangen. Aan de basis van de eerste openbare raadpleging over dit onderwerp lag overigens een verslag van de Commissie dat wel in alle talen is vertaald

2.

De vragenlijst over de civielrechtelijke handhaving van intellectuele-eigendomsrechten was daarentegen erg lang omdat het een complex onderwerp betreft en omdat met de lijst een nieuwe fase wordt ingegaan van het raadplegingsproces dat eind 2010 is aangevangen. Aan de basis van de eerste openbare raadpleging over dit onderwerp lag overigens een verslag van de Commissie dat wel in alle talen is vertaald

 (69).

3.

De Commissie tracht steeds om de raadplegingen zo toegankelijk mogelijk te maken voor het publiek binnen de grenzen van de middelen die zij  ter beschikking heeft. Aangezien de Commissie slechts over een beperkt aantal vertalers beschikt, moet zij keuzes maken om binnen het budget te blijven dat is vrijgemaakt voor deze — door de belastingbetaler gefinancierde — activiteit. Voor de tweede raadpleging over de naleving van de intellectuele-eigendomsrechten moest zij dus rekening houden met de omvang van het betrokken document en de aanzienlijke kosten die aan de vertaling in alle officiële talen van de EU zijn verbonden. Zij heeft het document echter wel in drie talen vertaald (Frans, Duits en Engels) en de raadplegingstermijn van drie naar vier maanden verlengd. Om de toegankelijkheid van de raadpleging te verbeteren, bood de Commissie eveneens de mogelijkheid om de vragenlijst in verschillende keren in te vullen. Dit verklaart meteen ook de voorafgaande registratieprocedure.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001654/13

do Komisji

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) oraz Paweł Zalewski (PPE)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Warunki przeprowadzania przez Komisję konsultacji wielojęzycznych

W ramach konsultacji publicznych w sprawie ochrony know-how przedsiębiorstw i wiedzy badawczej (70) Komisja zamieszcza w Internecie kwestionariusze dostępne dla obywateli we wszystkich językach państw członkowskich. Można je wypełniać korzystając z oprogramowania IPM (interaktywne kształtowanie polityki). Jest to niezwykle obiecująca zmiana w procedurach konsultacyjnych Komisji. Jednak, w przypadku cywilnoprawnego egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej/publicznych konsultacji w sprawie skuteczności postępowania i dostępności środków (71), aby uzyskać dostęp do kwestionariusza, trzeba zwrócić się z prośbą o link do działu odpowiedzialnego za konsultacje. Jednak po wykonaniu tej procedury okazuje się, że kwestionariusz jest dostępny wyłącznie w języku angielskim.

1.

W oparciu o jakie kryteria Komisja zdecydowała, że kwestionariusz dotyczący konsultacji w sprawie tajemnic handlowych będzie dostępny dla obywateli we wszystkich językach Unii Europejskiej?

2.

W oparciu o jakie kryteria Komisja zdecydowała, że kwestionariusz dotyczący konsultacji w sprawie cywilnoprawnego egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej nie będzie dostępny dla obywateli we wszystkich językach Unii Europejskiej?

3.

Co skłoniło Komisję do różnej klasyfikacji tych dwóch konsultacji pod względem dostępności dla obywateli?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Michela Barnier w imieniu Komisji

(15 kwietnia 2013 r.)

1.

Kwestionariusz dotyczący ochrony know-how przedsiębiorstw i wiedzy badawczej stanowi pierwszą konsultację w tej sprawie. Aby zapewnić wystarczającą liczbę odpowiedzi, biorąc pod uwagę techniczny i zasadniczo mało atrakcyjny dla ogółu charakter tego zagadnienia, zdecydowano, by przygotować stosunkowo krótki kwestionariusz, przetłumaczony na wszystkie języki.

2.

Natomiast kwestionariusz dotyczący cywilnoprawnego egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej jest wyjątkowo długi ze względu na złożoność tematu i na fakt, że stanowi on nowy etap procesu konsultacji rozpoczętego pod koniec 2010 r. Pierwsze konsultacje społeczne na ten temat opierały się zresztą na sprawozdaniu Komisji przetłumaczonym na wszystkie języki

2.

Natomiast kwestionariusz dotyczący cywilnoprawnego egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej jest wyjątkowo długi ze względu na złożoność tematu i na fakt, że stanowi on nowy etap procesu konsultacji rozpoczętego pod koniec 2010 r. Pierwsze konsultacje społeczne na ten temat opierały się zresztą na sprawozdaniu Komisji przetłumaczonym na wszystkie języki

 (72).

3.

W każdym razie Komisja dokłada wszelkich starań, by w ramach zasobów, jakimi dysponuje, zapewnić ogółowi społeczeństwa jak najlepszy dostęp do konsultacji. Oznacza to, że musi ona dokonywać wyborów, gdyż może skorzystać z pomocy jedynie ograniczonej liczby tłumaczy w ramach budżetu przeznaczonego na to działanie (finansowane z pieniędzy podatników). Ponieważ w przypadku drugiej konsultacji dotyczącej egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej Komisja musiała uwzględnić wielkość dokumentu i znaczne koszty, jakie pociągnęłoby za sobą jego tłumaczenie na wszystkie języki urzędowe Unii Europejskiej, zdecydowała ona o przetłumaczeniu go na trzy języki (FR, DE, EN) i wydłużeniu terminu przeprowadzenia konsultacji z trzech do czterech miesięcy. Aby zwiększyć dostępność do konsultacji, Komisja wprowadziła możliwość wypełnienia kwestionariusza etapami – stąd konieczność uprzedniej rejestracji.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-001654/13

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) och Paweł Zalewski (PPE)

(18 februari 2013)

Angående: Kriterierna för att kommissionen ska genomföra flerspråkiga samråd

I sitt offentliga samråd om skydd av affärs‐ och forskningskunnande (73) tillhandahåller kommissionen frågeformulär till medborgarna på samtliga medlemsstaters språk genom sitt IPM‐enkätverktyg för samråd. Detta är en mycket uppmuntrande utveckling av kommissionens samrådsförfaranden. När det gäller offentligt samråd om civilrättsligt genomdrivande av immateriella rättigheter – i fråga om förfarandens effektivitet och åtgärders tillgänglighet (74) – är frågeformuläret dock endast tillgängligt efter att man uttryckligen har begärt en länk till formuläret från den ansvariga enheten för samrådet. Även efter att man har utfört dessa steg är dock själva frågeformuläret endast tillgängligt på engelska för medborgarna.

1.

Utifrån vilka kriterier beslutade kommissionen att samrådet om konfidentiell affärsinformation ska finnas tillgängligt på samtliga EU‐språk?

2.

Utifrån vilka kriterier beslutade kommissionen att samrådet om civilrättsligt genomdrivande av immateriella rättigheter inte ska finnas tillgängligt på samtliga EU‐språk?

3.

Vad fick kommissionen att bedöma samråden olika i fråga om tillgänglighet för medborgarna?

Svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar

(15 april 2013)

1.

Samrådet om skydd av affärs‐ och forskningskunnande utgjorde det första offentliga samrådet i den frågan. Med tanke på att allmänheten antagligen inte skulle finna frågan särskilt intressant och med hänsyn till frågans tekniska karaktär beslutade man för att få in ett nöjaktigt antal svar på frågeformuläret att ta fram ett relativt kort formulär och översätta detta till alla språk.

2.

Frågeformuläret i samrådet Civil enforcement of intellectual property rights: public consultation on the efficiency of proceedings and accessibility of measures var däremot synnerligen långt, dels på grund av frågans komplexa karaktär och dels på grund av att det samrådet utgjorde en ny etapp i en samrådsprocess som inletts i slutet av 2010. Det första offentliga samrådet i frågan stödde sig för övrigt på en rapport

2.

Frågeformuläret i samrådet Civil enforcement of intellectual property rights: public consultation on the efficiency of proceedings and accessibility of measures var däremot synnerligen långt, dels på grund av frågans komplexa karaktär och dels på grund av att det samrådet utgjorde en ny etapp i en samrådsprocess som inletts i slutet av 2010. Det första offentliga samrådet i frågan stödde sig för övrigt på en rapport

 (75) från kommissionen som översatts till alla språk.

3.

Kommissionen bemödar sig i samtliga fall om att inom ramen för de resurser som står till dess förfogande se till att samråd är så lättillgängliga som möjligt för allmänheten. Detta innebär att den måste göra val, eftersom den bara har ett begränsat antal översättare och är tvungen att hålla sig inom den budget som avsatts för översättningen (som finansieras av skattebetalarna). Kommissionen var inför det andra samrådet om säkerställande av skyddet för immateriella rättigheter tvungen att ta frågeformulärets längd och de väsentliga kostnader som översättning av formuläret till alla officiella EU-språk skulle medföra i beaktande, men den lät likväl ta fram formuläret på tre språk (FR, DE och EN). Den förlängde dessutom samrådsperioden från tre till fyra månader. I syfte att göra samrådet mer lättillgängligt gjorde kommissionen det också möjligt att fylla i frågeformuläret i flera omgångar, vilket är förklaringen till förfarandet med registrering på förhand för att (via en särskild länk) få tillgång till formuläret.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001654/13

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) and Paweł Zalewski (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Conditions according to which the Commission holds multilingual consultations

As part of its public consultation on the protection of business and research know-how (76), the Commission makes online questionnaires available to citizens in all the languages of the Member States; contributions can be submitted using the IPM questionnaire tool. This is a very encouraging development in the Commission’s consultation procedures. However, in the case of the civil enforcement of intellectual property rights/public consultation on the efficiency of proceedings and accessibility of measures (77), the questionnaire is only made available after requesting a link from the unit responsible for the consultation. Even after this procedure has been gone through, the questionnaire itself is available to citizens only in English.

1.

According to what criteria did the Commission decide that the questionnaire on trade secrets consultation should be made available to citizens in all the languages of the European Union?

2.

According to which criteria did the Commission decide that the questionnaire on intellectual property rights civil enforcement consultation would not be made available to citizens in all the languages of the European Union?

3.

What made the Commission assess these two consultations differently in terms of accessibility for citizens?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2013)

1.

The questionnaire on the protection of business and research know-how is the first consultation on this subject. In order to ensure a satisfactory number of responses, given that its subject-matter is technical and essentially unappealing to the general public, it was decided that the questionnaire would be relatively short and translated into all the EU languages.

2.

The questionnaire on the civil enforcement of intellectual property rights was, on the other hand, particularly long because of the complex nature of the subject-matter and given that it constituted a new phase in the consultation process begun at the end of 2010. The first public consultation on this topic was, in fact, based on a Commission report translated into all the EU languages

2.

The questionnaire on the civil enforcement of intellectual property rights was, on the other hand, particularly long because of the complex nature of the subject-matter and given that it constituted a new phase in the consultation process begun at the end of 2010. The first public consultation on this topic was, in fact, based on a Commission report translated into all the EU languages

 (78).

3.

The Commission endeavours in all cases to ensure that citizens have the greatest possible access to consultations within the limits of the resources at its disposal. This means that the Commission has to make choices, as it has only a limited number of translators and a limited budget allocated to this activity (financed by taxpayers). Although in the case of the second consultation on the civil enforcement of intellectual property rights the Commission has had to take into account the length of the document and the considerable costs its translation into all the official languages of the European Union would have entailed, it has nevertheless translated the document into three languages (French, German and English) and extended the consultation period from three to four months. In order to improve accessibility to the consultation, the Commission has made it possible to fill in the questionnaire in several stages, hence the prior registration procedure.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001656/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(18 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — L'Iran condanna un cristiano americano a otto anni di carcere

Secondo l'organizzazione cristiana Open Doors (Porte aperte), il 28 gennaio 2013 un cittadino statunitense di origine iraniana, Saeed Abedini, è stato condannato a otto anni di carcere avendo un giudice deciso che stava cercando di creare chiese cristiane e con ciò minacciava la sicurezza nazionale dell'Iran. La sentenza è stata annunciata nonostante il signor Abedini non abbia avuto il permesso di assistere a talune parti del suo processo. Il presidente della Commissione degli Stati Uniti sulla libertà religiosa internazionale, Katrina Lantos Swett, ha definito la sentenza «uno scandaloso errore giudiziario».

Saeed Abedini è nato in Iran, ma si è convertito al cristianesimo nel 2000 e ha lavorato per realizzare chiese domestiche. È stato interrogato numerose volte, ma si è poi trasferito negli Stati Uniti. Avuto il permesso di tornare in Iran per costruire un orfanotrofio non religioso, dopo diverse visite è stato arrestato e messo sotto processo. Il presidente del Tribunale giudicante nel suo caso è Abbas Pir-Abbassi, che è stato accusato dall'UE di violazioni dei diritti umani. I procuratori accusano il sig. Abedini di essere responsabile della creazione «di una rete di chiese domestiche cristiane» fin dal 2000, anno in cui ha lasciato l'Islam per il cristianesimo. Il governo sostiene, inoltre, che il sig Abedini voleva influenzare le menti dei giovani iraniani volgendole verso il cristianesimo e contro l'Islam.

1.

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è a conoscenza del caso di Saeed Abedini?

2.

Quali passi è disposta ad effettuare la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante, onde esercitare pressioni sul governo iraniano affinché abbandoni le accuse contro il signor Abedini, in aggiunta ai tentativi che sta compiendo il governo degli Stati Uniti?

3.

Quali passi ha avviato precedentemente la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per invitare il governo iraniano a consentire la libertà religiosa ai suoi cittadini?

Risposta dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione

(18 aprile 2013)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è pienamente a conoscenza del caso di Saeed Abedini e si preoccupa per la condanna di 8 anni inflittagli e per il fatto che ai suoi avvocati non sarebbe stato permesso di difenderlo in maniera appropriata.

L'UE continua ad adoperarsi per migliorare la tutela dei diritti delle minoranze in Iran e, più in generale, dei diritti umani. In diverse occasioni l'AR/VP ha espresso preoccupazione per la mancanza di libertà religiosa in Iran. L'incarcerazione di individui sulla base del loro credo religioso contravviene alla convenzione internazionale sui diritti civili e politici di cui l'Iran è paese firmatario. L'AR/VP continua a sollecitare le autorità iraniane affinché garantiscano la parità dei diritti a tutti i cittadini, incluse la libertà di religione e di culto.

A seguito del deterioramento della situazione dei diritti umani in Iran, compresa quella delle minoranze religiose, l'Unione europea ha imposto sanzioni a 87 funzionari iraniani ritenuti responsabili di violazioni dei diritti umani.

In questo contesto, il giudice Pir-Abbasi, incaricato del processo contro Saeed Abedini, è nel mirino per aver partecipato a procedimenti giudiziari contro dei manifestanti dopo le elezioni presidenziali del 2009 in Iran. È inoltre soggetto a un congelamento dei beni e al divieto di viaggio nell'UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001656/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Iran sentences American Christian to eight years in prison

According to the Christian organisation Open Doors, on 28 January 2013 a US citizen of Iranian origin, Saeed Abedini, was sentenced to eight years in jail after a judge decided that he was trying to establish Christian churches and was therefore threatening Iran’s national security. The sentence was handed down even though Mr Abedini was not allowed to attend parts of his trial. The chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Katrina Lantos Swett, has called this sentence ‘an outrageous miscarriage of justice’.

Saeed Abedini was born in Iran, but converted to Christianity in 2000 and worked to set up house churches. He was interrogated a number of times, but later moved to the US. He was allowed to return to Iran to build a non-religious orphanage, but after several visits was arrested and put on trial. The presiding judge in his case is Abbas Pir-Abbassi, who has been accused of human rights violations by the EU. Prosecutors claim that Mr Abedini is responsible for creating ‘a network of Christian house churches’ starting in 2000, the year he left Islam for Christianity. The government also claims that Mr Abedini wanted to sway the minds of Iranian young people by turning them towards Christianity and against Islam.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the case of Saeed Abedini?

2.

What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take in order to exert pressure on the Iranian Government to drop the charges against Mr Abedini, in addition to the attempts being made by the US Government?

3.

What steps has the Vice-President/High Representative previously taken to call on Iran’s government to allow its citizens religious freedom?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2013)

The High Representative/Vice-President is fully aware of the case of Saeed Abedini. She is concerned about the 8-year sentence handed down to Mr Abedini, as well as reports that his lawyers were not allowed to present his defence in a proper manner.

The EU remains committed to improving the rights of persons belonging to minorities in Iran, alongside with the protection of human rights more generally. The HR/VP has on several occasions expressed concern over the lack of religious freedom in Iran. Imprisoning individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs contravenes the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights, which Iran is signatory to. The HR/VP continues to call upon the Iranian authorities to guarantee equal rights for all of its citizens, including the freedom of religion or belief and worship.

In reaction to the deterioration of the human rights situaiton in Iran, including that of persons belonging to religious minorities, the European Union has adopted sanctions against 87 named Iranian officials responsible for human rights violations.

In this context, judge Pir-Abbasi, who was in charge of Saeed Abedini's trial, is listed for his participation in the court cases against protesters following the 2009 Presidential elections in Iran. He is subject to an asset freeze and travel ban within the EU.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001657/13

to the Commission

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: European lobbying donations in the USA

The Commission may be aware that, according to the latest governmental figures from the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), around two million of the roughly eight million firearms within the US domestic gun market in 2010 were European‐made or ‐owned. Furthermore, due to the importance of the US domestic market to European gun producers, many of the European manufacturers are actively funding campaigns in the USA against stronger gun laws.

According to data published by the Washington-based gun control group Violence Policy Centre (VPC), Italian-owned Beretta USA donated between USD 1 million and USD 4.9 million to the National Rifle Association (NRA), and its sister company Benelli USA between USD 500 000 and USD 999 000. Austrian-owned Glock USA and German-owned Blaser USA donated between USD 250 000 and USD 499 000, while Walloon-Government-owned brands FNH USA and Browning each helped the NRA out with between USD 50 000 and USD 99 000, as did German-owned Krieghoff International. German-owned Sig Sauer gave between USD 25 000 and USD 49 000.

Whilst I am aware that the Commission already has established guidelines on ethical practices in third countries and that donations such as these would be very difficult to ban, does it not agree that any donations made by European companies to lobbying organisations should be made public in a central register of overseas political donations?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2013)

The Commission does not plan to establish a publicly available central register of overseas political donations. Establishment of such a register is not in the competence of the Commission.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001659/13

alla Commissione

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(18 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Diffusione di un'allerta meteo di rilevanza regionale a cittadini di altri Stati UE in transito in un'area interessata da fenomeni meteorologici straordinari

In data 11 febbraio 2013, a causa di possibili precipitazioni nevose di intensità straordinaria, è stata proibita la circolazione di veicoli aventi massa superiore a 7,5 tonnellate sulle strade di undici regioni italiane; ciononostante, numerosi mezzi pesanti, perlopiù con targa estera, circolavano ugualmente, probabilmente perché i conducenti erano ignari del divieto imposto dalle autorità italiane per fronteggiare l'emergenza neve.

Con l'unione doganale e il mercato unico europeo, il numero di persone e la quantità di merci che viaggiano su gomma all'interno dell'UE, spesso attraversando più Stati in poche ore, è in continua e prevedibile crescita; inoltre l'estensione e la varietà di configurazioni morfologiche dei territori compresi nell'UE consentono la coesistenza di condizioni meteo estremamente differenti anche in aree distanti poche decine o poche centinaia di chilometri una dall'altra. Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere:

quali strumenti e procedure ha proposto o intende proporre per facilitare una tempestiva comunicazione del verificarsi di eventi meteorologici straordinari a carattere regionale, nonché delle disposizioni emanate dalle autorità competenti per gestire il fenomeno, anche a quei cittadini europei che non risiedono nell'area interessata dal fenomeno, né nel paese ove essa è situata, ma che tuttavia si trovano a dovervi transitare nell'arco temporale interessato dal fenomeno suddetto;

se, in un'ottica di integrazione europea, ha valutato o sta valutando la possibilità di rendere più omogenea la cartellonistica stradale, e in special modo autostradale, all'interno dell'UE, anche in riferimento ai pannelli informativi telecontrollati a messaggio variabile?

Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione

(23 aprile 2013)

1.

Nel quadro della direttiva ITS

1.

Nel quadro della direttiva ITS

 (79) le disposizioni relative alla fornitura di un livello minimo di servizi universali d’informazione sul traffico finalizzati alla sicurezza stradale, la cui adozione è prevista per la fine di aprile 2013, garantiranno che tutti i conducenti siano avvertiti tempestivamente di pericoli imminenti, quali eventi climatici eccezionali o un deterioramento delle condizioni stradali.

In seguito, le specifiche per la fornitura di servizi di informazione sul traffico in tempo reale a livello di Unione europea, previste per l’inizio del 2014, definiranno principi e funzionalità comuni per fornire informazioni sul traffico localizzate e orientate agli utenti.

I servizi di informazione sul traffico in parola saranno disponibili agli utilizzatori finali mediante differenti canali di diffusione, quali pannelli a messaggio variabile, dispositivi personali di navigazione e terminali installati a bordo dei veicoli.

2.

L’UE ha promosso l’elaborazione di nuovi pittogrammi indipendenti dal linguaggio e continua la sua opera in sede di gruppo di lavoro dell’UNECE

2.

L’UE ha promosso l’elaborazione di nuovi pittogrammi indipendenti dal linguaggio e continua la sua opera in sede di gruppo di lavoro dell’UNECE

 (80) per la sicurezza stradale con l’obiettivo di ottenerne l’approvazione da parte della Convenzione di Vienna sulla segnaletica stradale (81).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001659/13

to the Commission

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Raising regional weather alerts for citizens of other EU countries transiting through an area being affected by extraordinary weather events

On 11 February 2013, due to the possibility of extraordinarily heavy snowfalls, vehicles weighing more than 7.5 tonnes were banned from circulating on the roads of 11 Italian regions. In spite of that, many heavy goods vehicles, mostly with foreign number plates, were still circulating, probably because drivers were unaware of the ban imposed by the Italian authorities to deal with the snow emergency.

With the customs union and the single European market, the number of people and amount of goods travelling by road in the EU, often crossing several states in just a few hours, is constantly and predictably growing. Moreover, the size and variety of the different kinds of territories in the EU mean that very different weather conditions can coexist even in areas that are a few dozen or few hundred kilometres away from each other. In the light of this, can the Commission say:

what tools and procedures it has proposed, or intends to propose, with a view to facilitating the timely announcement of extraordinary regional weather events and of the provisions issued by the relevant authorities to manage the event, even to those EU citizens who do not live in the area — or even in the country — affected by the weather event in question, but who have to pass through it at the time;

whether, with a view to European integration, it has considered, or is considering, the possibility of making road signs more uniform in the EU, especially on motorways and with regard to remotely controlled message panels?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2013)

1.

In the framework of the ITS Directive

1.

In the framework of the ITS Directive

 (82), specifications for the provision of road safety related minimum universal traffic information, which will be adopted by the end of April 2013, will ensure that all drivers are timely warned on incoming dangers such as exceptional weather or dangerous road conditions.

Then specifications for the provision of EU-wide real time traffic information services, which are planned for early 2014, will define common principles and functionalities in order to provide user oriented and location relevant traffic information on EU roads.

This traffic information services will be available to end users via different dissemination channels such as variable message signs, personal navigation devices and in-vehicle terminals.

2.

The EU has been promoting the development of new language independent pictograms and its further promotion in the UNECE

2.

The EU has been promoting the development of new language independent pictograms and its further promotion in the UNECE

 (83) working party on Road Traffic Safety with the aim of getting it endorsed as part of the Vienna Convention on road signs (84).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001660/13

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Subsidieverlening gemeente Rotterdam

Op 16 februari 2013 werd bekend (85) dat in de deelgemeente Feijenoord van Rotterdam intimidatie en mogelijke fraudepraktijken plaatsvinden. Citaat: „De verwevenheid tussen Turkse politici en maatschappelijke organisaties zou in Feijenoord te groot zijn. Zo krijgt een reïntegratiebureau, met een PvdA-deelraadslid op de loonlijst, jaarlijks een half miljoen subsidie  terwijl het bedrijf volgens een interne evaluatie slecht presteert en jobhunters in dienst heeft die „niet of nauwelijks Nederlands spreken”. Ook is er subsidie voor een Turkse migrantenorganisatie die voorheen onderdeel uitmaakte van een vereniging waar Turkse PvdA-politici bij betrokken zijn.”

1.

Kan de Commissie aangeven hoeveel EU-subsidie de gemeente Rotterdam het afgelopen jaar en voor dit jaar heeft ontvangen?

2.

Hoeveel van deze subsidies wordt verleend in het kader van het ESF en dan specifiek met de doelstelling

„arbeidsreïntegratie” en „integratie migranten”?

3.

Kan de Commissie aangeven of er gedurende de looptijd van de subsidieperiode of in ieder geval achteraf een kosten-batenanalyse van deze subsidieverleningen plaatsvindt? Zo ja, wat zijn de criteria daarvoor? Zo nee, waarom niet?

4.

Indien blijkt dat de gemeente Rotterdam onzorgvuldig met de haar toevertrouwde EU-subsidies is omgegaan of onvoldoende transparantie en verantwoordelijkheid heeft getoond, wat is dan de mogelijkheid tot sanctie of  terugvordering van de verleende subsidie(s)?

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(26 april 2013)

In Rotterdam is in de periode 2009-2012 (86) voor drie projecten subsidie verleend in het kader van het ESF; deze projecten omvatten de volgende acties:

Actie A: 9 897 867 EUR (toegekend) / tot nu toe betaald: 936 548 EUR

Actie J: 2 700 000 EUR (toegekend) / tot nu toe betaald: 2 700 000 EUR

Informatie over toegekende en betaalde bedragen:

Er bestaat geen subsidie in het kader van het ESF die specifiek gericht is op de integratie van migranten. Het Nederlandse operationele programma (OP) bevat twee subsidieacties voor re-integratie: actie A voor mensen van boven de 55, mensen met een handicap met een arbeidsongeschiktheidsuitkering en inactieven zonder arbeidsongeschiktheidsuitkering. Actie J bestrijdt jeugdwerkeloosheid. Budget voor het ESF-programma in de periode 2007-2013:

actie A: 161 200 657 EUR

actie J: 58 000 000 EUR

2.

Op basis van het Nederlandse OP moeten alle projecten die gesubsidieerd worden door het ESF voorzien zijn van indicatoren die de behaalde resultaten weergeven (bv. het aantal opgeleide mensen, het aantal aangelegde wegen of het aantal gevonden banen). De resultaten dienen gerapporteerd te worden in de eindverklaring van het project. De resultaten voor het ESF-programma worden elk jaar door de Nederlandse beheersautoriteit

 (87)  (88)

2.

Op basis van het Nederlandse OP moeten alle projecten die gesubsidieerd worden door het ESF voorzien zijn van indicatoren die de behaalde resultaten weergeven (bv. het aantal opgeleide mensen, het aantal aangelegde wegen of het aantal gevonden banen). De resultaten dienen gerapporteerd te worden in de eindverklaring van het project. De resultaten voor het ESF-programma worden elk jaar door de Nederlandse beheersautoriteit

3.

Het Nederlandse ESF-programma is opgenomen in een uitgebreid (Europees) regelgevingskader. De Nederlandse ESF-regeling

2.

Op basis van het Nederlandse OP moeten alle projecten die gesubsidieerd worden door het ESF voorzien zijn van indicatoren die de behaalde resultaten weergeven (bv. het aantal opgeleide mensen, het aantal aangelegde wegen of het aantal gevonden banen). De resultaten dienen gerapporteerd te worden in de eindverklaring van het project. De resultaten voor het ESF-programma worden elk jaar door de Nederlandse beheersautoriteit

 (87) samengevat en naar de Europese Commissie gestuurd (88).

3.

Het Nederlandse ESF-programma is opgenomen in een uitgebreid (Europees) regelgevingskader. De Nederlandse ESF-regeling

 (89) bevat regels met betrekking tot projectselectie, toezicht en controle. Alle aanvragen worden beoordeeld op basis van de Nederlandse ESF-regeling. De eindverklaring van het project wordt  ter plaatse gecontroleerd door de beheersautoriteit. Activiteiten waarvan geen bewijzen van de gemaakte kosten worden geleverd komen niet in aanmerking voor subsidie. De beheersautoriteit corrigeert administratieve fouten. Het ESF-bedrag waarop de begunstigde recht heeft wordt alleen uitgekeerd wanneer er controle heeft plaatsgevonden. Indien er zich onregelmatigheden voordoen worden OLAF en/of SIOD geraadpleegd om de terugvordering van de ten onrechte uitgekeerde EU-subsidies te garanderen en passende sancties op te leggen die in de EU-wetgeving en de nationale wetgeving zijn vastgesteld.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001660/13

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Subsidies for Rotterdam

On 16 February 2013, acts of intimidation and possible fraud were revealed to be taking place (90) in the Rotterdam district of Feijenoord, with allegations of excessive collusion between Turkish politicians and social organisations. For example, a reintegration agency with PvdA district councillor on its payroll receives an annual subsidy of half a million euro, despite what is, according to an internal evaluation, a poor performance and its employment of job hunters who ‘speak little or no Dutch’. A Turkish migrant organisation, previously part of an association with which Turkish PvdA politicians are involved, is also receiving subsidies.

In view of this:

Can the Commission indicate what EU subsidies were paid to the municipality of Rotterdam last year and this year to date?

What subsidies are allocated from the ESF and what amounts are specifically earmarked for ‘work reintegration’ and ‘the integration of migrants’?

Is a cost-benefit analysis in respect of these subsidies carried out while they are being paid or afterwards? If so, on what criteria is it based? If not, why not?

If it emerges that the Rotterdam municipal authority has been negligent in its management of EU subsidies or has fallen short of the necessary standards of transparency and responsibility, what possibilities exist of imposing penalties or recovering the subsidies paid?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2013)

Rotterdam was granted ESF for 3 projects in the period 2009-2012 (91), covered by the following actions:

Action A: EUR 9.897.867 (granted) / paid until now: EUR 936.548

Action J: EUR 2.700.000 (granted) / paid until now: EUR 2.700.000

Information on amounts granted and paid:

There is no specific ESF earmarking for integration of migrants. The Dutch operational programme (OP) contains two subsidy actions for re-integration: Action A for people (55+) on benefits, for people on disability benefits and for inactive people without benefits. Action J, tackling youth unemployment. Budgets for the 2007-2013 ESF programme:

Action A: EUR 161.200.657

Action J: EUR 58.000.000

2.

Based on the Dutch OP all projects funded by ESF must take track of indicators to show results achieved (e.g. number of people educated, pathways finished or jobs found). The results must be reported in the final project declaration. Results for the ESF programme are summarised by the Dutch Managing authority

 (92)  (93)

2.

Based on the Dutch OP all projects funded by ESF must take track of indicators to show results achieved (e.g. number of people educated, pathways finished or jobs found). The results must be reported in the final project declaration. Results for the ESF programme are summarised by the Dutch Managing authority

3.

The Dutch ESF programme is implemented under a comprehensive (European) regulatory framework. The Dutch ESF regulation

2.

Based on the Dutch OP all projects funded by ESF must take track of indicators to show results achieved (e.g. number of people educated, pathways finished or jobs found). The results must be reported in the final project declaration. Results for the ESF programme are summarised by the Dutch Managing authority

 (92) each year and sent to the EC (93).

3.

The Dutch ESF programme is implemented under a comprehensive (European) regulatory framework. The Dutch ESF regulation

 (94) contains rules on project selection, monitoring and auditing. All applications are assessed on the basis of the Dutch ESF regulation. The final project declaration is being audited on the spot by the MA. Costs for activities not supported by evidence are not eligible. The MA corrects administrative errors. Only after the audit the eligible ESF amount is paid to the beneficiary. In case of irregularities OLAF and/or the SIOD are consulted in order to guarantee the recovery of unduly paid EU subventions and the application of appropriate sanctions as provided for by EU and national law.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001661/13

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Labelling „halal kip”

Vandaag werd bekend (95) dat het grootste deel van de Nederlandse kipfilet halal geslacht is, dus onverdoofd, ook als dat niet op de verpakking staat. Citaat: „Om export van weinig populaire delen van de kip naar moslimlanden mogelijk te maken, wordt voor het gemak alle kip halal geslacht.”

1.

Is het op grond van EU regelgeving (o.a. Verordening (EU) nr. 1169/2011) toegestaan dat kip halal (onverdoofd) geslacht wordt  ter

wijl dit niet vermeld staat op het label dat op de verpakking zit?

2.

De kip wordt onverdoofd geslacht om voor

„halal” in aanmerking te komen en daartoe dient een imam aanwezig te zijn. Is op grond van wet‐ en regelgeving van de EU een imam gecertificeerd om te slachten?

Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie

(8 april 2013)

De huidige EU-wetgeving inzake de etikettering van levensmiddelen (96) vereist niet dat informatie op het etiket van vlees en vleesproducten wordt opgenomen over de religieuze slachtmethode van dieren. De Commissie zal echter overeenkomstig overweging 50 van Verordening (EU) nr. 1169/2011 (97), waar het geachte Parlementslid naar verwijst, een onderzoek uitvoeren naar de mogelijkheid informatie te verstrekken aan de consument over het bedwelmen van dieren in het kader van de in 2012 aangenomen strategie van de Europese Unie voor de bescherming en het welzijn van dieren (98).

De voorwaarden voor halal producten zijn niet op EU-niveau vastgesteld en zijn met name afhankelijk van particuliere regelingen die per lidstaat verschillen. De EU-wetgeving (99) omvat echter de mogelijkheid dieren niet te bedwelmen om religieuze redenen en laat de tenuitvoerlegging van deze uitzondering over aan de lidstaten.

De meest gebruikelijke methode voor het bedwelmen van kippen in de EU (collectieve waterbadbedwelming) kan voor omkeerbare bedwelming worden gebruikt. Daarom wordt slachting zonder bedwelming niet systematisch gebruikt voor het produceren van halal kip, afhankelijk van de behoeften van islamitische klanten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001661/13

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Labelling of halal chicken

It was revealed today (100) that the majority of Dutch chicken fillets come from birds slaughtered in a halal manner, i.e. without stunning, even when this is not mentioned on the packaging. I quote: ‘To make things easier, so that the less popular parts of the chicken can be exported to Muslim countries, all chickens are slaughtered in a halal manner.’

1.

Is it permissible under EC law (including Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011) for chickens to be slaughtered in a halal manner (i.e. without stunning) when this is not indicated on the label on the packaging?

2.

Chickens are slaughtered without stunning in order to count as halal. For that purpose an imam has to be present. Under EU legislation, is an imam certified to carry out the slaughter of animals?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2013)

The current EU food labelling legislation (101) does not require the information on the religious method used during the animal slaughtering to be provided on the label of meat and meat products. However, in accordance with Recital 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (102) referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission will perform a study on the opportunity to provide the consumer with information on the stunning of animals in the context of the Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals adopted in 2012 (103).

The qualification for Halal products is not regulated at EU level and it mainly depends on private schemes which vary among the Member States. However, the EU legislation (104) includes the possibility of not stunning animals for religious reasons, the implementation of this derogation being left to the Member States.

The most common method for stunning chicken in the EU (multiple waterbath stunning) can be used to deliver reversible stunning. Therefore, slaughter without stunning is not systematically used to produce Halal chicken, depending on the requirements of the Muslim clients.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001662/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) oraz Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Pozycja Gazpromu na rynku Europejskim

W ostatnich dwóch latach Gazprom dokonał wielu zakupów na europejskim rynku energetycznym. W 2011 r. Gazprom Schweiz kupił GWH Gashandel GmbH (Austria) oraz Promgas (Włochy). Dodatkowo rosyjski koncern poczynił znaczne inwestycje w sektorze upstreamu przejmując udziały w złożach gazu miedzy innymi w Niemczech i morzu północnym (miedzy innymi złoża Middelie, Emerald).

Jednocześnie stara się blokować inwestycje związane z ewentualnymi alternatywami na dostawę gazu (blokowanie gazociągu Transkaspijskiego oraz Nabucco).

1.

Jak Komisja ocenia zaangażowanie Gazpromu na rynkach unijnych?

2.

Jakie działania podejmuje Komisja, aby zwiększyć konkurencyjność na rynku przesyłu oraz handlu gazem dla Europy?

3.

Jak komisja reagowała na działania podejmowane przez Gazprom w celu ograniczanie możliwości rozwoju faktycznej konkurencji na rynku gazu.

4.

Dlaczego Komisja zgodziła się na zakup przez Gazprom spółek GWH Gashandel GmbH (Austria), Promgas (Włochy)?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Joaquina Almunię w imieniu Komisji

(24 kwietnia 2013 r.)

Każde przedsiębiorstwo prowadzące działalność wewnątrz Unii Europejskiej musi przestrzegać prawa UE, w szczególności przepisów rynku wewnętrznego i zasad konkurencji, w tym rozporządzenia UE w sprawie kontroli łączenia przedsiębiorstw. Niniejsze przepisy obowiązują Gazprom, podobnie jak każde inne przedsiębiorstwo prowadzące działalność na rynkach UE, niezależnie od jego miejsca rejestracji. Przepisy te ustanawiają równe warunki działania, zapewniając nie tylko równe szanse, lecz także równe obowiązki.

Komisja angażuje się w pełne wdrożenie rynku wewnętrznego gazu ziemnego, które przewiduje między innymi wdrożenie w państwach członkowskich trzeciego pakietu energetycznego oraz harmonizację zasad rynkowych. Są to ważne kroki na drodze do stworzenia konkurencyjnych rynków z myślą o unijnych konsumentach.

4 września 2012 r. Komisja ogłosiła wszczęcie dochodzenia w sprawie możliwego naruszenia art. 102 TFUE przez Gazprom. Komisja podejrzewała stosowanie trzech zakłócających konkurencję praktyk:

segmentację rynku poprzez uniemożliwianie swobodnego przepływu gazu pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi;

stosowanie nieuczciwych cen wobec klientów; oraz

tworzenie przeszkód dla dywersyfikacji źródeł dostaw.

Wszczęcie procedury oznacza rozpoczęcie szczegółowego dochodzenia, jednak nie przesądza o jego wyniku.

Nabycie obydwu przedmiotowych przedsiębiorstw (GWH Gashandel GmbH and Promgas S.p.A) (105) zostało zgłoszone zgodnie z ust. 5 lit. b) obwieszczenia Komisji w sprawie procedury uproszczonej. W momencie zgłoszenia Gazprom sprawował już wspólną kontrolę nad przedsiębiorstwami, dlatego też transakcja „nabycia wyłącznej kontroli” odbywała się w oparciu o procedurę uproszczoną. Zgodnie z zastosowaną procedurą uproszczoną i przy braku szczególnych okoliczności transakcje te nie stwarzały podstaw do zastrzeżeń w zakresie konkurencji i zostały odpowiednio zatwierdzone przez Komisję.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001662/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) and Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Gazprom's position in the European market

In the past two years Gazprom have made many acquisitions in the European energy market. In 2011 Gazprom Schweiz bought GWH Gashandel GmbH (Austria) and Promgas (Italy). In addition, the Russian group has made significant investments in the upstream sector, acquiring stakes in gas deposits in, among other places, Germany and the North Sea (including the Middelie and Emerald deposits).

At the same time it is attempting to block investments connected with potential alternative gas supplies (e.g. the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines).

1.

How does the Commission assess Gazprom's involvement in EU markets?

2.

What measures is the Commission taking to increase competitiveness in the transmission and trading of gas for Europe?

3.

How has the Commission reacted to Gazprom's attempts to restrict opportunities for developing real competition in the gas market?

4.

Why did the Commission approve Gazprom's acquisitions of GWH Gashandel GmbH (Austria) and Promgas (Italy)?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

Any company active in the European Union has to abide by EC law and in particular internal market rules and competition rules, including the EU merger regulation. Gazprom is subject to these provisions the same as any other company active in EU markets, regardless of its place of registration. Those rules provide for a level playing field offering equal opportunities, but also equal responsibilities.

The Commission is committed to the completion of the internal market in gas including specifically the implementation of the Third Energy Package in Member States as well as the harmonisation of market rules. These are significant steps towards the creation of competitive markets for the benefit of EU consumers.

On 4 September 2012, the Commission announced the opening of an investigation into a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU by Gazprom. The Commission suspected three anti-competitive practices:

market segmentation by preventing the free flow of gas between Member States;

unfair prices towards its customers; and

the creation of barriers to diversifying supply.

The opening of proceedings signals the start of an in-depth investigation, but does not prejudge its outcome.

The two acquisitions referred to (GWH Gashandel GmbH and Promgas S.p.A) (106) were both notified under paragraph 5(b) of the Commission's simplified procedure notice. At the time of notification, Gazprom already had joint control over the companies, thereby rendering the transaction a ‘sole control acquisition’ dealt with under the simplified procedure. In light of the application of the simplified procedure, and the absence of special circumstances, the transactions did not give rise to competition concerns and were accordingly cleared by the Commission.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001663/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) oraz Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Unikanie opłat celnych

W 2010 r. Europejski Urząd ds. Zwalczania Nadużyć Finansowych w raporcie nr OF/2010/0827 stwierdził, że krzem metaliczny sprowadzany z Tajwanu w rzeczywistości pochodzi z Chin. Jego import z Tajwanu pozwalał na ominięcie unijnych ceł ochronnych. Mimo podejrzeń kierowanych ze strony OLAFu, Komisja Europejska nie wszczęła wówczas postępowania w sprawie o obejście przez firmy importerów unijnych opłat antydumpingowych. Pozwoliło to firmom płacić stawki 5,5 % zamiast ceł w wysokości 49 %.

W związku z powyższym chciałbym zadać Komisji następujące pytania:

Dlaczego, mimo informacji przekazanych przez OLAF już w 2010 r., Komisja dopiero w lipcu 2012 r. wszczęła postępowania w sprawie o obejście cła antydumpingowego dla importu krzemu metalicznego z Tajwanu?

Jakie Komisja podjęła działania, aby zwiększyć monitoring prób obejścia ceł antydumpingowych na produkty metalowe sprowadzane na teren Unii Europejskiej z Chin?

Jakie są roczne średnie koszty dla gospodarek państw unijnych oszustw i prób wyłudzenia na cłach antydumpingowych? Proszę o podział na państwa członkowskie.

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji

(25 kwietnia 2013 r.)

Artykuł 13 podstawowego rozporządzenia antydumpingowego stanowi, że dochodzenia w sprawie obejścia środków wszczynane są przez Komisję lub na wniosek państwa członkowskiego lub każdej zainteresowanej strony w przypadkach, gdy wniosek zawiera wystarczające dowody dotyczące czynników wymienionych w art. 13 ust. 1. Komisja może zatem wszczynać dochodzenia zgodnie z art. 13 jedynie, gdy posiada wystarczające dowody w celu spełnienia wymogów określonych w przepisach prawa.

Z chwilą uzyskania wystarczających dowodów prima facie dotyczących przywozu krzemu metalicznego, Komisja wszczęła dochodzenie w sprawie obejścia środków, a przywóz z Tajwanu objęła obowiązkiem rejestracji. Dnia 5 kwietnia 2013 r. cło antydumpingowe, nałożone rozporządzeniem wykonawczym (UE) nr 467/2010 na przywóz krzemu pochodzącego z Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej, rozszerzono na przywóz krzemu wysyłanego z Tajwanu, zgłoszonego lub niezgłoszonego jako pochodzący z Tajwanu.

Komisja została poinformowana, że krzem metaliczny o zgłoszonej wartości przekraczającej 23 000 000 EUR został przywieziony do 12 państw członkowskich w 607 partiach. Łączna wartość nieuiszczonego cła antydumpingowego obejmuje kwotę około 13 900 000 EUR. Komisja została poinformowana, że wszystkie importujące państwa członkowskie wszczęły postępowania w celu odzyskania środków. Mimo iż ze względu na charakter takich praktyk trudno określić łączne straty z tytułu oszustw celnych i obchodzenia cła antydumpingowego, Komisja monitoruje statystyki przywozu w odniesieniu do produktów objętych środkami ochrony handlu przy wsparciu organów celnych państw członkowskich i podejmuje działania w uzasadnionych przypadkach, jak przedstawiono powyżej.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001663/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) and Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Circumvention of customs duties

In 2010 the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) stated, in report No OF/2010/0827, that silicon metal imported from Taiwan in fact originated in China. The goods were imported from Taiwan in order to avoid paying EU safeguard duties. Despite OLAF’s suspicions, the Commission did not at the time initiate proceedings for circumvention of EU anti-dumping duties by import firms. This allowed the companies concerned to pay a rate of 5.5% instead of duties of 49%.

Given the above:

Why, despite the information provided by OLAF back in 2010, did the Commission wait until July 2010 to initiate proceedings for circumvention of anti-dumping duties on the import of silicon metal from Taiwan?

What action has the Commission taken to step up monitoring of attempts to circumvent anti-dumping duties on metal goods imported into the EU from China?

What are the average yearly costs to the economies of EU Member States as a result of fraud and attempts to circumvent anti-dumping duties? Please provide a breakdown by Member State.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2013)

Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation provides that anti-circumvention investigations shall be initiated on the initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State or any interested party on the basis of sufficient evidence regarding the factors set out in Article 13(1). The Commission can therefore only initiate an investigation pursuant to Article 13 when there is enough evidence at its disposal in order to meet the statutory requirements set out in the law.

Once sufficient prima facie evidence was available with respect to imports of silicon metal, the Commission initiated an anti-circumvention investigation and made imports from Taiwan subject to registration. On 5 April 2013, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China were extended to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not.

The Commission has been informed that the silicon metal has been imported into 12 Member States with the reported value in excess of EUR 23 000 000 of 607 consignments. The anti-dumping duties at risk amount to approximately EUR 13 900 000. The Commission has been informed that all importing Member States initiated recovery proceedings. While it is difficult to determine the costs of fraud and circumvention of anti-dumping duties, given the very nature of such practices, the Commission monitors import statistics for products under trade defence measures with the assistance from Member States’ customs administrations and takes action, where justified, as discussed above.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001664/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) oraz Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Sankcje wobec Iranu

W październiku 2012 r. Unia Europejska rozszerzyła zakres swoich sankcji wobec Iranu. Mimo kontynuowania sankcji Iran wciąż pozostaje znacznym sprzedawcą ropy.

1.

Jaka jest podstawa prawna rozszerzenia unijnych sankcji wobec Iranu?

2.

Hiszpania, Portugalia oraz Grecja kupowały znaczne ilości irańskiej ropy. Czy Komisja posiada informacje, jakie straty poniosły wspomniane państwa ze względu na decyzję 2012/35/WPZiB dotyczącą zakazu kupowania ropy z Iranu? Jakie są koszty przystosowania instalacji do przetwarzania ropy do nowego surowca?

3.

Jak Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel ocenia aktualne sankcje wobec Iranu?

4.

Iran sprzedaje swoją ropę do Rosji oraz krajów Środkowo Azjatyckich. Jaka jest pewność, że nie sprzedają one surowca dalej do Europy.

5.

Czy środki finansowe przekazywane do Afganistanu, w ramach Wieloletniego Programu Indykatywnego na lata 2010-2013 na odbudowę kraju służą płaceniu za irańską ropę zgodnie z umową dotyczącą dostaw paliwa zawartą między Teheranem a Kabulem w 2011 r.?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(23 maja 2013 r.)

1.

Podstawą prawną polityki UE w zakresie środków ograniczających, w tym środków ograniczających wobec Iranu, jest TUE, a w szczególności jego art. 29. Środki przyjęte na podstawie art. 29 TUE są wprowadzane do unijnego porządku prawnego rozporządzeniem Rady UE, zgodnie z art. 215 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu UE. Jednym z celów tych środków jest uniemożliwienie Iranowi wykorzystywania dochodów uzyskanych z sektora energetycznego na działalność stwarzającą ryzyko rozprzestrzeniania broni jądrowej.

2.

Komisja nie dysponuje dokładnymi informacjami dotyczącymi ewentualnych strat poniesionych przez Hiszpanię, Portugalię lub Grecję na skutek zakazu kupowania ropy. Rafinerie ropy naftowej są dostosowane do przetwarzania ropy naftowej o szczególnych właściwościach. Przetwarzanie różnych typów ropy naftowej może przynosić rezultaty gorsze od optymalnych oraz zmniejszyć marżę zysku. Konkretne straty zależą od okoliczności.

3.

Zakaz przywozu irańskiej ropy ma znaczący wpływ na dalsze ograniczenie środków finansowych dostępnych Iranowi na rozwój działań stwarzających ryzyko rozprzestrzeniania broni jądrowej.

4.

Rozporządzenie Rady (UE) nr 267/2012 w sprawie środków ograniczających wobec Iranu ustanawia zakaz świadomego i umyślnego uczestnictwa w działaniach, których celem lub skutkiem jest ominięcie zakazu kupowania ropy. W związku z tym podmiotom z UE nie wolno obchodzić zakazu kupowania irańskiej ropy, w tym pozyskiwać jej za pośrednictwem państw trzecich. Główna odpowiedzialność za egzekwowanie sankcji spoczywa na państwach członkowskich.

5.

Środki przyznane Afganistanowi w ramach wieloletniego programu indykatywnego na lata 2010-2013 wykorzystywane są w celu wspierana projektów w zakresie zdrowia, rolnictwa i sprawowania rządów, a ich przekazywanie odbywa się za pośrednictwem funduszy powierniczych zarządzanych przez Bank Światowy i ONZ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001664/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) and Jacek Włosowicz (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Sanctions against Iran

In October 2012, the European Union broadened its sanctions against Iran. Despite the continuing sanctions, Iran remains a significant oil trader.

1.

What is the legal basis for broadening the EU's sanctions against Iran?

2.

Spain, Portugal and Greece were buying significant amounts of Iranian oil. Does the Commission have any information about the losses incurred to these countries as a result of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP banning the purchase of oil from Iran? What are the costs of converting oil processing facilities to a new raw material?

3.

How does the Vice-President/High Representative assess the current sanctions against Iran?

4.

Iran sells its oil to Russia and the countries of central Asia. What assurances are there that these countries do not then sell the oil to Europe?

5.

Are the funds provided to Afghanistan as part of the Multiannual Indicative Programme 2010-2013 for the reconstruction of the country used to pay for Iranian oil, bought in accordance with the fuel supply contract concluded between Tehran and Kabul in 2011?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2013)

1.

The legal basis for the EU’s restrictive measures policies, including regarding restrictive measures against Iran, is the TEU and in particular Article 29 thereof. The measures decided under Article 29 TEU are enacted in the Union legal order by a EU Council Regulation based on Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. One of the objectives of the measures is to prevent Iran from using revenues derived from its energy sector to fund its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.

2.

The Commission does not dispose of precise information regarding possible losses incurred by Spain, Portugal or Greece as a result of the oil ban. Crude oil refineries are calibrated to process crude oil with particular characteristics. Processing different crude oils would generally produce sub-optimal results, and could reduce profit margins. The precise losses would depend on the circumstances.

3.

The ban on import of Iranian oil is having a significant effect in further restricting the financial resources available to Iran to develop its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activites.

4.

Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran provides that it is prohibited to participate, knowlingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the oil ban. EU operators are therefore under an obligation not to circumvent the Iranian oil ban, including by obtaining it via third countries. The primary responsibility for enforcement of sanctions rests with the MS'.

5.

Funds provided to Afghanistan in the framework of the Multiannual Indicative Programme 2010-2013 are used to support health, agriculture and governance projects through trust funds administered by the World Bank and the UN.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001665/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Zmiany w ukraińskim prawie referendalnym

27 listopada prezydent Ukrainy Wiktor Janukowycz podpisał ustawę o referendum powszechnym, która umożliwia stanowienie prawa bez udziału parlamentu. Istotnie zmienia ona ustrój konstytucyjny Ukrainy, ograniczając rolę parlamentu na rzecz władzy wykonawczej. Ukraińska opozycja wskazuje, że partie polityczne pozbawione zostały wpływu na organizację referendów oraz, że głównym powodem jej uchwalenia jest zamiar wprowadzenia wyboru prezydenta przez parlament zamiast głosowania powszechnego.

1.

Jak Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel ocenia nową ustawę o referendum przyjętą na Ukrainie?

2.

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel podziela obawy opozycji ukraińskiej dotyczące jej niedemokratycznego charakteru?

3.

Jak Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel ocenia zmiany w ukraińskim prawie, w kontekście ewentualnych starań Ukrainy o przyjęcie do Wspólnoty Europejskiej?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(24 kwietnia 2013 r.)

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca jest świadoma, że przyjęcie ustawy o referendum przez ustępujący parlament ukraiński wywołało reakcje społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i przedstawicieli opozycji wskazujących, że przepisy te są niezgodne z konstytucją Ukrainy.

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wspiera ścisły dialog pomiędzy władzami Ukrainy a ekspertami Komisji Weneckiej/Radą Europy w celu wyjaśnienia kwestii zgodności ze standardami europejskimi. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca podkreślała także wielokrotnie potrzebę zapewnienia uczestnictwa i przejrzystości w przypadku tego typu inicjatyw ustawodawczych, którym powinna towarzyszyć szeroka debata publiczna odzwierciedlająca poglądy ogółu obywateli ukraińskich. Owe inicjatywy muszą być również w pełni zgodne z obowiązującymi procedurami. Reforma konstytucji Ukrainy powinna przebiegać zgodnie z mechanizmem ustanowionym przez obowiązującą konstytucję.

Konkluzje w sprawie Ukrainy przyjęte przez Radę do Spraw Zagranicznych 10 grudnia 2012 r. (107) wyznaczają ogólny kierunek polityki UE wobec Ukrainy. Tempo zaangażowania UE zależeć będzie od osiąganych przez Ukrainę postępów, między innymi w zakresie wdrażania programu stowarzyszeniowego zgodnie z międzynarodowymi standardami.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001665/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Changes to Ukraine's referendum law

On 27 November 2012 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych signed a referendum law which will pave the way for lawmaking without the involvement of parliament. This major change to Ukraine’s constitutional system reduces parliament’s power to the benefit of the government. The opposition in Ukraine has pointed out that political parties have been deprived of their influence when it comes to referenda, and that the law was adopted principally with the aim of making it possible for the president to the elected by the parliament, rather than via a general election.

1.

What view does the Vice-President/High Representative take of Ukraine’s new referendum law?

2.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative share the Ukrainian opposition’s concern that the law is undemocratic?

3.

How does the Vice-President/High Representative assess these changes to Ukrainian law in the context of any aspirations Ukraine may have to join the European Union?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The HR/VP is aware that the adoption of the law on referenda by the outgoing parliament of Ukraine has led to reactions from the civil society and representatives of the opposition pointing to provisions that are in contradiction with the Constitution of Ukraine.

The HR/VP has encouraged a close dialogue between the Ukrainian administration and experts of the Venice Commission/Council of Europe to clarify issues of compatibility with European standards. The HR/VP has also expressed repeatedly the need to ensure inclusiveness and transparency over such legislative initiatives, which should benefit from broad public debates, thus reflecting the views of the Ukrainian society at large. They also need to be in full compliance of required procedures. The reform of the Constitution of Ukraine needs to take place according to the mechanism established by the Constitution in place.

The Conclusions on Ukraine adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council of 10 December 2012 (108) provide for the overall EU policy towards Ukraine. Ukraine’s performance, including in respect of implementing the Association Agenda through reforms in line with international standards, will determine the pace of the EU’s engagement.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001666/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Metale ziem rzadkich

Materiały ziem rzadkich mają decydujące znaczenie dla setek rozwiązań technologicznych. Tym samym są one niezbędnym elementem dalszego postępu technologicznego i zwiększenia innowacyjności Unii Europejskiej. Ich powszechne użycie wpływa na zwiększenie popytu, przy jednoczesnym braku możliwości zwiększenia wydobycia.

Obecnie wydobywa się na świecie 124 tysiące ton tych metali rocznie, a do 2012 r. zapotrzebowanie wzrośnie aż o 50 %. Około 97 % światowego wydobycia pochodzi z Chin i jest to fakt niezwykle istotny, gdyż od 2006 r. Chiny zmniejszają wydobycie oraz eksport, wymagając na firmach przenoszenie części produkcji do Azji.

1.

Czy Komisja zamierza wejść w spór z Chinami na płaszczyźnie WTO, podobnie jak zrobiły to Stany Zjednoczone?

2.

O ile, według szacunków Komisji, wzrosły ceny podzespołów wykorzystywanych między innymi w fotowoltaice ze względu na zmniejszenie importu metali ziem rzadkich?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza De Guchta w imieniu Komisji

(26 kwietnia 2013 r.)

W dniu 13 marca 2012 r. Unia Europejska wraz z Japonią i Stanami Zjednoczonymi wystąpiła o konsultacje z Chinami na forum Światowej Organizacji Handlu (WTO) w sprawie chińskich ograniczeń wywozowych w odniesieniu do metali ziem rzadkich, wolframu i molibdenu. Mimo tych formalnych konsultacji, które odbyły się w Genewie w dniach 25‐26 kwietnia 2012 r., i orzeczenia WTO w sprawie podobnych środków wydanego w dniu 30 stycznia 2012 r., Chiny nie wycofały przedmiotowych ograniczeń. Dlatego w dniu 27 czerwca 2012 r. Unia Europejska (ponownie wraz z Japonią i Stanami Zjednoczonymi) wystąpiła o powołanie zespołu orzekającego WTO do rozstrzygnięcia tego sporu. Obecnie trwa postępowanie w sprawie rozstrzygnięcia tego sporu. Oczekuje się, że w grudniu 2013 r. komisja ta opublikuje sprawozdanie w tej sprawie.

Zasadniczo stopień wzrostu cen dla branż przemysłu wykorzystujących metale ziem rzadkich zależy od ich pozycji w łańcuchu wartości, lokalizacji, stosowanych technologii i warunków rynkowych (tj. zdolności przedsiębiorstw do przeniesienia kosztów na konsumentów oraz realizowanej marży zysku). W niektórych przypadkach, w dolnych ogniwach łańcucha wartości, niewielkie ilości metali ziem rzadkich wykorzystywane w produktach przeznaczonych dla konsumenta końcowego (np. w małym silniku w samochodzie, mechanizmie dysku twardego, wyświetlaczu telefonu komórkowego) wywołają jedynie niewielki wzrost kosztu produktu końcowego w ujęciu bezwzględnym (o kilka procent lub mniej niż jeden procent). W innych przypadkach, na wcześniejszych etapach łańcucha produkcji, takie koszty dla przedsiębiorstw mogą być znaczne, gdyż udział metali ziem rzadkich w zastosowaniach przemysłowych tych przedsiębiorstw może być wysoki (np. 50 % lub więcej) – np. w produkcji magnesów stałych, proszków fosforyzujących lub katalizatorów.

W każdym razie Komisja śledzi uważnie tę kwestię i do lata uruchomi Europejską sieć kompetencji dotyczących pierwiastków ziem rzadkich (ERECON), która będzie skupiać ekspertów z UE i z państw trzecich w celu intensyfikacji wymiany najlepszych praktyk, zwiększenia świadomości na temat właściwości metali ziem rzadkich, formułowania zaleceń dotyczących badań naukowych oraz wspierania zrównoważonego wydobycia, recyklingu i substytucji metali ziem rzadkich.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001666/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Rare earth metals

Rare earth materials are critical to hundreds of technological solutions. They are therefore essential to continued technological progress and greater innovation in the European Union. The fact that they are used so widely means that demand has increased, while opportunities for increasing the amounts extracted are diminishing.

At present, 124 000 tonnes of rare earth elements are extracted annually worldwide, and demand for them will grow by as much as 50% by 2012. Around 97% of global supply is extracted in China, which is crucially important as China has been reducing extraction and exports since 2006, requiring companies to transfer part of their production to Asia.

1.

Does the Commission intend to initiate dispute proceedings against China at the WTO, as the USA has done?

2.

By how much does the Commission estimate that prices of the components used in, for example, photovoltaics have risen due to reduced imports of rare earth metals?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2013)

On 13 March 2012, the European Union together with Japan and the United States requested consultations with China at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) concerning China's export restrictions on rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum. Despite these formal consultations, which took place in Geneva on 25 and 26 April 2012, and a WTO ruling on similar measures of 30 January 2012, China had not removed the restrictions at issue. Therefore on 27 June 2012, the European Union (again with Japan and the United States) requested the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Currently the dispute proceedings are ongoing. A report of the panel in the matter can be expected in December 2013.

Generally, the level of price increases for the industries using rare earths elements depends on where they stand in the value chain, their location, the technologies used and market conditions (i.e. the ability of firms to pass on costs to consumers and the profit margins they work with). In some cases, in downstream parts of the value chain, the small amount of rare earths used in the final consumer product (e.g. the small motor in a car, the mechanism of a hard drive, the screen of a mobile phone) will trigger only a small absolute increase in the cost of the end product (a few % or even <1%). In other cases, at more intermediary stages of the production chain, such cost for companies can be significant, as the share of rare earths used in their industrial applications, yet not end-products, can be important (e.g. 50% or more) — e.g. in the production of permanent magnets, phosphor powders or catalysers.

In any case the Commission is looking at this issue closely, and will launch before the summer a network called European Rare-Earth Competency Network (ERECON), that should bring together experts from the EU and outside to advance exchange of best-practice, increase the understanding of the special properties of rare earths, make recommendations on research and promote the sustainable mining, recyclability and substitution of earths.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001667/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Cyberbezpieczeństwo w UE

W 2007 r. Estonia stała się celem dla rosyjskich hakerów, w wyniku ich ataku Tallin wprowadził strategię obrony oraz wojny internetowej. Podobne programy posiadają jeszcze USA, Chiny oraz Izrael. Kilka kolejnych krajów, między innymi Iran, Japonia oraz Indie, pracuje nad swoimi wersjami. Wprowadzane strategie zakładają miedzy innymi wykorzystanie wirusów. Każdego dnia w sieci krąży ich około 150 tys. i codziennie zagrożonych zostaje 148 tys. komputerów. Na całym świecie powodują one roczne straty w wysokości około 290 mld rocznie. W samej Europie kwestie bezpieczeństwa internetowego stają się ważnym czynnikiem gospodarczym. Zarazem badanie Eurobarometru z 2012 r. wykazało, że 38 proc. internautów zmieniło swoje zachowania ze względu na kwestie bezpieczeństwa; 18 proc. jest mniej skłonnych do robienia zakupów przez Internet, a 15 proc. mniej chętnie korzysta z usług bankowości internetowej.

1.

Jak Komisja ocenia aktualne niebezpieczeństwo cyberkonfliktu na skalę europejską oraz przygotowanie państw członkowskich do ewentualnych ataków hakerskich?

2.

Czy Komisja planuje przygotowanie wytycznych dla państw wspólnotowych w celu lepszej koordynacji polityki bezpieczeństwa sieci?

3.

Jakie priorytety konieczne do zwiększenia europejskiego bezpieczeństwa sieci zauważa Komisja?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącą Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji

(9 kwietnia 2013 r.)

Komisja zauważa rosnącą liczbę zagrożeń w cyberprzestrzeni oraz wyraźne braki w przygotowaniu poszczególnych państw członkowskich i niedostateczną współpracę między nimi. W dniu 7 lutego Komisja przedstawiła komunikat w sprawie unijnej strategii w zakresie cyberbezpieczeństwa (JOIN 21013(1)). Celem tej strategii jest przede wszystkim osiągnięcie wysokiego poziomu odporności na zagrożenia w cyberprzestrzeni poprzez (i) zwiększanie zdolności i gotowości, rozwijanie współpracy, zwiększanie wymiany informacji i podnoszenie świadomości na szczeblu krajowym i unijnym, zwłaszcza w oparciu o działania przewidziane we wniosku Komisji dotyczącym dyrektywy w sprawie bezpieczeństwa sieci i informacji (COM(2013) 48); (ii) znaczne ograniczenie cyberprzestępczości; (iii) opracowanie unijnej polityki obrony przed zagrożeniami w cyberprzestrzeni; (iv) wspieranie rozwoju zasobów przemysłowych i technologicznych, które są konieczne, aby można było czerpać korzyści z jednolitego rynku cyfrowego, oraz zwiększenie wydatków na działalność badawczo-rozwojową w obszarze cyberbezpieczeństwa oraz (v) wzmocnienie międzynarodowej polityki UE w zakresie cyberprzestrzeni oraz wspieranie państw trzecich – poprzez budowę potencjału w obszarze cyberbezpieczeństwa – w działaniach służących zwiększaniu odporności infrastruktury informatycznej na świecie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001667/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Cyber security in the EU

In 2007 Estonia was targeted by Russian hackers, prompting Tallinn to introduce a strategy for Internet defence, or war. The USA, China and Israel have similar programmes. A number of other countries, including Iran, Japan and India, are working to develop their own versions. These strategies include the use of viruses. At any given time, an estimated 150 000 viruses are circulating across the Internet, and 148 000 computers are compromised every day. Worldwide they cause annual losses of around 290 billion. In Europe the issue of Internet security is becoming a major economic factor. At the same, a 2012 Eurobarometer survey found that 38% of Internet users have changed their behaviour because of security concerns; 18% are less likely to buy goods online and 15 are less likely to bank online.

1.

How does the Commission assess current security in relation to cyber conflict in Europe and the Member States’ preparations for potential attacks by hackers?

2.

Is the Commission planning to draw up guidelines for Member States with a view to improving coordination of Internet security policy?

3.

What does the Commission see as the essential priorities for increasing European Internet security?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The Commission considers that cyber threats are increasing and that there are clear gaps in Member States' preparedness and cooperation. On 7 February the Commission has presented a communication on an EU Cybersecurity strategy (JOIN 21013(1)). The EU Cybersecurity Strategy aims in particular at reaching a high level of cyber resilience, by (i) increasing capabilities, preparedness, cooperation, information exchange and awareness at the national and EU level, in particular through a Commission's proposal for a directive on network and information security (COM(2013) 48); (ii) drastically reducing cybercrime; (iii) developing an EU Cyber Defence Policy; (iv) fostering the industrial and technological resources required to benefit from the Digital Single Market and increasing spending on cybersecurity Research and Development; and (iv) enhancing the EU's international cyberspace policy, and assisting third countries, through cybersecurity capacity building, in strengthening the resilience of information infrastructure globally.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001668/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Optymalizacja zatrudnienia w Europejskiej Służbie Działań Zewnętrznych

Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych miała zatrudniać swoich pracowników wobec elastycznie ujętej zasady poszanowania równości narodowej oraz płci. Tymczasem w danych przedstawionych przez Komitet Konsultacyjny Komisji ds. Mianowania ESDZ zawartych w raporcie podsumowującym stan zatrudnienia wyraźnie widać dysproporcje w zatrudnieniu osób z poszczególnych państw członkowskich. Zgodnie z indeksem Kinnocka Polska powinna mieć około 8 % wszystkich zatrudnionych pracowników, tymczasem jest ich tylko 3 %. Spośród 152 ambasadorów tylko 4 jest Polakami.

1.

Jakie kroki zamierza podjąć Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel, aby maksymalnie zrównoważyć statystki zatrudnienia względem poszczególnych państw członkowskich?

2.

Kiedy nastąpi rewizja założeń zatrudnienia oraz przyjmowania nowych pracowników, szczególnie na stanowiskach ambasadorskich?

3.

Parlament wielokrotnie wzywał Europejską Służbę Działań Zewnętrznych do lepszej optymalizacji zatrudnienia celem zmniejszenia kosztów jej działania. Jakie działania podjęła Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel, aby zmniejszyć koszty i zwiększyć efektywność działań podległych jej służb?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(16 kwietnia 2013 r.)

1.

Rekrutacja do ESDZ odbywa się zgodnie z procedurą, której podstawą są

„kompetencje, a celem – zagwarantowanie usług personelu o najwyższym stopniu zdolności, skuteczności i uczciwości, przy jednoczesnym zapewnieniu odpowiedniej równowagi geograficznej i równowagi płci oraz zatrudnienia w ESDZ znaczącej liczby obywateli z wszystkich państw członkowskich” (art. 6 ust. 8 decyzji Rady nr 427/2010). W związku z tym Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji jasno stwierdziła, iż główną podstawą doboru personelu są kompetencje, i w dalszym ciągu zachęca ona kandydatów posiadających kwalifikacje, w szczególności tych, których państwa mogą być reprezentowane w niewystarczającym stopniu, do składania swoich kandydatur na stanowiska w ESDZ. Jak stwierdzono w sprawozdaniu za 2012 r. dotyczącym zatrudnienia w ESDZ, 4,1 % personelu ESDZ na poziomie AD posiada polskie obywatelstwo. Czterech ze 126 szefów delegatur UE posiada polskie obywatelstwo, a trzech z nich zostało zatrudnionych po formalnym utworzeniu ESDZ w styczniu 2011 r.

2.

Nadal trwa rotacja stanowisk w delegaturach UE w 2013 r. (w tym stanowisk szefa delegatury/ambasadorów); rozpoczęto już ogłaszanie nazwisk najlepszych kandydatów wybranych na stanowiska ambasadorów i zasadniczo przyjmuje się, że mianowane osoby obejmą te stanowiska w dniu 1 września 2013 r., z zastrzeżeniem zgody zaangażowanych państw trzecich.

W zależności od postępu w kwestii docelowej jednej trzeciej liczby dyplomatów krajowych, ESDZ zamierza dostosować swoje procedury rekrutacji w celu realizacji bardziej zoptymalizowanej polityki kadrowej uwzględniającej perspektywy zawodowe urzędników i wkład w funkcjonowanie ESDZ pracowników zatrudnionych na czas określony.

3.

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca bardzo poważnie traktuje potrzebę zagwarantowania, by ESDZ, w tym procedury rekrutacyjne, były zorganizowane w najbardziej opłacalny sposób. Koszty związane z posiedzeniami paneli będzie można zmniejszyć, kiedy ustabilizuje się liczba pracowników ESDZ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001668/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Optimising recruitment to the European External Action Service

Recruitment to the European External Action Service (EEAS) was supposed to take place in line with a flexibly applied principle of nationality and gender balance. However, details provided by the Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments to the EEAS in a report on the state of play with regard to recruitment clearly shows that there is not a balance when it comes to the recruitment of officials from the individual Member States. In line with the Kinnock index, 8% of all officials recruited should be from Poland, but the current figure is just 3%. Only 4 of the 152 ambassadors are Poles.

1.

What steps does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take to balance out the recruitment figures as much as possible for the individual Member States?

2.

When will there be a review of the guidelines for recruitment, and when will new staff be taken on, particularly to fill ambassador posts?

3.

Parliament has, on a number of occasions, called on the EEAS to improve recruitment processes in order to cut operational costs. What action has the Vice-President/High Representative taken to cut costs and enhance efficiency in the activities of the service for which she is responsible?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2013)

1.

Recruitment to the EEAS is made on the basis of

‘merit, with the objective of securing the services of staff of the highest standards of ability, efficiency and integrity, while ensuring adequate geographical and gender balance, and a meaningful presence of nationals from all Member States, ’ (Article 6(8), Council Decision 427/2010). Accordingly, the HR/VP has made clear that the primary basis for the selection of staff is merit, and continues to encourage qualified applicants, particularly of those nationalities who may be under-represented, to put themselves forward for posts in the EEAS. As set out in the 2012 EEAS Staffing Report, 4.1% of staff at AD level in the EEAS are of Polish nationality. 4 of the 126 Heads of EU Delegations are of Polish nationality, and 3 of those individuals have been recruited in the period since the formal establishment of the EEAS in January 2011.

2.

The 2013 rotation of posts in the EU Delegations (including Head of Delegation/Ambassadorial posts) is ongoing; announcements of the successful applicants for these latter positions have begun and in general the appointees are expected to take up their posts on 1 September 2013, subject to the agreement of the third countries involved.

Subject to progress made on the one third target of national diplomats, the EEAS intends to adapt its recruitment procedures to reflect a more refined personnel policy combining career perspectives of officials and the contribution of temporary agents to the EEAS.

3.

The HR/VP takes seriously the need to ensure that the EEAS, including its recruitment procedures, is organised in the most cost-efficient way possible. The costs associated with the holding of panels could be decreased once the EEAS population is stabilised.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001669/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Wzrost napięcia na granicy kirgisko-uzbeckiej

6 stycznia na granicy Sochu, enklawy Uzbekistanu na terytorium Kirgistanu, doszło do poważnego incydentu granicznego – ludność uzbeckiej miejscowości Chuszar zaatakowała nowo wybudowaną kirgiską strażnicę graniczną, a następnie wkroczyła na terytorium Kirgistanu. W rezultacie zajść ponad 34 Kirgizów zamieszkujących pobliską wioskę zostało uprowadzonych i uwięzionych w Sochu. Po negocjacjach między państwami 7 stycznia zakładnicy zostali uwolnieni. Sytuacja pozostaje jednak nadal napięta, a obydwie strony oskarżają się nawzajem o spowodowanie incydentu.

1.

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel wie o incydencie oraz towarzyszącym mu wzroście napięcia w obustronnych relacjach miedzy Uzbekistanem a Kirgistanem?

2.

Jakie działania podejmuje Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych, aby doprowadzić do trwałego porozumienia pokojowego pomiędzy oboma państwami?

3.

Czy mniejszość uzbecka w Kirgistanie otrzymuje pomoc humanitarną z Unii Europejskiej?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(16 kwietnia 2013 r.)

Unia Europejska jest zaniepokojona doniesieniami o incydentach na granicy kirgisko-uzbeckiej. UE podtrzymuje swoje zaangażowanie w szerzenie pokoju w tym regionie oraz usprawnia prowadzenie współpracy regionalnej w ramach strategii UE wobec Azji Środkowej, prowadząc dwustronne i wielostronne dialogi polityczne z państwami Azji Środkowej oraz realizując konkretne programy współpracy, zwłaszcza Program zarządzania granicami w Azji Środkowej.

Od początku kryzysu w Kirgistanie, tj. od czerwca 2010 r., UE wspiera działania na rzecz stabilizacji między grupami etnicznymi. Unia Europejska przekazuje pomoc humanitarną na rzecz ofiar starć na tle etnicznym, z której to pomocy finansowana jest dystrybucja żywności i pomocy rzeczowej, zapewnione jest schronienie, ochrona i zaopatrzenie w wodę. Ponadto w ramach Instrumentu na rzecz Stabilności uruchomiono środki reagowania na sytuacje kryzysowe. Takie środki służą odbudowie, pojednaniu oraz ustanawianiu demokratycznych ram konstytucyjnych, a w szczególności mają na celu wspieranie rządu w wykonywaniu zaleceń sformułowanych w międzynarodowych i wewnętrznych raportach dotyczących starć na tle etnicznym w 2010 r., a także zwiększenie szans na budowanie wzajemnego zaufania oraz udzielanie wsparcia rządom zaangażowanym w proces demarkacyjny. UE wspiera ponadto inicjatywę na rzecz wspólnoty bezpieczeństwa Organizacji Bezpieczeństwa i Współpracy w Europie (OBWE), której celem jest ochrona praw człowieka, zapobieganie konfliktom oraz system wczesnego ostrzegania. W ramach instrumentu finansowania współpracy na rzecz rozwoju UE wspiera działania Kirgistanu w latach 2011-2013 zmierzające do ustanowienia nowoczesnego systemu ochrony socjalnej, który zakłada niesienie pomocy osobom najbardziej potrzebującym, w tym członkom społeczności etnicznych.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001669/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Heightened tension on the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border

On 6 January, a major border incident took place on the frontier of Sokh, an Uzbek exclave in Kyrgyzstan. People from the Uzbek village of Hushar attacked a newly built Kyrgyz border watchtower and then entered Kyrgyz territory. As a consequence of this incident, 34 Kyrgyz residents from a nearby village were captured and imprisoned in Sokh. On 7 January, following negotiations between the two countries, the hostages were released. However, the situation remains tense and both sides are accusing one another of having incited the incident.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this incident and of the increasing tension in bilateral relations between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan?

2.

What action is the European External Action Service taking to bring about a sustainable peace agreement between the two countries?

3.

Does the Uzbek minority in Kyrgyzstan receive humanitarian aid from the European Union?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2013)

The EU is concerned about reports of incidents at the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border. The EU remains committed to promoting regional peace and has been facilitating regional cooperation under the EU Strategy for Central Asia, through bilateral and multilateral political dialogue with Central Asian countries and specific cooperation programmes, in particular Border Management in Central Asia.

Following the June 2010 crisis in Kyrgyzstan, the EU has remained engaged in supporting inter-ethnic stabilisation. The EU has provided humanitarian assistance to the victims of the inter-ethnic clashes to finance food and non-food items' distribution, shelter, protection and water sanitation activities. Besides, crisis-response measures were activated through the Instrument for Stability (IfS). Such measures aimed at reconstruction, reconciliation and the establishment of a democratic constitutional framework, notably with a view to assisting the Government to follow up on the recommendations from international and internal reports on the 2010 inter-ethnic clashes, increasing confidence-building opportunities and assisting the governments with the border demarcation process. The EU has also been supporting the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Community Security Initiative aimed at human rights protection, conflict prevention and early warning system. Under the Development Cooperation Instrument, the EU is supporting Kyrgyzstan in 2011-2013 on setting up a modern social protection system refocusing assistance towards those most in need, including members of ethnic communities.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001670/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Łamanie zasady konkurencyjności poprzez dotowanie energii wiatrowej

Jak wyliczają amerykańscy eksperci energia produkowana przez turbiny musi być subsydiowana i kupowana przez państwowe agencje, ponieważ przegrywa z konkurencją. Jednostka energii pochodzącej z takiego źródła jest dla podatnika droższa co najmniej 12 razy (ze względu na subsydia) niż energia pochodząca ze źródeł kopalnych, takich jak ropa, węgiel czy gaz i 6,5 razy droższa od energii nuklearnej.

1.

Ile kosztuje wytwarzanie energii wiatrowej w Europie i jakie są zdaniem Komisji różnice w cenach produkcji pomiędzy energią wiatrową a innymi źródłami energii?

2.

Czy dotowanie przez państwo energii wiatrowej nie jest sprzeczne z zasadą konkurencyjności?

3.

Czy dotowanie produkcji na przykład przez Niemcy nie zaburza cen prądu elektrycznego w sąsiednich państwach powodujący tym samym przeciążenie sieci oraz nieopłacalność produkcji?

4.

Czy Komisja zamierza ustanowić wspólne zasady dotowania energii produkowanej dla wszystkich państw wspólnoty europejskiej?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Günthera Oettingera w imieniu Komisji

(12 kwietnia 2013 r.)

1)

Według dostępnych danych koszty wytwarzania elektryczności z energii wiatrowej są mniej więcej na takim samym poziomie, jak w przypadku energii wytwarzanej w tradycyjnych elektrowniach. Porównanie uśrednionych kosztów wytwarzania energii elektrycznej dla różnych technologii wykonane przez MAE w 2010 r. pokazało, że energia wiatrowa jest nieco droższa niż energia wytwarzana z węgla i gazu

1)

Według dostępnych danych koszty wytwarzania elektryczności z energii wiatrowej są mniej więcej na takim samym poziomie, jak w przypadku energii wytwarzanej w tradycyjnych elektrowniach. Porównanie uśrednionych kosztów wytwarzania energii elektrycznej dla różnych technologii wykonane przez MAE w 2010 r. pokazało, że energia wiatrowa jest nieco droższa niż energia wytwarzana z węgla i gazu

 (109). Jednakże koszty wytwarzania energii wiatrowej spadły od tego czasu (110).

2)

W dyrektywie 2009/28/WE

2)

W dyrektywie 2009/28/WE

 (111) określono wiążące cele dla państw członkowskich dotyczące udziału energii ze źródeł odnawialnych i zobowiązano je do wprowadzenia środków zmierzających do realizacji tych celów. Uważa się, że w celu usunięcia nieprawidłowości w funkcjonowaniu rynku należy wprowadzić programy wsparcia. Ponadto zakładając, że wsparcie stanowi pomoc państwa, można je uznać za zgodne z TFUE, o ile spełniono warunki określone w wytycznych w sprawie pomocy państwa na ochronę środowiska (EAG) (112) lub w przepisach dotyczących środowiska określonych w rozporządzeniu w sprawie wyłączeń blokowych (GBER) (113).

3)

Dostępność w Niemczech energii elektrycznej produkowanej po niskich kosztach krańcowych, np. przy użyciu energii wiatrowej, powoduje obniżenie cen hurtowych. W zakresie, w jakim ceny są ze sobą skorelowane z powodu handlu transgranicznego, skutek ten znajdzie również odbicie w niższych cenach hurtowych na sąsiednich rynkach. Jeśli chodzi o sieci, zmiana struktury wytwarzania w Niemczech

3)

Dostępność w Niemczech energii elektrycznej produkowanej po niskich kosztach krańcowych, np. przy użyciu energii wiatrowej, powoduje obniżenie cen hurtowych. W zakresie, w jakim ceny są ze sobą skorelowane z powodu handlu transgranicznego, skutek ten znajdzie również odbicie w niższych cenach hurtowych na sąsiednich rynkach. Jeśli chodzi o sieci, zmiana struktury wytwarzania w Niemczech

 (114) w niektórych przypadkach doprowadziła do zwiększenia nieplanowanych przepływów w ramach sieci państw sąsiadujących. Problem ten należy rozwiązać głównie poprzez wzmocnienie łączy przesyłowych na terytorium Niemiec.

4)

Wspólne przepisy dotyczące wsparcia dla produkcji energii odnawialnej znajdują się w wytycznych w sprawie pomocy państwa na ochronę środowiska (EAG) oraz w przepisach dotyczących środowiska określonych w rozporządzeniu w sprawie wyłączeń blokowych (GBER). Do obu instrumentów wprowadzane są obecnie zmiany. Ponadto Komisja zapowiedziała, że przedstawi wytyczne dla państw członkowskich dotyczące systemów wsparcia dla energii ze źródeł odnawialnych oraz środków mających na celu zagwarantowanie wystarczalności mocy wytwórczych

4)

Wspólne przepisy dotyczące wsparcia dla produkcji energii odnawialnej znajdują się w wytycznych w sprawie pomocy państwa na ochronę środowiska (EAG) oraz w przepisach dotyczących środowiska określonych w rozporządzeniu w sprawie wyłączeń blokowych (GBER). Do obu instrumentów wprowadzane są obecnie zmiany. Ponadto Komisja zapowiedziała, że przedstawi wytyczne dla państw członkowskich dotyczące systemów wsparcia dla energii ze źródeł odnawialnych oraz środków mających na celu zagwarantowanie wystarczalności mocy wytwórczych

 (115).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001670/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Wind energy subsidies in violation of competition principles

According to calculations made by US experts, the energy produced by wind turbines has to be subsidised and bought up by state agencies because it is uncompetitive. A unit of energy from this source is at least 12 times more expensive for the taxpayer (taking into account the subsidies) than energy derived from fossil fuels, such as oil, coal or gas, and 6.5 times more expensive than nuclear energy.

1.

What is the cost of wind energy production in Europe and what, according to the Commission, are the price differences between the production of energy from wind and from other sources?

2.

Is it not the case that state subsidies for wind energy are anti-competitive?

3.

Will the subsidising of production by, for example, Germany, not affect electricity prices in neighbouring countries, resulting in network congestion and uneconomic production?

4.

Does the Commission intend to establish common rules on subsidies for energy production for all EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

1.

Available evidence suggests that the costs of electricity generation for onshore wind are roughly in the same range as for conventional power plants. A comparison of levelised costs of electricity for different technologies done by the IEA in 2010 puts onshore wind still somewhat higher than coal and gas

1.

Available evidence suggests that the costs of electricity generation for onshore wind are roughly in the same range as for conventional power plants. A comparison of levelised costs of electricity for different technologies done by the IEA in 2010 puts onshore wind still somewhat higher than coal and gas

 (116). However, costs of onshore wind have further fallen since then. (117)

2.

Directive 2009/28/EC

2.

Directive 2009/28/EC

 (118) sets binding targets for Member States for the share of renewable energy and obliges them to introduce measures designed to achieve those targets. Support schemes are considered necessary to correct a number of market failures. Moreover, if it constitutes state aid, support can be found to be compatible with the TFEU if it respects a number of conditions laid down in the Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection (EAG) (119) or the environmental provisions of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) (120).

3.

The availability in Germany of electricity produced at low marginal costs such as wind has the effect of lowering wholesale prices. To the extent that prices are correlated because of cross-border trade, this effect will also be reflected in lower wholesale prices in neighbouring markets. Regarding networks, the change in the generation structure in Germany

3.

The availability in Germany of electricity produced at low marginal costs such as wind has the effect of lowering wholesale prices. To the extent that prices are correlated because of cross-border trade, this effect will also be reflected in lower wholesale prices in neighbouring markets. Regarding networks, the change in the generation structure in Germany

 (121) has in certain cases led to an increase in unscheduled flows in the network of neighbouring countries. This should mainly be addressed by reinforcing transmission links within Germany.

4.

Common rules on support to renewable energy production exist in the EAG and the GBER. Both are currently under revision. The Commission has moreover announced that it will come forward with guidance for Member States on support schemes for renewable energy and on measures to ensure generation adequacy

4.

Common rules on support to renewable energy production exist in the EAG and the GBER. Both are currently under revision. The Commission has moreover announced that it will come forward with guidance for Member States on support schemes for renewable energy and on measures to ensure generation adequacy

 (122).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001671/13

ao Conselho

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) e João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Relatório voos CIA

Segundo um relatório divulgado pela organização Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), mais de 50 países, entre os quais Portugal, deram cobertura ao programa secreto de transferência extrajudicial de prisioneiros suspeitos de terrorismo em voos da CIA, lançado pela Administração Bush após os atentados de 11 de setembro de 2001.

O relatório vem sublinhar o que há muito vimos denunciando, ou seja, que as operações secretas consistiam no rapto, transporte e tortura de indivíduos suspeitos de terrorismo em centros de detenção clandestinos, contando com a colaboração de vários Governos europeus — caso do Reino Unido, Alemanha, Suécia — e de aliados americanos em África e no Médio Oriente.

No relatório desta organização, são mencionados os casos de 136 prisioneiros que foram submetidos a interrogatórios no âmbito do programa. No total, são identificados 54 países que ora albergaram centros de detenção clandestinos, ora colaboraram com a passagem de voos secretos para a chamada «rendição extraordinária» de suspeitos de terrorismo.

Segundo o documento da OSJI, «as detenções em centros clandestinos e as operações de transferência secreta de prisioneiros não poderiam ter sido implementadas sem a participação ativa dos Governos estrangeiros, que [para além dos EUA] também devem ser responsabilizados», o que vem demonstrar uma vez mais a conivência e a cumplicidade de vários governos europeus neste processo.

Assim, pergunta-se ao Conselho:

Que avaliação faz deste relatório e da reiterada denúncia da existência de uma rede de sequestro, transporte e tortura de prisioneiros envolvendo os EUA, vários países da UE e países terceiros?

Que explicações pretende exigir à Administração dos EUA?

Resposta

(17 de junho de 2013)

O Conselho declarou, em diversas ocasiões, que a luta contra o terrorismo deve ser conduzida em plena conformidade com o direito internacional, incluindo o direito em matéria de direitos humanos, o direito aplicável aos refugiados e o direito humanitário internacional, e que a existência de centros de detenção secretos, nos quais os reclusos são mantidos num vazio jurídico, não está em conformidade com o direito internacional. Há um diálogo regular entre os conselheiros jurídicos da UE e dos EUA sobre os aspetos do direito internacional da luta contra o terrorismo, no âmbito do qual são discutidas matérias tais como a prisão, a detenção, o interrogatório e a transferência dos suspeitos de terrorismo. Nesse diálogo, a UE realça a importância de respeitar o direito internacional e os direitos humanos, mas não aborda as atividades específicas dos serviços de informação.

A UE congratulou-se com a determinação dos Estados Unidos da América em encerrar o centro de detenção da Baía de Guantânamo, juntamente com a adoção de outras medidas que incluem uma revisão aprofundada das suas políticas de detenção, transferência, julgamento e interrogatório na luta contra o terrorismo, e uma maior transparência sobre as práticas do passado no que respeita a estas políticas, bem como o encerramento de centros de detenção secretos. A UE contribuiu para os Grupos de Missão para Revisão das Políticas de Detenção, Interrogatório e Transferência (carta em nome do Conselho dirigida ao Secretário de Estado e ao Secretário de Defesa, como Copresidentes dos Grupos, e uma reunião de informação do Coordenador da Luta Antiterrorista da UE), para garantir o respeito pelos princípios supramencionados na implementação das políticas dos EUA.

Nos termos do artigo 4.°, n.° 2, do Tratado da União Europeia, «a segurança nacional continua a ser da exclusiva responsabilidade de cada Estado-Membro». Isto significa que o trabalho das agências de informação dos Estados-Membros em questões de segurança nacional continua a ser da exclusiva responsabilidade dos mesmos. O Conselho não debateu o relatório do Open Society Institute mencionado pelo Senhor Deputado.

No entanto, todos os Estados-Membros são partes contratantes na Convenção Europeia para a Proteção dos Direitos do Homem e das Liberdades Fundamentais. Todos os atos nacionais, incluindo os que são executados pelos serviços de informação, estão sujeitos à jurisdição do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos do Homem, o qual é competente para decidir sobre a questão de saber se tais atos respeitam ou não os direitos e as liberdades fundamentais reconhecidos nessa Convenção.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001671/13

to the Council

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) and João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: CIA flights report

According to a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), more than 50 countries, including Portugal, facilitated CIA flights for the extrajudicial transfer of prisoners suspected of terrorism, a secret programme launched by the Bush administration following the attacks of 11 September 2001.

The report underlines what we have been saying for some time: that covert operations involved the kidnapping, transport and torture of terrorist suspects in clandestine detention centres, with the help of several European governments — including those of the United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden — and US allies in Africa and the Middle East.

The organisation’s report names 136 prisoners who were subjected to interrogation under the programme. In total, 54 countries are identified as having hosted clandestine detention centres or having enabled the passage of secret flights for the so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’ of terrorist suspects.

According to the OSJI document, ‘Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations […] could not have been implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These governments [as well as the US Government] too must be held accountable.’ This once again demonstrates the collaboration and complicity of several European governments in this process.

1.

How does the Council view this report and the repeated accusations that a network involving the US, several EU countries and third countries carried out the kidnapping, transport and torture of prisoners?

2.

What explanations will it demand from the US Administration?

Reply

(17 June 2013)

The Council has stated on a number of occasions that the fight against terrorism has to take place in full respect of international law, including human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law, and that the existence of secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum is not in conformity with international law. There is a regular dialogue between EU and US legal advisers on the international law aspects of the fight against terrorism, where questions such as the arrest, detention, interrogation and transfer of terrorist suspects are discussed. In this dialogue, the EU stresses the importance of respect for international law and human rights, but the specific activities of intelligence services are not addressed.

The EU has welcomed the determination of the United States of America to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility together with other steps taken, including the intensive review of its detention, transfer, trial and interrogation policies in the fight against terrorism and increased transparency about past practices in regard to these policies, as well as the elimination of secret detention facilities. The EU has provided a contribution to the Detention, Interrogation and Transfer Policy Review Task Forces (a letter on behalf of the Council to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, co-chairs, and a briefing by the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator) to ensure respect for the above principles in the implementation of US policies.

Article 4(2) of the Treaty of the European Union states that ‘national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State’. This means that the work of Member States' intelligence agencies for national security matters remains the sole responsibility of Member States. The Council has not discussed the Open Society Institute report referred to by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, all Member States are contracting parties to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. All national acts, including those carried out by the intelligence services, are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which is competent to declare whether such acts do or do not respect the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised in that Convention.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001672/13

à Comissão

Edite Estrela (S&D)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Exploração de trabalhadores portugueses na Suíça

Notícias recentes dão conta da existência de «intermediários» a tirar partido do aumento da imigração portuguesa para a Suíça, retendo parte do salário dos contratados. De acordo com denúncias feitas aos sindicatos, muitos trabalhadores provenientes de Portugal estarão a receber salários significativamente abaixo daquilo que é estipulado pelas convenções laborais na Suíça, criando uma situação de «dumping» salarial e graves problemas sociais.

Tendo em conta que a criação de comissões mistas com inspeções do trabalho e a colaboração entre autoridades policiais permitiu solucionar questões semelhantes na Espanha e na Holanda, pergunta à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento destas situações?

Pondera a possibilidade de exortar as autoridades suíças para que sejam encontradas soluções, designadamente a criação de comissões mistas, que permitam que redes de exploração deste tipo possam vir a ser desmanteladas?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(22 de abril de 2013)

A Comissão não tem conhecimento dos factos referidos pela Senhora Deputada. Por enquanto, a Comissão não dispõe de qualquer indício segundo o qual o sistema suíço para a proteção dos trabalhadores seja insuficiente para lidar com este tipo de casos. Importa lembrar que a proteção de trabalhadores da UE na Suíça é da responsabilidade das autoridades suíças que também garantem a sua aplicação através de comités conjuntos compostos pelas autoridades públicas, bem como por representantes dos empregadores e trabalhadores. A Comissão procurará obter informações e esclarecimentos adicionais e tenciona abordar esta questão, em devido tempo, no âmbito dos seus contactos regulares com as autoridades suíças.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001672/13

to the Commission

Edite Estrela (S&D)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Exploitation of Portuguese workers in Switzerland

Recent news reports have revealed that ‘middlemen’ are taking advantage of the increasing number of Portuguese immigrants entering Switzerland by retaining a proportion of workers’ salaries. According to complaints made to the unions, many Portuguese workers receive salaries significantly lower than those stipulated by Swiss labour conventions, creating a situation of wage ‘dumping’ and serious social problems.

The creation of joint committees, along with labour inspections and cooperation between police authorities, has resolved similar issues in Spain and the Netherlands.

Is the Commission aware of these cases?

Will it consider urging the Swiss authorities to find solutions, including the creation of joint committees, to help dismantle such networks of exploitation?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2013)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. For the time being the Commission does not have any indication according to which the Swiss system for the protection of workers would be insufficient for dealing with this type of cases. It should be recalled that the protection of EU workers in Switzerland falls under the primary responsibility of the Swiss authorities, which ensure its enforcement also through joint committees of the public authorities and the employers’ and employees’ representatives. The Commission will seek more information and clarification and intends to raise this case in the context of its regular contacts with the Swiss authorities in due course.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001673/13

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Presença de carne de cavalo em produtos alimentares preparados de carne bovina

Considerando que:

Recentemente têm surgido em vários Estados-Membros da União Europeia suspeitas e confirmações da presença de carne de cavalo em produtos alimentares preparados compostos por carne bovina, sem fazer referência à origem e composição daquela na rotulagem do produto;

A União Europeia possui uma competência exclusiva em matéria de política agrícola, nomeadamente em matéria de comércio de produtos agrícolas, ao abrigo do artigo 38.° TFUE, e que deve garantir a segurança dos abastecimentos, de acordo com o artigo 39.°, n.° 1, alínea d);

Ao abrigo do artigo 169.° TFUE, a União Europeia deve promover os interesses dos consumidores e assegurar um nível de defesa destes, ao contribuir «para a proteção da saúde, da segurança e dos interesses económicos dos consumidores bem como para a promoção do seu direito à informação»;

A Comissão Europeia apelou, a 13 de fevereiro de 2013, a todos os Estados-Membros para que façam testes de ADN aos produtos à base de vaca, em resposta ao escândalo da carne de cavalo em refeições preparadas de bovino,

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Que medidas pretende tomar para normalizar a situação e proteger os consumidores, garantindo-lhes a correta informação na etiquetagem de produtos à base de vaca para indicar a origem da carne?

Que medidas pretende tomar para garantir a proteção da saúde pública, eliminando qualquer suspeita relacionada com a possibilidade de a carne de vaca ou de cavalo ser imprópria para consumo?

Ao nível criminal, quais as iniciativas previstas para coordenar os inquéritos criminais desencadeados em vários países da UE para determinar a origem da fraude que levou à utilização de carne de cavalo em vez de vaca? E quais as sanções previstas ao nível criminal caso se confirme uma situação de fraude?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(5 de abril de 2013)

Até à data, não existe qualquer indicação relativa ao tema que suscite uma preocupação em termos de segurança. No entanto, a falsificação de rótulos induz os consumidores em erro no que diz respeito ao conteúdo dos alimentos e, por conseguinte, a presença não declarada de carne de cavalo em alimentos apresentados como contendo carne de bovino constitui uma fraude na rotulagem dos géneros alimentícios, de acordo com regras da UE em vigor (123).

Uma aplicação correta da legislação da UE pode eliminar práticas fraudulentas, principalmente por meio de controlos oficiais regulares baseados numa análise de risco adequada e na imposição de sanções dissuasivas eficazes.

A Comissão tem trabalhado ativamente tanto a nível político como a nível técnico na coordenação dos inquéritos pendentes nos Estados-Membros em causa. A Comissão adotou uma recomendação relativa a um plano de controlo coordenado (124), que exige a realização de controlos à escala da União sobre os géneros alimentícios comercializados como contendo carne de bovino, com vista a detetar rotulagem fraudulenta e carne de equídeos destinada ao consumo humano, bem como para detetar fenilbutazona, um medicamento veterinário cuja utilização é permitida apenas em animais não utilizados na alimentação humana. Uma síntese de todos os resultados estará disponível em abril de 2013. O plano é cofinanciado pela União a uma taxa de 75 %.

Os Estados-Membros em que existe uma investigação criminal em curso relacionada com o caso presente estão a cooperar ativamente com a Europol. De acordo com a legislação alimentar da UE, os Estados-Membros devem estabelecer sanções que sejam efetivas, proporcionadas e dissuasivas. As sanções por violação das normas da cadeia agroalimentar da União não estão harmonizadas nos Estados-Membros. Por conseguinte, o tipo e a escala das sanções que serão aplicadas pelos Estados-Membros em causa no presente caso podem variar.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001673/13

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Horsemeat found in beef ready meals

Suspicions that some beef ready meals may contain horsemeat have recently been confirmed in several EU Member States. The products were not labelled with accurate information regarding the origin and composition of the meat they contained.

The European Union has exclusive competence in agricultural policy, namely the trade in agricultural products, under Article 38 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and must assure the availability of supplies, in accordance with Article 39(1)(d).

Under Article 169 of the TFEU, the EU must promote the interests of consumers and ensure a high level of consumer protection by contributing ‘to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information’.

On 13 February 2013 the Commission appealed to all Member States to conduct DNA tests on all beef products, in response to the horsemeat scandal affecting beef ready meals.

1.

What steps will the Commission take to normalise the situation and to protect consumers, ensuring that beef products are labelled with accurate information regarding the meat’s origin?

2.

What steps will it take to protect public health and to eliminate any suspicions that beef and horsemeat may be unfit for consumption?

3.

As regards criminal law, what initiatives are planned to coordinate the criminal investigations triggered in several EU countries to determine the origin of the fraud that led to the use of horsemeat instead of beef? What criminal sanctions are planned should fraud be uncovered?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

To date, there is no indication on the subject which raises a safety concern. However, the falsification of labels misleads the consumers as regards the content of foods and therefore, undeclared presence of horse meat in food products presented as containing beef constitutes fraud in food labelling under existing EU rules (125).

Appropriate enforcement of EU legislation can eliminate fraudulent practices, mainly by means of regular official controls based on appropriate risk analysis and the imposition of effective dissuasive sanctions.

The Commission has been active both on political and technical levels in coordinating the pending investigations in the Member States concerned. It adopted a recommendation on a coordinated control plan (126) calling for EU-wide controls on foods marketed as containing beef to detect fraudulent labelling and on horse meat destined for human consumption to detect phenylbutazone, a veterinary drug whose use is allowed only in non-food producing animals. A summary of all findings will be available by April 2013. The plan is being co-financed by the Union at a rate of 75%.

Member States in which criminal investigations are ongoing in relation to the present case are actively cooperating with Europol. According to EU food law, Members States shall have in place sanctions which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Sanctions in relation to violations of Union agri-food chain rules are not harmonised across the Member States., therefore the type and scale of the sanctions that will be applied by each concerned Member States in the present case may vary.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-001674/13

till kommissionen

Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)

(18 februari 2013)

Angående: Långrevsfiske enligt avtal om tonfiskfiske

Enligt flera partnerskapsavtal om fiske får EU-fartyg som fiskar med långrev tillgång till tredjeländers fiskevatten (Kap Verde, Komorerna, Elfenbenskusten, Madagaskar, Moçambique, São Tomé och Príncipe samt Seychellerna).

Kan kommissionen med hänvisning till dessa partnerskapsavtal om fiske ange hur stora fångster de EU-fartyg gör som bedriver långrevsfiske enligt respektive avtal, uppdelat på art (inbegripet tonfisk, hajar, segelfiskar m.fl.) och EU-medlemsstat, för vart och ett av de senaste fem år för vilka det finns uppgifter?

— Utgår kommissionen vid beräkningen av ersättningen för tillträde till fiskevatten enligt respektive avtal enbart från tonfiskfångsterna eller tar den även hänsyn till fångsterna av andra arter än tonfisk (segelfiskar, hajar)?

— Bygger de avgifter som fartygsägarna betalar enligt respektive avtal enbart på tonfiskfångsterna eller även på fångsterna av andra arter än tonfisk (segelfiskar, hajar)?

— Om det förhåller sig så att dessa avgifter bygger enbart på tonfiskfångsterna kan kommissionen förklara varför fångster av dessa andra värdefulla arter inte tas med i beräkningen, särskilt med tanke på att dessa fångster ibland är väldigt stora?

Svar från Maria Damanaki på kommissionens vägnar

(25 april 2013)

Partnerskapsavtalen om fiske, som vanligen benämns avtalen om tonfiskfiske och har undertecknats med kuststater vid Atlanten, Indiska oceanen och Stilla havet, omfattar alla de ständigt vandrande arter som förtecknas i bilaga  I till Förenta nationernas havsrättskonvention. Bilagan omfattar andra arter än tonfisk och tonfiskliknande arter, särskilt arter och familjer av elasmobranchii.

Enligt partnerskapsavtalen om fiske skulle fisket av dessa arter dock kunna begränsas eller till och med förbjudas till följd av internationella eller nationella bestämmelser. Därför måste EU:s fiskefartyg följa dessa bestämmelser.

Till följd av partnerskapsavtalens räckvidd grundar sig båda delarna av den ekonomiska ersättningen (EU-budgeten och fartygsägarnas avgifter) för EU-fiskefartygens tillträde till kuststaternas vatten på hela fångster av ständigt vandrande arter, oavsett om dessa är målet för fisket eller inte, och på därmed besläktade arter.

När det är tillåtet att fånga segelfiskar, hajar och andra arter än tonfisk enligt överenskommelsen i partnerskapsavtalen, begränsas dessa fångster självklart av tekniska bevarandeåtgärder och kapacitetsgränser som fastställts på internationell eller nationell nivå och även av fångstbegränsningar i vissa partnerskapsavtal. Målet är att främja ett hållbart utnyttjande, återuppbyggnad och förnyelse av bestånden på nivåer som motsvarar maximalt hållbart uttag och produktiva marina ekosystem. Dessutom ingår sådana fångster i den övergripande referensnivå för fångsterna som används vid fastställande av den del av ersättningen för tillträdet som kommer från EU-budgeten och vid beräkning av de avgifter som ägarna till EU-fartygen ska betalas till kuststaterna. För varje partnerskapsavtal översänds validerade uppgifter om dessa arter till kommissionen och delas med partnerländerna.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001674/13

to the Commission

Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Longline catches in tuna fisheries agreements

Several fisheries partnership agreements (FPAs) give EU longliners access to third-country waters (Cape Verde, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe and the Seychelles).

In relation to these agreements, can the Commission provide data on catches by EU longliners operating under each FPA, according to the species (including tuna, sharks, billfish and others) and the EU Member State, for each of the five most recent years for which data are available?

— When estimating the payment for access to waters under each of these agreements, does the Commission base its figures only on the amount of tuna caught, or does it also take into account catches of non-tuna species (billfish, sharks, non-tuna fish)?

— Are the fees that shipowners pay under each of these agreements based only on the amount of tuna caught or also on catches of non-tuna species (billfish, sharks, non-tuna fish)?

— If the fees are based solely on the amount of tuna caught, could the Commission explain why catches of these other valuable species are not taken into consideration, especially given that these catches can sometimes be very large?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2013)

The scope of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA) commonly called ‘tuna fisheries agreements’ and signed with coastal States in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans indeed covers all the highly migratory species listed in the Annex I to the Unclos, where other species than tuna and tuna-like species are mentioned, particularly species and families of elasmobranchs.

In the context of FPAs, fishing activities on these species could however be limited or even prohibited, following international or national provisions. Therefore, the EU fishing vessels have to comply with such provisions.

As a consequence of the scope of these FPAs, both components of the financial compensation (EU budget and vessel-owners fees) for access of EU fishing vessels in waters of the coastal States are based on the whole catches made on highly migratory species, being targeted or not, and on associated species.

When allowed, catches of billfish, sharks and other non-tuna species agreed in FPAs are obviously constrained by technical conservation measures and capacity limits established at international and/or national levels and even catch limits in some FPAs, with the aim to favour the sustainability of the exploitation, the rebuilding and renewal of the stocks at Maximum Sustainable Yield levels and the productivity of the marine ecosystems. In addition, such catches are included in the whole reference level of catches used when fixing the part of the compensation for access granted from the EU budget and when calculating the amount of fees to be paid to coastal States by EU vessel-owners. For each FPA, validated data on these species are transmitted to the Commission and shared with partner countries.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-001675/13

do Komisji

Konrad Szymański (ECR)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Konkluzje Rady Europejskiej na temat wieloletnich ram finansowych 2014 – 2020

Czy na podstawie Konkluzji Szczytu Rady Europejskiej z dnia 8.2.2013 Komisja może przedstawić:

projekcje wysokości kopert narodowych (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem polityki spójności oraz rolnictwa)

prognozy składek członkowskich poszczególnych krajów z uwzględnieniem wynegocjowanych rabatów?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janusza Lewandowskiego w imieniu Komisji

(27 marca 2013 r.)

Środki przeznaczone na większość programów, w odniesieniu do których Komisja zaproponowała nowe podstawy prawne, nie zostały jeszcze przydzielone poszczególnym państwom członkowskim. W przypadku tych programów wiarygodny podział środków przyznanych poszczególnym państwom członkowskim jest możliwy jedynie w trybie ex post. Komisja publikuje wspomniane podziały w rocznym sprawozdaniu finansowym dotyczącym wykonania budżetu i zawsze podkreślała ograniczenia stosowanych metod.

W przypadku programów, w ramach których środki są wstępnie przydzielane poszczególnym państwom członkowskim, Komisja określi wysokość kopert narodowych i poinformuje o nich po osiągnięciu porozumienia przez Parlament Europejski i Radę w sprawie rozporządzenia dotyczącego wieloletnich ram finansowych (WRF) i porozumienia międzyinstytucjonalnego oraz w oparciu o kryteria ustanowione w odpowiednich aktach ustawodawczych (w ramach procedury współdecyzji).

W każdym przypadku specjalne przydziały środków dla państw członkowskich nie odzwierciedlają jednak wartości dodanej, którą programy te wnoszą do rozwoju Unii Europejskiej.

Komisja publikuje składki krajowe państw członkowskich na następny rok z uwzględnieniem wpływu korekt i rabatów wyłącznie w ramach rocznej procedury budżetowej. W przypadku poprzednich budżetów, składki krajowe państw członkowskich publikowane są w sprawozdaniu finansowym.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001675/13

to the Commission

Konrad Szymański (ECR)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Conclusions of the European Council meeting on the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework

Based on the conclusions of the European Council meeting on 8 February 2013, can the Commission provide:

projections of the amounts to be allocated to each Member State (with particular regard to cohesion and agricultural policies);

forecasts of the membership contributions of each country, taking into account any rebates negotiated?

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

Expenditures for most of the programmes for which the Commission has proposed new legal bases are not pre-allocated by Member State. For these programmes a reliable split of expenditures by Member State is only possible ex-post. The Commission publishes these splits in its annual financial report for executed budgets and has always emphasised the limitations of the methods applied.

For the programmes where commitments are pre-allocated to specific Member States the Commission will determine and communicate the national envelopes after the agreement of the Council and the Parliament on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) Regulation and the Interinstitutional Agreement and on the basis of the criteria laid down in the respective (co-decided) legislative acts.

In any case the Member States' specific allocations do not reflect the value added that these programmes bring to the development of the European Union.

The Commission publishes Member States' national contributions for the following year taking into account the impact of corrections and rebates only in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure. For past budgets national contributions per Member State are published in the financial report.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001676/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Programa de Trabalho da Comissão 2013 — Uma estratégia global para o setor da defesa

A Comissão Europeia, no anexo ao seu plano de trabalho para o corrente ano, prevê promover uma iniciativa não legislativa subordinada ao tema «Uma estratégia global para o setor da defesa.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Considera possível a adoção por todos os Estados-Membros de uma estratégia global para este setor?

Não considera que, pela sua especial delicadeza e ligação estreita ao núcleo da soberania dos Estados, o setor da defesa não poderá deixar de ficar predominantemente sob a alçada dos mesmos?

O estímulo à competitividade e à eficiência do setor europeu da defesa que se pretende não poderá passar pela sã concorrência entre os Estados-Membros e com a sua agregação em torno de projetos e parcerias concretas que estes queiram desenvolver coletivamente sem que tal passe necessariamente pela definição de uma estratégia global para o setor que arriscaria colidir com os interesses concretos dos Estados-Membros e dos respetivos setores da defesa?

Resposta dada por António Tajani em nome da Comissão

(11 de abril de 2013)

Em 10 de outubro de 2012 a Comissão anunciou que «… irá desenvolver uma estratégia global para apoiar a competitividade da indústria da defesa e reforçar a eficiência do mercado da defesa». A esta estratégia revestirá a forma de uma comunicação cuja adoção deverá ter lugar no verão de 2013. A comunicação será uma contribuição significativa para o Conselho Europeu de dezembro de 2013, que se prevê venha a dar destaque às questões de defesa.

O objetivo é reunir várias políticas e instrumentos da UE por forma a assegurar uma contribuição coerente e prática com valor acrescentado ao setor da defesa da Europa. Deste modo, a Comissão está a adotar uma abordagem pragmática que pode complementar os projetos de colaboração e iniciativas de parceria dos Estados-Membros.

É neste espírito que a Comissão está a elaborar a estratégia, que incluirá uma série de novas propostas em áreas em que a Comissão tem competências específicas e poderá fazer uma diferença significativa ao reforçar as sinergias civis e militares. A total implementação das diretivas relativas à simplificação das condições das transferências de produtos relacionados com a defesa (127) e aos contratos públicos nos setores da defesa e segurança (128) irá no entanto, continuar a ser uma prioridade fundamental para a Comissão, já que irá promover a abertura dos mercados nacionais à concorrência e permitir às empresas do setor beneficiar das economias de escala que são essenciais à competitividade.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001676/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — a comprehensive strategy for the defence sector

In the annex to its work programme for this year, the Commission intends to promote a non-legislative initiative on ‘a comprehensive strategy for the defence sector’.

— Does the Commission think that all the Member States can adopt a comprehensive defence strategy?

— Does it not believe that, as a particularly sensitive issue that goes right to the heart of Member States’ sovereignty, defence must remain predominantly a matter for the Member States?

— Will it not be possible to achieve the aim of fostering the competitiveness and efficiency of the European defence sector through competition between the Member States with them collaborating on projects and concrete partnerships that they want to develop together, without necessarily drawing up a comprehensive strategy for the sector, which would likely clash with the specific interests of the Member States and of their individual defence sectors?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2013)

On 10 October 2012 the Commission announced that it ‘…will develop a comprehensive strategy to support the competitiveness of the defence industry and enhance the efficiency of the defence market’. This will be in the form of a communication which is expected to be adopted by summer 2013. The communication will be a substantive contribution to the European Council in December 2013 which is planned to have a focus on defence issues.

The objective is to bring together a range of EU policies and instruments to ensure a coherent, practical and value-added contribution to Europe's defence sector. By doing this, the Commission is taking a pragmatic approach that can complement the collaborative projects and partnership initiatives of Member States.

It is in this spirit that the Commission is drafting the strategy. This strategy will put forward a series of new proposals in areas where the Commission has specific competences and could make a significant difference notably by reinforcing civilian-military synergies. The full implementation of the directives on Transfers of Defence-related Products (129) and Defence and Security Procurement (130) will however remain a key priority for the Commission as it should foster the opening of national markets to competition and allow companies in the sector to benefit from the economies of scale that are essential to competitiveness.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001677/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Programa de Trabalho da Comissão 2013 — revisão da estrutura de taxas do IVA

A Comissão Europeia, no anexo ao seu plano de trabalho para o corrente ano, prevê promover uma iniciativa legislativa subordinada ao tema «Tornar o sistema do IVA mais eficaz através de uma revisão da estrutura de taxas» cujo «objetivo é ajustar o âmbito de aplicação das taxas reduzidas, a fim de aumentar a eficiência do sistema do IVA».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Quais são, em seu entender, os principais obstáculos à eficiência do sistema do IVA?

Considera que deve ser permitida a aplicação de taxas reduzidas para produtos de primeira necessidade, em especial os essenciais às famílias e à vida e fisiologia de crianças e recém-nascidos?

Face à crise demográfica na Europa acrescida de uma crise económica e financeira, não considera da mais elementar justiça e bom senso defender políticas de proteção da natalidade?

Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão

(12 de abril de 2013)

1.

Segundo a avaliação da Comissão, a fraude no IVA e a aplicação de taxas reduzidas e isenções são os maiores obstáculos à eficiência do sistema do IVA.

Nos Estados-Membros da UE que são igualmente membros da OCDE, as receitas efetivas de IVA representam apenas 54 % da média das receitas que, teoricamente, seriam cobradas se todo o consumo final fosse tributado à taxa normal. Outros países da OCDE, como o Japão, a Coreia do Sul ou a Suíça, têm um sistema de IVA mais eficaz, elevando-se a referida percentagem a mais de 67 %. (131)

2.

A avaliação económica solicitada pela Comissão durante a consulta pública sobre o sistema do IVA

2.

A avaliação económica solicitada pela Comissão durante a consulta pública sobre o sistema do IVA

 (132) veio confirmar as opiniões já expressas em estudos económicos anteriores (133), no sentido de que o uso de taxas reduzidas é frequentemente um instrumento pouco adequado para atingir os objetivos da política, particularmente para assegurar a redistribuição às famílias pobres ou para incentivar o consumo de um bem considerado socialmente desejável. No entanto, os benefícios potenciais de uma utilização limitada das taxas reduzidas, se forem definidas e aplicadas de uma maneira racional, não devem ser ignorados. A revisão das atuais estruturas das taxas de IVA anunciada pela comunicação sobre o futuro do IVA (134) está em curso. Por conseguinte, nesta fase do processo, não é possível à Comissão comentar sobre a relevância das taxas mais baixas para os bens referidos pelo Senhor Deputado.

3.

A Comissão considera que a decisão de ter uma criança cabe à família, enquanto suportar as políticas de apoio à família é da responsabilidade dos Estados Membros. A Comissão manifesta-se no entanto fortemente a favor de políticas que tornem mais fácil aos pais a reconciliação do trabalho e das responsabilidades familiares, como as estruturas de acolhimento de crianças, a licença parental e a flexibilidade do horário de trabalho. As taxas de natalidade são mais elevadas nos países onde é possível às mães realizar trabalho remunerado.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001677/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — review of VAT rates structure

In the annex to its work programme for this year, the Commission intends to promote a legislative initiative on ‘making the VAT system more efficient through a review of the rates structures’ whose ‘aim is to readjust the scope of the reduced rates in order to increase the efficiency of the VAT system’.

1.

In the Commission’s view, what are the main obstacles to the efficiency of the VAT system?

2.

Does it believe that lower VAT rates should be permitted for essential goods, particularly those that are vital for families and the lives and physiological needs of children and infants?

3.

In view of the demographic crisis in Europe, on top of an economic and financial crisis, does it not consider it fundamentally right and a matter of common sense to promote pro-birth policies?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

1.

In the Commission's view, VAT fraud and the application of reduced rates and exemptions are the main obstacles to the efficiency of the VAT system.

Of the EU Member States that are also members of the OECD, actual VAT revenues represent only 54% on average of the revenues that would, in theory, be collected if all final consumption was taxed at the standard rate. Other OECD countries such as Japan, South Korea or Switzerland have a more efficient VAT system with ratios above 67% (135).

2.

The economic evaluation commissioned by the Commission during the public consultation on the VAT system

2.

The economic evaluation commissioned by the Commission during the public consultation on the VAT system

 (136) has confirmed the views already expressed in earlier economic studies (137) that the use of reduced rates is often not the most suitable instrument for pursuing policy objectives, particularly for ensuring redistribution to poor households or encouraging the consumption of a good that is deemed socially desirable. However, the potential benefits of a limited use of reduced rates, if rationally defined and applied, should not be disregarded. The review of the current VAT rates structure announced by the communication on the future of VAT (138) is ongoing. Therefore, at this stage of the process, the Commission is unable to comment on the relevance of lower rates for the goods mentioned by the honourable member of the Parliament.

3.

The Commission thinks that the decision to have a child ought to be a private one while support policies for families are a Member State responsibility The Commission is however strongly in favour of policies that make it easier for parents to reconcile work and family care such as childcare, parental leave and working time flexibility. Birth rates are highest in those countries where it is made possible for mothers to accept paid work.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001678/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Violações na Índia

Kavita Krishnan, secretária da «All India Progressive Women’s Association», defendeu recentemente que a cultura indiana que culpa a vítima de crimes sexuais acaba por ser a principal responsável pelo elevado número de violações naquele país. Esta ativista refere que o governo e os agentes policiais insistiram recentemente em que a maioria dos violadores não pode ser processada na Índia, porque, como disse um oficial, eles são conhecidos das mulheres atacadas. Outros funcionários têm sugerido publicamente que as próprias vítimas estão «a pedi-las» devido ao facto de circularem na rua a qualquer hora. A taxa de condenação por violação na Índia caiu de 46 %, em 1971, para apenas 26 %, hoje.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento destas situações?

Já questionou as autoridades indianas sobre as medidas tomadas para impedi-las e garantir a segurança das mulheres indianas?

Adotará agora a União uma política forte, que garanta a defesa e o respeito pelos Direitos Humanos na Índia, nomeadamente o direito à vida e à integridade física das mulheres e a punição adequadas dos responsáveis por crimes sexuais?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(4 de abril de 2013)

A UE toma nota das questões mencionadas pelo Senhor Deputado e está empenhada, desde há já algum tempo, num diálogo com as autoridades indianas e a sociedade civil desse país sobre a violência e a discriminação contra as mulheres e as questões de género. A União Europeia tomou conhecimento do relatório exaustivo apresentado em janeiro pelo Comité presidido pelo antigo Presidente do Supremo Tribunal, J. S. Verma, cujo mandato consistia em analisar possíveis alterações ao direito penal para permitir um julgamento mais rápido e penas mais severas para os criminosos que cometem agressões sexuais contra as mulheres. Cabe agora ao Governo indiano alterar o direito penal com base nas recomendações do relatório Verma, processo que a UE tenciona acompanhar muito atentamente.

As questões de género e os direitos das mulheres ocupam um lugar de destaque, nomeadamente, nas reuniões regulares do diálogo sobre os direitos humanos entre a UE e a Índia realizadas a nível local. A abordagem da UE assenta em três princípios: promoção da igualdade de género e do empoderamento das mulheres; combate à discriminação com base no sexo e à violência contra as mulheres e proteção e promoção dos direitos das crianças, especialmente das raparigas.

As questões de género são igualmente integradas nas atividades da UE no domínio da cooperação para o desenvolvimento, que atribuem especial importância ao bem-estar das mulheres e das raparigas; muitos dos projetos da UE apoiaram as organizações da sociedade civil a combater a discriminação contra as raparigas e a violência contra as mulheres, nomeadamente no âmbito da luta contra o tráfico de seres humanos e o casamento de menores, a violência doméstica e o VIH/SIDA.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001678/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Rapes in India

Kavita Krishnan, Secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association, has recently claimed that the blame-the-victim culture in India when it comes to sex crimes is primarily to blame for the high number of rapes in the country. The campaigner notes that the government and the police recently insisted that most rapists cannot be prosecuted in India because, as one official put it, they are known to the women who are attacked. Other officials have publicly suggested that victims themselves are ‘asking for it’, because they are out at all hours. The conviction rate for rape in India has fallen from 46% in 1971, to just 26% today.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these issues?

2.

Has it asked the Indian authorities what steps they have taken to prevent rape and to ensure the safety of women in India?

3.

Will the Union now adopt a robust policy to ensure that human rights in India, particularly women’s right to life and physical integrity, are safeguarded and respected, and that those guilty of sex crimes are duly punished?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2013)

The EU takes note of the issues mentioned by the Honourable Member and has engaged the Indian authorities and civil society for some time already on violence, discrimination against women and gender issues. The EU took note of the extensive report presented in January by the Committee chaired by former Chief Justice J.S. Verma, whose mandate was to look at possible amendments to the Criminal Law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals committing sexual assault against women. It is now up to the Indian government to amend the Criminal Law drawing upon the recommendations of the Verma Report, a process that the EU will be following with great attention.

Gender issues and women's rights feature prominently, inter alia, in the meetings of the regular Human Rights Dialogue between the EU and India, conducted locally. The EU approach is based on three principles: promoting gender equality and women's empowerment; combating gender-based discrimination and violence against women; and protecting and promoting the rights of children, especially girls.

Gender issues are also mainstreamed into the EU's development cooperation activities, which have a strong focus on women and girls' welfare; numerous EU projects have assisted civil society organisations in addressing discrimination against girls and violence against women, including trafficking and child marriage, domestic violence and HIV/AIDS.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001679/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Guerra à medicina ocidental leva à morte de 25 pessoas

A vacinação de crianças contra a poliomielite tem custado a vida a vários profissionais de saúde em países como a Nigéria, Paquistão e Afeganistão onde esses profissionais são acusados de estar ao serviço da medicina ocidental contra o islão. Desde dezembro, já morreram 25 pessoas na Nigéria, Paquistão e Afeganistão, em atentados que tiveram na sua origem esse motivo.

A escalada da violência e de ataques em serviços de saúde levou mesmo a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) a suspender o programa de vacinação que tinha no Paquistão para erradicar a poliomielite, a qual é endémica neste país.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento destes acontecimentos?

De que informações dispõe a este respeito? Como é possível garantir a segurança dos profissionais de saúde no terreno?

Já questionou as autoridades locais (Nigéria, Paquistão e Afeganistão) em particular os líderes políticos e religiosos, sobre as medidas tomadas para garantir a segurança do pessoal internacional envolvido nos programas de vacinação?

Que medidas podem ser tomadas para motivar a participação e a parceria dos governos e autoridades policiais/exército nestas campanhas de vacinação?

De que dados dispõe sobre este tipo de incidentes e o alastramento de doenças infetocontagiosas nestes três países?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(24 de abril de 2013)

A UE está plenamente consciente destes ataques terríveis contra profissionais de saúde e apresenta as suas condolências às famílias destes corajosos trabalhadores. A União condena veementemente estes ataques sem sentido que comprometem a luta global contra a poliomielite e que atinge particularmente as pessoas nos países mais afetados. A UE tem mantido um contacto regular com as autoridades de todos estes países relativamente a questões de segurança e à proteção dos profissionais de ajuda humanitária e desenvolvimento. É de notar que tanto os líderes políticos como religiosos de todos estes países são praticamente unânimes no seu apoio à vacinação contra a poliomielite.

Em 2012, a Nigéria comunicou ter atingido um nível máximo de 122 casos de poliomielite nos últimos três anos. Em resposta ao ataque contra os profissionais de saúde, a Nigéria reforçou a segurança nos estabelecimentos de saúde na parte norte do país. A UE apoia a campanha de vacinação contra a poliomielite na Nigéria e tem financiado o programa da Organização Mundial da Saúde. O Paquistão ainda tem níveis endémicos de poliomielite mas as hipóteses de uma erradicação bem-sucedida melhoraram substancialmente. O resultado das eleições de 2013 e a situação geral em matéria de segurança poderão determinar a viabilidade da implementação do plano nacional de emergência contra a poliomielite do Paquistão. O Afeganistão registou 37 casos em 2012. O Presidente Karzai aprovou o plano de ação nacional de emergência para a erradicação da poliomielite, que inclui um enfoque particular nas regiões endémicas do sul e ocidente e o recurso a negociadores com acesso a nível local e organizações humanitárias ativas em zonas de conflito. Nas 10 províncias onde a UE tem vindo a financiar a prestação de cuidados de saúde, foram facultadas 1 197 681 de vacinas durante 2011 e 2012, incluindo contra a poliomielite, contribuindo para a descida da taxa de mortalidade infantil do país.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001679/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: War on Western medicine leaves 25 people dead

Several health professionals helping to vaccinate children against polio have been killed in countries including Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they are accused of using Western medicine as part of a plot against Islam. Since December, 25 people have been killed in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan in attacks carried out by opponents of Western medicine.

The escalation of violence and attacks on health services has even led the United Nations to suspend its polio vaccination programme in Pakistan, despite the disease being endemic in that country.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these events?

2.

What information does it have in this regard? How can health workers’ safety be ensured on the ground?

3.

Has it questioned the local authorities (in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan), in particular political and religious leaders, on the measures taken to ensure the safety of international personnel involved in vaccination programmes?

4.

What measures can be taken to encourage the participation and partnership of governments and police/military authorities in these vaccination campaigns?

5.

What information does it have on these types of incidents and on the spread of infectious diseases in these three countries?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The EU is well aware of these terrible attacks against health professionals. It sends condolences to the families of those brave workers. The EU condemns utterly these senseless attacks that undermine the global fight against polio and impact particularly on the people in those worst-affected countries. The EU is in regular contact with the authorities in all these countries on security matters and the safety of humanitarian and development professionals. It should be noted that both political and religious leaders in all these countries are almost unanimous in their support for polio vaccinations.

In 2012, Nigeria reported having reached a three-year high with 122 cases of polio. In response to the attack on the health workers, Nigeria has scaled up security at health facilities in the northern part of the country. The EU supports the polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria and has been funding the World Health Organisation programme. Pakistan still has widespread transmission of polio, but the chances of successful eradication have greatly improved. The outcome of the 2013 elections and the overall security situation are likely to determine the viability of implementing Pakistan's National Polio Emergency Action Plan. Afghanistan recorded 37 cases in 2012. President Karzai has endorsed the National Polio Eradication Emergency Action Plan, which includes particular focus on endemic southern and western regions and an engagement with local-level access negotiators and humanitarian organisations active in conflict areas. In the 10 provinces in which the EU is funding health service provision, 1 197 681 vaccinations, including polio, were provided during 2011 and 2012, contributing to the decrease in the infant mortality rate in the country.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001680/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Debate europeu sobre o crime de violação

Vêm a público preocupantes notícias que dão conta de um debate em Itália sobre se o vestuário e o comportamento das mulheres encorajam a violação e de que na Suécia já se reclama que os violadores que conhecem as mulheres que atacam não sejam processados, porque são, de certa forma, «encorajados» pelas vítimas e pelos seus comportamentos.

Sendo os crimes sexuais atos particularmente graves, aos quais deve corresponder uma adequada moldura penal, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento destes debates nos Estados-Membros a propósito do enquadramento legal dos crimes sexuais, nomeadamente violações?

De que informações dispõe a este respeito?

Atenta a gravidade dos crimes sexuais e a particular vulnerabilidade das vítimas, não considera um retrocesso civilizacional que se pretenda, de certa forma, atenuar a gravidade destes crimes, «transferindo a culpa» dos agressores para as vítimas?

Como é possível integrar tais debates no quadro da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE?

Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão

(9 de abril de 2013)

A violação é uma infração grave aos direitos fundamentais da vítima. A Comissão está ciente do facto de existirem provas substanciais de que, na União Europeia, a maioria dos processos por violação não conduz a uma condenação (139). Esta situação deve-se, em parte, à posição vulnerável das vítimas, que tendem a não comunicar estes crimes e — quando os comunicam — às taxas de desistência particularmente elevadas registadas nos inquéritos sobre violações. Os sistemas nacionais de justiça penal aplicam geralmente, em caso de violação e outros crimes sexuais, regimes probatórios complexos, que variam de forma significativa entre os Estados-Membros.

Para proteger e apoiar as vítimas, a Comissão impulsionou a nova Diretiva 2012/29/UE, que estabelece normas mínimas relativas aos direitos, ao apoio e à proteção das vítimas da criminalidade, que foi adotada em outubro de 2012. A diretiva assegurará a aplicação de uma vasta gama de medidas especiais para proteger e apoiar as vítimas vulneráveis, nomeadamente mulheres vítimas de crime sexual. A diretiva salienta igualmente a necessidade de formar os profissionais (polícia, procuradores e juízes) sobre as necessidades das vítimas, elemento crucial para mudar as atitudes em relação às vítimas e as tratar com respeito e reconhecimento.

Todas as disposições da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia, designadamente as relativas à dignidade, igualdade e justiça, devem ser respeitadas pelas instituições e pelos Estados-Membros da União Europeia quando aplicam o direito da UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001680/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: European debate on rape

Worrying reports have come to light regarding a debate in Italy on whether women’s clothing and behaviour encourages rape and regarding claims in Sweden that rapists who know the women they attack are not prosecuted because they are somehow ‘encouraged’ by the victims and their behaviour.

Sexual offences are particularly serious, and appropriate criminal procedures must be in place.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the debates taking place in Member States on the legal framework for sexual offences, particularly for rape?

2.

What information does it have in this regard?

3.

Given the seriousness of sexual offences and the particular vulnerability of the victims, does it not believe that attempting to somehow mitigate the seriousness of these crimes by

‘shifting the blame’ from the perpetrators to the victims is a step backwards for civilisation?

4.

How can such debates be incorporated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

Rape is a serious violation of the victim's fundamental rights. The Commission is aware of the fact that there is substantial evidence that across the European Union the majority of rape cases do not result in a conviction (140). The reason is partly due to the vulnerable position of the victims who tend not to report these crimes, and — if cases are reported — to the particularly high attrition rates in rape investigations. For rape and other sexual offences, national criminal justice systems apply generally complex evidentiary rules which vary significantly among the Member States.

To protect and support victims, the Commission initiated the new Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which was adopted in October 2012. The directive will ensure that a whole range of special measures will be put in place to protect and support vulnerable victims, among them women victims of sexual crime. The directive also emphasises the need to train practitioners (police, prosecutors and judges) on the needs of victims, which is crucial for changing attitudes towards victims and treating them with respect and recognition.

All the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably those concerning dignity, equality and justice, must be respected by EU institutions and by Member States when they implement EC law.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001681/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Flickr.com: divulgação de fotografias privadas

Notícias recentes dão conta de que um erro nas páginas de partilha e alojamento de imagens na Internet Flickr.com originou a divulgação de fotografias privadas de alguns utilizadores durante um período de 21 dias.

Esta situação, que já não é inédita, põe em causa a efetiva capacidade de serviços como este respeitarem e preservarem a privacidade dos dados que acolhem e que é prometida aos seus utilizadores.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tendo presentes os diversos casos de divulgações erróneas de dados considerados privados pelos utilizadores de diversos sítios e serviços da Internet conhecidos nos últimos anos, que medidas tomou, ou prevê tomar, junto das empresas que os exploram, de modo a prevenir situações como estas?

Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão

(17 de abril de 2013)

As disposições da Diretiva 95/46/CE (141) relativa à proteção de dados podem ser aplicadas aos prestadores de serviços de redes sociais (SRS) como Flickr.com, ainda que as suas sedes se situem fora da UE (142) (artigo 4.°). Ao abrigo da diretiva, os SRS podem ser considerados responsáveis pelo tratamento dos dados e, por conseguinte, qualquer tratamento de dados pessoais, como imagens pessoais, deve ser efetuado em conformidade com a legislação nacional que transpõe os requisitos estabelecidos na Diretiva 95/46/CE. Em especial, o responsável pelo tratamento deve pôr em prática as medidas técnicas e organizacionais adequadas, «tanto aquando da conceção do sistema de tratamento como da realização do próprio tratamento» para proteger os dados pessoais contra a divulgação ou acesso não autorizados (143).

Nos seus esforços para reformar a atual legislação em matéria de proteção de dados, a Comissão Europeia procurou reforçar a segurança do tratamento, propondo a introdução da obrigação pelo responsável pelo tratamento de notificar violações de dados pessoais à autoridade de controlo competente e ao titular dos dados, sempre que a violação de dados pessoais for suscetível de afetar negativamente a proteção dos dados pessoais ou a privacidade do titular dos dados (144).

Sem prejuízo das competências da Comissão, na sua qualidade de guardiã dos Tratados, a responsabilidade de garantir que os responsáveis pelo tratamento respeitam as disposições em vigor e uma vez adotadas as propostas de reforma incumbe essencialmente às autoridades de proteção de dados dos Estados‐Membros.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001681/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Flickr.com: private photographs made public

Recent news reports have revealed that an error on the image sharing and hosting pages of the website Flickr.com led to some users’ private photographs being made public for 21 days.

This situation, which is by no means unprecedented, calls into question the effective capacity of such services to respect and uphold data privacy commitments made to their users.

Bearing in mind that there have been several cases in recent years where the private data of users of various websites and Internet services have been accidentally made public, what measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take, along with the companies operating these websites, to prevent similar situations from arising?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2013)

The provisions of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (145) can apply to providers of social networking services (SNS) such as Flickr.com, even if their headquarters are located outside of the EEA (146) (Art. 4). SNS can be considered data controllers under the directive and thus any processing of personal data such as personal images needs to be carried out in line with the national laws implementing the requirements laid down in Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, any controller must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, ‘both at the time of the design of the processing system and at the time of the processing itself’ to protect personal data against unauthorised disclosure or access (147).

In its efforts to reform the current legislation on data protection, the European Commission has sought to strengthen the security of processing by proposing the introduction of an obligation on the controller to notify personal data breaches to the competent supervisory authority and, where the breach is likely to adversely affect the protection of personal data or privacy of the data subject, to the data subject (148).

Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties, the responsibility to ensure that controllers comply with the current provisions and once adopted the ones proposed for reform lies primarily with the data protection authorities of the Members States.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-001682/13

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

Assunto: Programa de Trabalho da Comissão 2013 — comunicações sem fios

A Comissão Europeia, no anexo ao seu plano de trabalho para o corrente ano, prevê promover uma iniciativa não legislativa denominada «Plano de Ação sobre as Comunicações sem Fios para uma Europa Interligada».

Tendo presente a intenção de acelerar a implantação das redes de banda larga sem fios, promover a utilização partilhada do espetro, a exploração dos resultados de I&D da UE sobre comunicações sem fios e reforçar a harmonização mundial do espetro, não posso deixar de questionar a Comissão sobre se dispõe de estudos que garantam a segurança e a saúde dos cidadãos cada vez mais expostos à ação destas redes e se está em condições de garantir que esta exposição não acarretará consequências indesejadas também para os ecossistemas circundantes.

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(23 de abril de 2013)

A Recomendação 1999/519/CE do Conselho (149) prevê a limitação da exposição da população aos campos electromagnéticos (CEM). Além disso, o Comité Científico dos Riscos para a Saúde Emergentes e Recentemente Identificados (Ccrseri) efetua o controlo e a investigação permanentes a nível da UE para avaliar os riscos dos CEM. De acordo com o seu parecer mais recente (2009) (150), três elementos de prova independentes (epidemiológicos, estudos in vivo e in vitro) mostram que a exposição aos campos eletromagnéticos de radiofrequência é pouco suscetível de conduzir a um aumento da incidência de cancro no ser humano.

A Comissão solicita periodicamente uma atualização das provas científicas disponíveis para avaliar os riscos relacionados com os CEM e verifica se continuam a apoiar os limites de exposição, tal como propostos na recomendação do Conselho relativa aos limites de exposição aos CEM. Está a decorrer uma atualização do parecer do Comité Científico sobre os CEM e prevê-se que esteja pronto para consulta pública até ao final de junho de 2013.

Além disso, o programa-quadro de investigação da UE (PQ7 2007-2013) está atualmente a financiar três projetos de investigação sobre os potenciais efeitos dos CEM para a saúde (151).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001682/13

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Commission Work Programme 2013 — wireless communications

In the annex to its work programme for this year, the Commission intends to promote a non-legislative initiative known as the ‘Action Plan on Wireless Communications for a Connected Europe’.

Bearing in mind the aim of accelerating the roll-out of wireless broadband networks, fostering shared spectrum use, exploitation of EU R&D results on wireless communications and enhancing global spectrum harmonisation, can the Commission say whether there are any studies that guarantee the safety and the health of the public, who are increasingly exposed to the effects of these networks, and can it guarantee that such exposure will not have undesirable effects also on surrounding ecosystems?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2013)

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (152) provides for limitations of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (EMF). In addition, permanent scrutiny and research is being conducted at EU level by the independent Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to evaluate the risks from EMF. According to its latest opinion (2009) (153), three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, in vivo and in vitro studies) show that exposure to radiofrequency EMF is unlikely to lead to an increase of cancer incidence in humans.

The Commission requests periodically an update of the scientific evidence available to evaluate the risks from EMF and checks whether it still supports the exposure limits as proposed in the Council Recommendation on EMF exposure limits. An update of the Scientific Committee's opinion on EMF is ongoing and scheduled to be ready for public consultation by the end of June 2013.

Moreover, the EU Framework Programme for Research (FP7 2007-13) is currently funding three projects investigating the potential health effects of EMF (154).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-001683/13

aan de Commissie

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Landenspecifieke aanbeveling woningmarkt Nederland

In het kader van het Europees semester 2012 deed de Europese Commissie een landenspecifieke aanbeveling aan Nederland met betrekking tot de woningmarkt. De Commissie riep Nederland op om de woningmarkt onder meer door de volgende maatregelen geleidelijk te hervormen:

„ii) totstandbrenging van een meer marktgericht prijsstelsel op de huurwoningenmarkt en iii) aanpassing van de huren voor sociale woningen aan het inkomen van huishoudens.”

Uit het begeleidende werkdocument van de diensten van de Commissie blijkt dat hervormingen in de huurwoningmarkt volgens de Commissie gericht moeten zijn op het beperken van de „reikwijdte en omvang van het segment sociale woningen” (SWD(2012)0322 final, p. 8).

1.

Uit welke onderdelen van de beleidssturing en doelstellingen van de EU die ten grondslag liggen aan het Europees semester vloeit de hierboven genoemde aanbeveling aan Nederland voor hervormingen in de woningmarkt voort?

2.

Hoe verhoudt zich de oproep van de Commissie tot een meer marktgericht prijsstelsel op de huurwoningenmarkt en aanpassing van de huren voor sociale woningen aan het inkomen van huishoudens de ruime discretionaire bevoegdheid van nationale, regionale en lokale autoriteiten om diensten van algemeen economisch belang te verrichten en organiseren, zoals bepaald in artikel 1 van protocol 26 bij het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie en op welke wijze zal de Commissie tegemoetkomen aan de bezorgdheid die het Europees Parlement heeft geuit

2.

Hoe verhoudt zich de oproep van de Commissie tot een meer marktgericht prijsstelsel op de huurwoningenmarkt en aanpassing van de huren voor sociale woningen aan het inkomen van huishoudens de ruime discretionaire bevoegdheid van nationale, regionale en lokale autoriteiten om diensten van algemeen economisch belang te verrichten en organiseren, zoals bepaald in artikel 1 van protocol 26 bij het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie en op welke wijze zal de Commissie tegemoetkomen aan de bezorgdheid die het Europees Parlement heeft geuit

 (155) over de restrictieve definitie die de Commissie hanteert bij het toepassen van staatssteunregels aan socialewoningbouwcorporaties?

3.

Kan de Commissie toezeggen dat zij zich bij het opstellen van eventuele landenspecifieke aanbevelingen aan Nederland over hervormingen in de woningmarkt zal beperken tot beleidsaanbevelingen die aansluiten bij de Europa 2020-doelstellingen, de geïntegreerde richtsnoeren en de door de Raad overgenomen onderdelen van de jaarlijkse groeianalyse en Verordening (EU) nr. 1176/2011, en dat zij hierover uitleg verschaft in het begeleidende werkdocument?

Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie

(27 maart 2013)

De Commissie wil verduidelijken dat de aanbeveling met betrekking tot de huizenmarkt in Nederland uit 2012 verwijst naar structurele verstoringen die breder zijn dan het element door het geachte Parlementslid wordt aangehaald. De bezorgdheid wordt uitvoerig toegelicht in het begeleidende document (156) waarin het nationaal hervormingsplan en het stabiliteitsplan van Nederland inderdaad worden beoordeeld overeenkomstig de geïntegreerde richtsnoeren en de beleidslijnen van de Commissie en de Europese Raad (157).

In hun analyse komen de diensten van de Commissie tot de conclusie dat de wisselwerking tussen fiscale prikkels, financiële innovaties, beleidsmaatregelen op het gebied van bankhypotheken en ontwikkelingen op de arbeidsmarkt die de vraag stimuleren enerzijds, en beleidsmaatregelen die het aanbod beperken, inclusief beleidsmaatregelen met betrekking tot sociale huisvesting, anderzijds, de prijzen hebben opgedreven. De kwestie wordt nog ingewikkelder aangezien de waarde van huurwoningen wordt gedrukt door beperkingen ten aanzien van het niveau van de huren. De onderliggende zorg is dan ook dat er onevenwichtigheden op de Nederlandse huizenmarkt kunnen ontstaan die een destabiliserend effect op de economie kunnen hebben.

De Commissie legt de regels inzake staatssteun voor socialewoningbouwcorporaties niet restrictief uit. Zij eerbiedigt ten volle de autonomie van de lokale autoriteiten om te beslissen welke diensten zij als diensten van algemeen belang beschouwen. Haar bevoegdheden beperken zich tot het controleren op kennelijke fouten. Zodra een dienst echter is aangemerkt als dienst van algemeen economisch belang, moet hij voldoen aan specifieke regels om de goede werking van de eengemaakte markt te garanderen en om ervoor te zorgen dat de dienst tegen de beste voorwaarden wordt verleend.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001683/13

to the Commission

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Country-specific recommendation concerning the Netherlands housing market

In the context of the 2012 European Semester the Commission issued a country-specific recommendation in which it called on the Netherlands to carry out a gradual reform of its housing market by taking measures which should include the following:

‘(ii) providing for a more market-oriented pricing mechanism in the rental market, and (iii) for social housing, aligning rents with household income’.

The accompanying Commission staff working paper makes it clear that in the Commission’s view one aim of the housing market reform should be to ‘[scale] down the scope and size of the social housing segment’ (SWD(2012)0322 final, p. 7).

1.

What individual EU policies and objectives underpinning the European Semester form the basis for the aforementioned recommendation to the Netherlands concerning the reform of its housing market?

2.

How can the Commission’s call for a more market-oriented pricing mechanism in the rental market and measures to align rents for social housing with household income be reconciled with the broad discretionary powers enjoyed by national, regional and local authorities to organise the provision of services of general economic interest, as stipulated in Article 1 of Protocol 26 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and how does the Commission intend to respond to the concerns voiced by the European Parliament

2.

How can the Commission’s call for a more market-oriented pricing mechanism in the rental market and measures to align rents for social housing with household income be reconciled with the broad discretionary powers enjoyed by national, regional and local authorities to organise the provision of services of general economic interest, as stipulated in Article 1 of Protocol 26 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and how does the Commission intend to respond to the concerns voiced by the European Parliament

 (158) concerning the Commission’s restrictive interpretation of the state aid rules in relation to social housing associations?

3.

Will the Commission give an undertaking that, when drawing up any country-specific recommendations to the Netherlands concerning the reform of its housing market, it will confine itself to making recommendations consistent with the Europe 2020 targets, with the integrated guidelines for jobs and growth, with the sections of the Annual Growth Survey approved by the Council and with Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 and that it will explain the thinking behind the recommendations in the accompanying staff working paper?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

The Commission would like to clarify that the 2012 recommendation concerning the Netherlands' housing market refers to structural distortions broader than the element raised by the Honourable Member. These concerns are explained in detail in the accompanying document (159) which, indeed, assesses the national reform programme and stability programme of the Netherlands in line with the integrated guidelines and the policy orientations issued by the Commission and the European Council (160).

In their analysis, the Commission services conclude that the interaction of, on the one hand, tax incentives, financial innovations, bank mortgage policies and trends in the labour market, which push up demand, and, on the other hand, policies limiting supply, including policies linked to social housing, has driven up prices. To complicate matters further, restrictions to the level of rents reduce the value of rental property. The underlying concern is thus that the Dutch housing market represents an area where imbalances may emerge and could have a destabilising effect on the economy.

The Commission does not have a restrictive interpretation of the state aid rules in relation to social housing associations. The Commission fully respects the autonomy of local authorities in deciding what services they consider to be services of general interest. Its limited powers are restricted to manifest error. Once a service is qualified as service of general economic interest, however, it needs to comply to specifically targeted rules, in order to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market and ensure that the service is provided under the best conditions.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001684/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(18 de febrero de 2013)

Asunto: Agenda Digital en el Estado español

El pasado 15 de febrero, el Consejo de Ministros español aprobó la Agenda Digital para España. Entre las líneas de actuación destaca el «disponer en el año 2013 de una nueva Ley General de Telecomunicaciones, con el objetivo de, entre otros, clarificar la actuación de las Administraciones Públicas en la explotación de redes y provisión de servicios de telecomunicaciones garantizando la no distorsión de la libre competencia».

En este sentido, el anteproyecto de Ley General de Telecomunicaciones española limita el despliegue de infraestructuras de telecomunicaciones por parte de las administraciones públicas españolas, hasta el punto de prohibir la puesta a disposición del mercado del excedente de las redes de telecomunicaciones desplegadas para la autoprestación de servicios. El Gobierno español justifica esta medida para eliminar la distorsión de la competencia en el mercado y el control del gasto público. Cabe tener en cuenta que la finalidad de eliminar la distorsión de la competencia en el mercado de las telecomunicaciones hoy en día es objeto de la normativa siguiente: para la salvaguarda del mercado interior español, la normativa de la ANR española —la CMT—, y para la salvaguarda del mercado interior europeo, las normas de defensa de la competencia de la Unión Europea (separación de cuentas y cumplimiento de los artículos 107 y 108 del TFUE —ver las Broadband Guidelines).

Lo establecido en este proyecto de Ley en ningún caso es una normativa en consonancia con las políticas públicas de la UE, ni de la propia CMT, ni de los otros Estados miembros de la UE. Todo lo contrario. Las políticas públicas de la UE, si bien reconocen que las inversiones deben llevarlas a cabo los inversores privados, consideran que los objetivos de la Agenda Digital Europea no pueden alcanzarse sin el apoyo de los fondos públicos. Es más, en la introducción de las Broadband Guideliness se establece que «por esta razón, la ADE pide a los Estados miembros que utilicen financiación pública en consonancia con las normas sobre ayudas estatales y de competencia de la UE para responder a la cobertura, la velocidad y la asunción de objetivos definidos en UE 2020».

El proyecto de Ley de telecomunicaciones en España no permitirá llevar a cabo estas políticas de cohesión social y territorial, y además enterrará toda la financiación pública que las administraciones territoriales españolas aportan para la necesaria administración electrónica.

A la luz de lo anterior,

¿Cómo se garantizará en España el cumplimiento de los objetivos de la Estrategia Europea 2020? ¿Cómo se garantizarán en España redes y servicios avanzados en las zonas blancas?

Respuesta de la Sra. Kroes en nombre de la Comisión

(9 de abril de 2013)

La Agenda Digital para Europa reconoce la necesidad de ayudas públicas para la financiación de las redes de nueva generación en aquellos sectores en los que el mercado no desempeña su cometido, de conformidad con las normas de la UE en materia de ayudas estatales. Las Directrices para la aplicación de las normas sobre ayudas estatales al despliegue rápido de redes de banda ancha publicadas recientemente establecen que «cuando los mercados ofrecen resultados eficientes, pero considerados insatisfactorios desde el punto de vista de la política de cohesión, las ayudas estatales pueden utilizarse para conseguir un resultado más equitativo y conveniente».

Los fondos de la UE están contribuyendo a este esfuerzo al permitir a las autoridades nacionales de gestión invertir en estas infraestructuras, de conformidad con las normas de la UE en materia de ayudas estatales, a través de distintos instrumentos financieros y modelos de inversión. La iniciativa del Gobierno español completa la acción de la UE en este campo.

El Gobierno español publicó a principios de 2012 un estudio sobre la cobertura de la banda ancha en España y puso en marcha una consulta pública. Tras la adopción de la Agenda Digital española en febrero, el Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo español está elaborando una estrategia nacional sobre redes de alta velocidad y ha notificado también, de conformidad con las normas aplicables a las ayudas estatales, una ampliación del plazo y medios presupuestarios adicionales destinados al Programa de Extensión de la Banda Ancha de Nueva Generación (PEBA-NGA), que la Comisión está evaluando actualmente.

El Gobierno español está elaborando, además, una nueva Ley General de Telecomunicaciones. Ese proyecto de ley no ha sido presentado aún al Congreso de los Diputados para su adopción. Una vez aprobada dicha Ley, la Comisión examinará su conformidad con las normas de la UE en materia de ayudas estatales y comunicaciones electrónicas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001684/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Digital Agenda in Spain

On 15 February 2013, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved the Digital Agenda for Spain. One of the most notable plans of actions is ‘to introduce a new General Law on Telecommunications in 2013, with one of its aims being to clarify the role that public administrative bodies play in operating telecommunications networks and providing telecommunication services, in order to ensure that competition is not distorted’.

Accordingly, the draft General Law on Telecommunications limits Spanish public administrative bodies’ ability to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, to such an extent that it prohibits surplus telecommunications networks which were launched as self-supply services from being made available to the market. The Spanish Government’s justification for this measure is the need to prevent any distortion of competition on the market and to restrict public expenditure. It is worth noting that eliminating distortion of competition on the telecommunications market is currently subject to Spanish and EU guidelines; the rules of the Spanish regulatory body, the Commission for the Telecommunications Market (CMT), protect the Spanish internal market, while the EU’s antitrust rules protect the European internal market (accounting separation and compliance with TFEU Articles 107 and 108 — see the Broadband Guidelines).

The draft law does not conform in any way to EU public policies, the CMT rules or the policies in place in other Member States. It does exactly the opposite. Although EU public policies take account of the fact that private investors must be responsible for investment, they also recognise that the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) goals will not be achieved without public funding. Indeed, the introduction to the Broadband Guidelines contains the following recommendation: ‘for this reason, the DAE calls on Member States to use “public financing in line with EU competition and state aid rules” in order to meet the coverage, speed and take-up targets defined in EU2020.’

The Spanish draft telecommunications law will prevent these social and territorial cohesion strategies from being implemented, while also putting a stop to all public funding provided by Spanish public administrative bodies for e-Government facilities.

How will achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy targets be ensured in Spain? How will the provision of advanced networks and services be guaranteed in ‘white areas’ in Spain?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The Digital Agenda for Europe recognises the need for public support for financing Next Generation Neworks in areas where the market does not deliver, in line with EU State aid rules. The recently published Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks state that ‘where markets provide efficient outcomes but these are deemed unsatisfactory from a cohesion policy point of view, State aid may be used to obtain a more desirable, equitable market outcome’.

EU funds are contributing to this effort by enabling national management authorities to invest in this infrastructure, in line with EU State aid rules, using a variety of financial instruments and investment models. The initiative of the Spanish Government is one that complements EU action in this domain.

In early 2012, the Spanish Government published a study on broadband coverage in Spain and launched a public consultation. Following the adoption of the Spanish Digital Agenda in February, the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism is working on a National Strategy on high speed networks. It has also notified, under the state aid rules, an extension in time and additional budgetary means for its high speed broadband scheme (Programa de Extensión de la Banda Ancha de Nueva Generación (PEBA-NGA) which is currently being assessed by the Commission.

In addition, the Spanish Government is working on a new General Telecommunications Law. The draft law has not yet been submitted to the Spanish Parliament for adoption. When it is approved, the Commission will analyse its conformity with EU State aid and electronic communications rules.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-001685/13

Komisi

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(18. února 2013)

Předmět: Univerzální nabíječka pro mobilní telefony

V roce 2009 podepsalo deset největších výrobců mobilních telefonů, pokrývajících 90 % trhu, memorandum o porozumění, ve kterém dobrovolně přistoupili na sjednocení standardů pro nabíječky mobilních telefonů. Dohoda, ke které se postupně připojili i další výrobci, předpokládala společnou nabíječku založenou na univerzálním micro-USB konektoru.

Podle slov zástupce GŘ ENTR, který navštívil 24. ledna 2013 zasedání výboru IMCO, platnost dobrovolného memoranda vypršela k 31. prosinci 2012 a jednotliví signatáři se doposud nedohodli na jeho prodloužení. Někteří výrobci již navíc v mezidobí představili koncepty unikátních nabíječek pro vlastní telefony. Myšlenka realizace jednotné evropské nabíječky, která je podporována ze strany mnoha zainteresovaných subjektů včetně spotřebitelských organizací (BEUC, ANEC), se tak zdá být ohrožena.

1.

Má Komise k dispozici údaje, kolik procent mobilních telefonů na trhu již je v současnosti vybaveno nabíječkou založenou na univerzálním micro-USB konektoru a jak tato čísla ovlivnil vznik zmíněného memoranda?

2.

Jaké další kroky momentálně plánuje Komise, včetně případných legislativních kroků, k uskutečnění vlastního konceptu

„One charger for all“?

Odpověď Antonia Tajaniho jménem Komise

(9. dubna 2013)

Zpráva o pokroku, kterou nedávno signatáři memoranda o porozumění zveřejnili, ukázala, že signatáři své závazky přijaté v rámci memoranda o porozumění splnili. V současné době se odhaduje, že 90 % nových zařízení uvedených signatáři memoranda o porozumění a jinými výrobci na trh do konce roku 2012 podporuje jednotné nabíjení. To naznačuje, že tato dobrovolná dohoda byla úspěšná a přinesla občanům prospěch.

Komise je přesvědčena, že spotřebitelé a výrobci mohou mít prospěch z rozšíření iniciativy týkající se harmonizace nabíječek na nové kategorie výrobků, jako je nová generace mobilních telefonů, při zohlednění technologických inovací a dalších malých elektronických zařízení, jako jsou digitální fotoaparáty, tablety a hudební přehrávače. Proto Komise připravuje zahájení studie hodnotící výsledky, kterých bylo díky memorandu o porozumění dosaženo, a zváží varianty vhodných následných opatření, včetně dobrovolné dohody a právních předpisů.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001685/13

to the Commission

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Universal mobile phone chargers

In 2009 the ten largest mobile phone manufacturers, which account for 90% of the market, signed a joint declaration of intent in which they voluntarily agreed to adopt uniform standards for mobile phone chargers. The agreement, which gradually won the backing of other manufacturers, provided for a common charger with a universal micro-USB connector.

According to the DG ENTR representative, who took part in the IMCO Committee meeting of 24 January 2013, the validity of the voluntary declaration of intent expired on 31 December 2012 and the signatories have so far been unable to agree to extend it. Some manufacturers have now unveiled plans for non-universal chargers for their own phones. Clearly, it is now unsure whether plans for a single European charger which are backed by many stakeholders, including consumer organisations (European Consumers' Organisation, ANEC), will go ahead.

1.

Does the Commission have any data on the percentage of mobile phones on the market that are already equipped with a charger incorporating a micro-USB connector and on the extent to which these figures are the result of the abovementioned letter of intent?

2.

What further steps is the Commission currently planning, including possibly legislative action, to realise its plan of

‘One charger for all’?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

A recent progress report provided by the MoU signatories has shown that they have met their obligations under the MoU. It is now estimated that 90% of the new devices put on the market by the MoU signatories and other manufacturers by the end of 2012 support the common charging capability. This indicates that the voluntary agreement has been successful in delivering benefits for citizens.

The Commission is convinced that consumers and manufacturers can benefit from an extension of the initiative on harmonisation of chargers to new categories of products such as the new generation of mobile phones while taking into account technological innovations and other small electronic devices, such as digital cameras, tablets and music players. Therefore the Commission is preparing the launch of a study evaluating the results achieved with the MoU, and will consider options for appropriate follow-up including voluntary agreement and legislation.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001686/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Από τις ακριβότερες στον κόσμο η βενζίνη στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ

Σύμφωνα με τα αποτελέσματα έρευνας του διεθνούς ειδησεογραφικού πρακτορείου Bloomberg σε 60 χώρες για την τιμή της βενζίνης, οι 8 από τις 10 χώρες με την ακριβότερη βενζίνη παγκοσμίως είναι κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

Το γεγονός δε ότι σε αυτές τις 8 περιλαμβάνονται χώρες όπως η Ιταλία, η Πορτογαλία, η Ελλάδα (4η, 5η, 6η θέση στην κατάταξη) που, μέσα από ασφυκτικά δημοσιονομικά προγράμματα, τα νοικοκυριά έχουν υποστεί δραματικές μειώσεις μισθών και εισοδημάτων τα τελευταία χρόνια, αντιμετωπίζοντας σοβαρά προβλήματα ένδειας, καθιστά τα πορίσματα της έρευνας ακόμα πιο ανησυχητικά. Ειδικότερα, στην Ελλάδα, οι καταναλωτές καλούνται να δαπανούν, σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία του Bloomberg, το 15% του ημερομισθίου τους για την αγορά ενός λίτρου βενζίνης, στην Ιταλία το 10% και στην Πορτογαλία το 17%.

Βάσει των παραπάνω ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι ενήμερη για τα παραπάνω ευρήματα του Bloomberg και αν ναι, προβλέπεται η εκπόνηση αντίστοιχης έρευνας προκειμένου να μελετηθούν τα αίτια που οδηγούν σε αυξημένες τιμές την βενζίνη στην ευρωπαϊκή αγορά αλλά και οι τρόποι εξορθολογισμού της;

Ειδικά, σε κράτη μέλη όπως η Ελλάδα, όπου το κυρίαρχο μεταφορικό μοντέλο διακίνησης προϊόντων είναι το οδικό, με συνέπεια οι υψηλές τιμές στα καύσιμα να λειτουργούν αυξητικά στις τιμές των αγαθών, επεξεργάζεται, ως μέλος και της Τρόικας, προτάσεις για την αποκλιμάκωση των τιμών των καυσίμων που, περιορίζοντας το μεταφορικό κόστος, θα μπορούσαν να συντελέσουν σε αντίστοιχη μείωση των τιμών;

Πώς η διατήρηση της τιμής των καυσίμων σε τόσο υψηλά επίπεδα συνάδει με το στόχο της μείωσης των τιμών, τουλάχιστον σε βασικά αγαθά και υπηρεσίες, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η πρόσβαση σε αυτά των Ελλήνων πολιτών, οι οποίοι έχουν απολέσει ένα πολύ σημαντικό μέρος του πραγματικού τους εισοδήματος;

Απάντηση του κ. Oettinger εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(18 Απριλίου 2013)

1.

Η Επιτροπή έχει πλήρη επίγνωση του γεγονότος ότι οι τιμές της βενζίνης σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ συγκαταλέγονται μεταξύ των υψηλότερων παγκοσμίως. Η εν λόγω κατάσταση είναι κυρίως αποτέλεσμα της υψηλής φορολογίας και πρωτίστως του ΦΠΑ και των ειδικών φόρων κατανάλωσης. Η υποτίμηση του ευρώ έναντι του δολαρίου ΗΠΑ, νομίσματος στο οποίο εκφράζονται οι τιμές του αργού πετρελαίου στις διεθνείς αγορές, συνέβαλε επίσης στη διαμόρφωση του υψηλού επιπέδου των τιμών του πετρελαίου. Η καλύτερη εναρμόνιση των τιμών των καυσίμων στην ΕΕ θα ήταν επωφελής για τους καταναλωτές και θα μπορούσε να επιτευχθεί κυρίως μέσω ομοιογενέστερων συντελεστών ΦΠΑ και έμμεσων φόρων, και ιδίως των ειδικών φόρων κατανάλωσης. Προς τούτο, η Επιτροπή έχει προτείνει αναθεωρημένη

1.

Η Επιτροπή έχει πλήρη επίγνωση του γεγονότος ότι οι τιμές της βενζίνης σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ συγκαταλέγονται μεταξύ των υψηλότερων παγκοσμίως. Η εν λόγω κατάσταση είναι κυρίως αποτέλεσμα της υψηλής φορολογίας και πρωτίστως του ΦΠΑ και των ειδικών φόρων κατανάλωσης. Η υποτίμηση του ευρώ έναντι του δολαρίου ΗΠΑ, νομίσματος στο οποίο εκφράζονται οι τιμές του αργού πετρελαίου στις διεθνείς αγορές, συνέβαλε επίσης στη διαμόρφωση του υψηλού επιπέδου των τιμών του πετρελαίου. Η καλύτερη εναρμόνιση των τιμών των καυσίμων στην ΕΕ θα ήταν επωφελής για τους καταναλωτές και θα μπορούσε να επιτευχθεί κυρίως μέσω ομοιογενέστερων συντελεστών ΦΠΑ και έμμεσων φόρων, και ιδίως των ειδικών φόρων κατανάλωσης. Προς τούτο, η Επιτροπή έχει προτείνει αναθεωρημένη

«οδηγία για τη φορολογία της ενέργειας» (161). Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί εκ του σύνεγγυς την κατάσταση στον τομέα των πετρελαιοειδών της ΕΕ. Ειδικότερα, τα δεδομένα σχετικά με τις τιμές των πετρελαιοειδών και την φορολογία στην ΕΕ συλλέγονται εβδομαδιαία και δημοσιεύονται στον δικτυακό τόπο του Παρατηρητηρίου Ενεργειακών Αγορών (162).

2.

και 3. Σε συμφωνία με την Τρόικα, οι ειδικοί φόροι κατανάλωσης για το πετρέλαιο κίνησης και το πετρέλαιο θέρμανσης εξισώθηκαν στην Ελλάδα από τον Οκτώβριο του 2012, με στόχο να διορθωθεί η υφιστάμενη απάτη στον τομέα καυσίμων. Κατά συνέπεια, οι ειδικοί φόροι κατανάλωσης για το πετρέλαιο κίνησης μειώθηκαν από τα 412 στα 330 ευρώ ανά 1 000 λίτρα, γεγονός που αναμένεται να βοηθήσει τον τομέα των μεταφορών και να συμβάλλει στη μείωση των τιμών των βασικών αγαθών και υπηρεσιών. Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή, η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο έχουν εντοπίσει διάφορα προβλήματα που παρεμποδίζουν τον ανταγωνισμό στην ελληνική αγορά καυσίμων, ιδίως στον τομέα των μεταφορών. Σε μνημόνιο συμφωνίας

2.

και 3. Σε συμφωνία με την Τρόικα, οι ειδικοί φόροι κατανάλωσης για το πετρέλαιο κίνησης και το πετρέλαιο θέρμανσης εξισώθηκαν στην Ελλάδα από τον Οκτώβριο του 2012, με στόχο να διορθωθεί η υφιστάμενη απάτη στον τομέα καυσίμων. Κατά συνέπεια, οι ειδικοί φόροι κατανάλωσης για το πετρέλαιο κίνησης μειώθηκαν από τα 412 στα 330 ευρώ ανά 1 000 λίτρα, γεγονός που αναμένεται να βοηθήσει τον τομέα των μεταφορών και να συμβάλλει στη μείωση των τιμών των βασικών αγαθών και υπηρεσιών. Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή, η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο έχουν εντοπίσει διάφορα προβλήματα που παρεμποδίζουν τον ανταγωνισμό στην ελληνική αγορά καυσίμων, ιδίως στον τομέα των μεταφορών. Σε μνημόνιο συμφωνίας

 (163), η ελληνική κυβέρνηση δεσμεύτηκε να αντιμετωπίσει τα εν λόγω θέματα.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001686/13

to the Commission

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Petrol prices in EU Member States among the highest the world

According to a survey by Bloomberg, the international news agency, on petrol prices in sixty countries, eight of the ten countries with the most expensive petrol prices worldwide are EU Member States.

These findings are particularly alarming, given that these eight include countries, such as Italy, Portugal, and Greece (ranked 4th, 5th and 6th, respectively) where stringent fiscal plans have caused dramatic reductions in wages and income in recent years for households which are now experiencing real poverty. More specifically, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, consumers in Greece have to spend 15% of their daily wages to buy a litre of petrol; the corresponding figures for Italy and Portugal are 10%, and 17%, respectively.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Is it aware of the above findings of the Bloomberg survey and, if so, is it planning to conduct a survey of its own to study the causes of increased petrol prices on the European market and ways of reducing them to reasonable levels?

Particularly with regard to Member States such as Greece, where goods are transported mainly by road, so that high fuel costs translate into higher prices for commodities, is the Commission, in its capacity as a member of the Troika, drawing up proposals to ease fuel prices that, by reducing transport costs, could help bring about a corresponding reduction in prices?

How is the maintenance of fuel prices at such high levels compatible with the goal of lowering prices, at least for basic goods and services, so as to ensure that Greek citizens, who have seen their real incomes fall sharply, have access to these goods and services?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2013)

1.The Commission is well aware of the fact that petrol prices in a certain number of Member States of the EU are among the highest in the world. This situation is mainly the result of high taxation, notably VAT and excise duties. The depreciation of the Euro versus the US Dollar, currency in which the crude oil prices are expressed on the international markets, has also played a role in the high level of petrol prices. A better harmonisation of fuel prices in the EU would be advantageous for consumers and could be reached notably through a more homogeneous VAT and indirect taxes rates, in particular excise duties. To this end, the Commission has proposed a revised ‘Energy Taxation Directive’ (164). The Commission closely monitors the situation in the EU's oil sector. In particular, data on petroleum products prices and taxation in the EU is collected every week and published on the Market Observatory for Energy website (165).

2 and 3.In agreement with the Troika, excise duties on diesel oil and heating gasoil have been equalized in Greece since October 2012 in order to remedy the existing fuel fraud. Consequently, excises duties on diesel oil have decreased from EUR 412 per 1000 litres to EUR 330 which should help the transportation sector and have a downward effect on basic goods and services. Moreover, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have identified various problems which hinder the competition on the Greek fuel market, notably in the transportation sector. In a memorandum of understanding (166), the Greek Government made a commitment to address these issues.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001687/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights in China: the case of Uyghur prisoner Alimujiang Yimiti

Alimujiang Yimiti (also known as Alimjan Himit/Yimit) is a Christian convert from the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. In 2008 he was arrested on criminal charges of ‘suspicion of inciting people to secede from China’ and ‘illegally providing state secrets to foreigners’. The trial process and appeal investigation have been highly secretive, and the verdict on his case was not reached until one year after he was initially detained. In 2009 he was sentenced during secret trials to 15 years in prison and 5 years’ deprivation of political rights. In September 2008 the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that ‘the deprivation of liberty of Mr Alimujiang Yimiti is arbitrary, being in contravention of […] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ and that he ‘is being kept in detention solely for his religious faith’.

Mr Yimiti’s quality of life in prison is poor; he was hospitalised in 2009, but prison authorities claimed that it was for a routine health check, whereas witnesses claimed that there were signs of brutality. Moreover, on 23 January 2013 prison authorities informed his wife, Gulinuer, that her monthly visits were being reduced to once every three months, without providing a reason; one visit per month is normally permitted. Mr Yimiti’s wife believes that the prison authorities’ decision to reduce her visits could be connected to her husband’s current appeal against his sentence.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the recent developments in this case?

2.

What action does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take on behalf of Alimujiang Yimiti, with the ultimate aim of securing his release?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

The HR/VP is well aware of the case raised by the Honourable Member, which the EEAS has been monitoring for some time. Furthermore, his case was raised several times with the Chinese authorities, in particular as a prominent case during the last Human Rights Dialogue, which took place in May last year and on which occasion, it was stated that the EU considers that Alimjan Yimit’s conviction is incompatible with his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief and that he should be released from prison. So long as Alimjan Yimit remains in prison, the EU calls on China to allow him regular family visits.

Alimujiang Yimiti’s case was also raised in the margins of the 15th EU-China summit and during the 2011 Human Rights Dialogue.

The EU will keep on pressing for his release.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001688/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Homo's uit Turks leger ontslagen (vervolgvraag)

Op 4 februari 2013 heeft de heer Füle namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag E-010756/2012. Daarin schrijft hij onder andere: „De Commissie veroordeelt alle vormen en uitingen van onverdraagzaamheid die niet stroken met de waarden en beginselen waarop de Europese Unie gegrondvest is. Turkije, een land dat met de EU onderhandelt over toetreding, moet de mensenrechten garanderen, en discriminatie verbieden overeenkomstig het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de jurisprudentie van het Europees Hof voor de rechten van de mens.”

1.

Wanneer trekt de Commissie de conclusie dat Turkije, een discriminerend land — in dit geval door homo's uit het Turkse leger te willen ontslaan —, EU-onwaardig is en dat derhalve de toetredingsonderhandelingen dienen te worden gestopt? Met andere woorden, hoezeer dient, in de ogen van de Commissie, de situatie in Turkije verder te verslechteren voordat zij tot deze conclusie komt?

2.

Waarop baseert de Commissie haar (impliciete) hoop en verwachting dat de situatie in Turkije, een land dat almaar verder afglijdt, tóch zal verbeteren?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(12 april 2013)

Om toe te treden tot de Europese Unie, moeten landen zich aan het acquis van de Europese Unie aanpassen en aan de economische en politieke vereisten voldoen. Het vrijwaren van de mensenrechten, met inbegrip van het discriminatieverbod, vormt daar een essentieel onderdeel van. Tijdens het toetredingsproces wordt Turkije geacht alle onopgeloste kwesties aan te pakken.

Voor een nadere beoordeling van het toetredingsproces en de vooruitgang die is geboekt, verwijst de Commissie het geachte Parlementslid naar haar voortgangsverslag over Turkije van oktober 2012 (167).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001688/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Dismissal of homosexuals from the Turkish army (follow-up question)

On 4 February 2013, Mr Füle replied on behalf of the Commission to Written Question E-010756/2012. In his reply he wrote, inter alia: ‘The Commission condemns all forms and manifestations of intolerance which are incompatible with the values and principles upon which the European Union is founded. Turkey, as a country negotiating its accession to the EU, needs to guarantee human rights, including the prohibition of discrimination, in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.’

1.

When will the Commission draw the conclusion that Turkey, a country which discriminates — in this case by its desire to dismiss homosexuals from the Turkish army — is not worthy to join the EU and that the accession negotiations should therefore be halted? In other words, how much worse does the Commission consider that the situation in Turkey needs to become before it reaches this conclusion?

2.

On what does the Commission base its (implicit) hope and expectation that the situation in Turkey, a country which is constantly regressing, will nonetheless improve?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

In order to join the European Union, countries have to align with the European Union's acquis, as well as the economic and political criteria. Safeguarding human rights, including the prohibition of discrimination, constitutes an essential element in this regard. Turkey is expected to address all outstanding issues in the course of its accession process.

For a closer assessment of the state of the accession process and the progress made, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its progress report on Turkey of October 2012 (168).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001689/13

aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: VP/HR — Erdoğan pro-Hamas en anti-Israël (vervolgvraag)

Op 7 februari 2013 heeft vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag E-010735/2012. Daarin schrijft zij onder andere: „De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter roept zowel Turkije als Israël op zich  terughoudend op te stellen om een verdere verslechtering van de bilaterale relaties te voorkomen. Zij hecht groot belang aan een constructief toenaderingsproces op basis van dialoog en extra inspanningen om de banden te versterken.”

1.

Hoe ziet vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton een

„constructief toenaderingsproces” tussen Turkije en Israël concreet voor zich? Hoe succesvol schat zij een dergelijk proces in wanneer Turkije zich overduidelijk anti-Israël, en daarmee juist onconstructief, opstelt? Waarop baseert zij zich wanneer zij impliceert dat de houding van Turkije in dezen zal verbeteren?

Voorts schrijft vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton: „In de conclusies van de Raad Buitenlandse Zaken van 23 mei 2011 heeft de EU erop aangedrongen dat de verscheidene Palestijnse groeperingen zich verzoenen en zich achter president Mahmoud Abbas scharen als belangrijk element voor de eenheid van een toekomstige Palestijnse staat en voor het verwezenlijken van een tweestatenoplossing.”

2.

Impliceert vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton hiermee dat zij haar ondersteuning verleent aan één Palestijnse groepering, bestaande uit Fatah én Hamas, een  terroristische organisatie? Deelt zij de mening dat zij het voortbestaan van Hamas, geschaard onder welke groepering dan ook, nimmer dient te ondersteunen maar met de krachtigste bewoordingen dient te veroordelen? Waarom

„verdedigt” zij impliciet een organisatie die nota bene op de EU-terreurlijst staat?

3.

Is vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton zich ervan bewust dat er reeds een Palestijnse staat is, genaamd Jordanië? Zo ja, is zij derhalve bereid haar voorkeur voor de

„eenheid van een toekomstige Palestijnse staat” en het „verwezenlijken van een tweestatenoplossing” in te trekken?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(3 mei 2013)

Tijdens haar recente bezoek aan Turkije op 3 april heeft de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter de Turks-Israëlische betrekkingen besproken met premier Erdoğan en minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Davutoğlu. Zij prees de recente toenadering tussen de twee landen als de juiste keuze. Beide gesprekspartners hebben het belang van deze ontwikkeling erkend. De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter zal deze kwesties blijven bespreken in het kader van een intensievere dialoog over buitenlands beleid met Turkije, zoals beschreven in de conclusies van de Raad van december 2012.

Het EU-beleid met betrekking tot de Palestijnse verzoening is beschreven in de conclusies van de Raad Buitenlandse Zaken (RBZ) van 23 mei 2011 over het vredesproces in het Midden-Oosten. Een nieuwe Palestijnse regering, bestaande uit onafhankelijke personen, moet het beginsel van geweldloosheid naleven en zich blijven inzetten voor het verwezenlijken van een tweestatenoplossing en een middels onderhandelingen bereikte vreedzame regeling van het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict, waarbij reeds bestaande overeenkomsten en verplichtingen, inclusief het legitieme bestaansrecht van Israël, worden aanvaard. In de conclusies van de RBZ van 10 december 2012 heeft de EU opnieuw aangegeven dat het met het oog op de eenheid van een toekomstige Palestijnse staat en  ter verwezenlijking van een tweestatenoplossing van groot belang is dat de verschillende Palestijnse groeperingen zich verzoenen en zich achter president Abbas scharen, overeenkomstig de in zijn rede van 4 mei 2011 uiteengezette beginselen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001689/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Erdoğan pro-Hamas and anti-Israel (follow-up question)

On 7 February 2013, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton answered Written Question E-010735/2012 on behalf of the Commission. In her answer she wrote, inter alia: ‘The High Representative/Vice-President urges both Turkey and Israel to exercise restraint in order to avoid further deterioration of bilateral relations and places great importance on a constructive rapprochement process, dialogue and further efforts to improve ties.’

1.

In practical terms, what form does Vice-President/High Representative Ashton envisage a

‘constructive rapprochement process’ between Turkey and Israel taking? How successful does she consider such a process to be when Turkey unequivocally adopts an anti-Israeli — and thus anything but constructive — position? On what does she base her implication that Turkey’s attitude will improve in this respect?

Vice-President/High Representative Ashton also writes: ‘The EU called in the Conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council of 23 May 2011 for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind President Mahmud Abbas as an important element for the unity of a future Palestinian state and for reaching a two state solution.’

2.

Does Vice-President/High Representative Ashton mean to imply that she supports a single Palestinian group comprising both Fatah and Hamas, a terrorist organisation? Does she agree that she ought never to support the continued existence of Hamas, as part of any group whatsoever, but should condemn it in the strongest terms? Why does she implicitly

‘defend’ an organisation which — it should be noted — figures on the EU list of terrorist organisations?

3.

Is Vice-President/High Representative Ashton aware that there already is a Palestinian state, called Jordan? If so, will she withdraw her preference for

‘the unity of a future Palestinian state’ and for ‘reaching a two state solution’?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

During her recent trip to Turkey on 3 April, the HR/VP discussed the issue of Turkish-Israeli relations with both Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu. She commended the recent rapprochement between the two countries as the right thing to do. Both interlocutors acknowledged the significance of this development. The HR/VP will continue to discuss these issues in the framework of the intensified EU foreign policy dialogue with Turkey as stated in the Council conclusions of December 2012.

EU policy regarding Palestinian reconcilaition is outlined in the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) of 23 May 2011. A new Palestinian government composed of independent figures should uphold the principle of non-violence, and remain committed to achieving a two state solution and to a negotiated peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accepting previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist. In the FAC conclusions on MEPP of 10 December 2012 the EU reiterated its call for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, in line with the principles set out in his speech of 4 May 2011, as an important element for the unity of a future Palestinian state and for reaching a two-state solution.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001690/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Erdoğan wil Ottomaans rijk (vervolgvraag)

Op 7 februari 2013 heeft de heer Füle namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag E-010872/2012. Daarin schrijft hij: „De Commissie is niet voornemens commentaar te geven bij elke verklaring [aangehaald in genoemde vraag] die door de pers wordt toegeschreven aan Turkse regeringsleden.”

1.

Op welke verklaringen, afkomstig uit de pers, geeft de Commissie wél en op welke geeft zij geen commentaar? Wat zijn hierbij de criteria? Waarom wenst de Commissie geen commentaar te geven op het bericht

1.

Op welke verklaringen, afkomstig uit de pers, geeft de Commissie wél en op welke geeft zij geen commentaar? Wat zijn hierbij de criteria? Waarom wenst de Commissie geen commentaar te geven op het bericht

„Erdoğan träumt vom Reich der Osmanen” (169)? Heeft dit met de onwelgevallige inhoud van het bericht te maken of is de Commissie van mening dat het bericht ten onrechte is „toegeschreven aan Turkse regeringsleden” — en waarop baseert zij zich daarbij?

2.

Deelt de Commissie alleszins de mening dat een land dat op gebiedsuitbreiding zint, nimmer tot de EU moet toetreden? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(22 april 2013)

De Commissie heeft geen verder commentaar bij haar antwoord op vraag E-010872/2012 (170) met betrekking tot de voorwaarden voor schorsing van de toetredingsonderhandelingen die in het onderhandelingskader van 2005 zijn vastgesteld.

De Commissie concentreert zich op kwesties die relevant zijn voor het toetredingsproces van Turkije.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001690/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Erdoğan wants Ottoman Empire

On 7 February 2013, Mr Füle replied on behalf of the Commission to Written Question E-010872/2012. In his reply he wrote: ‘The Commission does not intend to comment on every statement [quoted in the question] attributed by the press to Turkish members of the government.’

1.

On what statements derived from the press will the Commission comment and on which will it not? What are the criteria for this? Why will the Commission not comment on the report

1.

On what statements derived from the press will the Commission comment and on which will it not? What are the criteria for this? Why will the Commission not comment on the report

‘Erdoğan träumt vom Reich der Osmanen’ (171)? Is it because of the unwelcome content of the report, or does the Commission consider that the report was wrongly ‘attributed to Turkish members of the government’ — and on what does the Commission base this?

2.

Does the Commission fully endorse the opinion that a country which seeks to expand its territory should never accede to the EU? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2013)

The Commission has no further comments in addition to its reply to Question E-010872/2012 (172) regarding the conditions for suspension of the accession negotiations as set out in the Negotiating Framework from 2005.

The Commission focuses its work on issues that are relevant to Turkey's accession process.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001774/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)

(20 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Blocco dell'accesso a YouTube in Egitto

A inizio febbraio 2013, il governo egiziano ha imposto un blocco temporaneo di YouTube a causa della controversa pellicola Innocence of Muslims (L'innocenza dei musulmani), che ha provocato proteste in tutto il mondo islamico. Un tribunale del Cairo ha chiesto di interrompere l'accesso al sito web per 30 giorni. Secondo Amnesty International, nella sentenza della corte si leggerebbe che «la libertà di opinione non [dovrebbe] attaccare il credo altrui». Il Tribunale amministrativo del Cairo ha affermato che la libertà di opinione non dovrebbe «ferire la sensibilità e suscitare risentimento nei credenti di altre religioni, in particolare quelle monoteistiche» e che i media dovrebbero astenersi dal «diffamare» le figure religiose.

Ciononostante, l'Egitto è parte della Convenzione internazionale sui diritti civili e politici, che tutela la libertà di esprimere le proprie idee, anche se considerate offensive o ingiuriose. Secondo quanto dichiarato dal vicedirettore di Amnesty International per il Medio Oriente e l'Africa settentrionale, «la sentenza costituisce un palese attacco alla libertà di espressione e ha conseguenze di ampio raggio su un paese in cui gli attivisti contano estesamente su YouTube per denunciare gli abusi legati ai diritti umani».

1.

Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito al blocco di YouTube da parte del governo egiziano?

2.

È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante pronto a ridurre l'aiuto dell'Unione europea all'Egitto, qualora quest'ultimo dovesse continuare ad agire in contravvenzione della politica

«more for more» (maggiori aiuti a fronte di un maggiore impegno)?

3.

Qual è la valutazione dei funzionari UE al Cairo sulla limitazione della libertà di espressione in Egitto da parte del governo?

Risposta congiunta di Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione

(16 maggio 2013)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza dei fatti esposti.

Per quanto riguarda il divieto del film anti islamico, l’UE è fortemente impegnata a sostenere il rispetto della libertà di espressione sancita dal Patto internazionale delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti civili e politici. La necessità di rispettare tale libertà è anche alla base degli impegni in materia di diritti umani assunti dalle autorità egiziane nell’ambito dell’accordo di associazione concluso con l’UE ed è chiaramente menzionata nel piano d’azione concordato tra UE ed Egitto.

L’Unione europea mantiene una posizione ferma e di principio contro la pena di morte la cui abolizione costituisce un obiettivo di primo piano nella sua politica in materia di diritti umani. L’UE è in prima fila, come soggetto istituzionale, nella battaglia per l’abolizione della pena di morte e costituisce il principale donatore nell’ambito della lotta contro di essa. L’abolizione della pena di morte è invocata in tutte le riunioni bilaterali pertinenti con l’Egitto, in particolare nel quadro del dialogo politico tra l’UE e il paese.

Per quanto concerne gli aiuti dell’UE in favore dell’Egitto, l’AR/VP ritiene che la cooperazione e il dialogo politico costituiscano i canali più appropriati per incoraggiare le riforme democratiche nel paese. L’UE ritiene che una sospensione degli aiuti attualmente non si giustifichi.

In questo contesto è importante tenere presente che i programmi dell’Unione europea sostengono il popolo egiziano e i suoi soggetti più vulnerabili. Nel 2012, ad esempio, l’UE ha fornito sostegno in settori chiave quali la creazione di posti di lavoro, la capacità d’inserimento professionale dei giovani e la formazione professionale.

La costruzione della democrazia richiede molto lavoro, impegno e pazienza, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale. È chiaro che l’Egitto si trova ad affrontare gravi ostacoli nel suo processo di transizione e, più che mai, l’Europa, come vicina e come partner, deve impegnarsi e sostenere tale processo, sottolineando nel contempo con forza l’importanza di creare una società fondata sullo Stato di diritto e nel rispetto dei principi in materia di diritti umani riconosciuti a livello internazionale.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001691/13

aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: VP/HR — Christenen  ter dood veroordeeld wegens anti-islamfilm (vervolgvraag)

Op 11 februari 2013 heeft vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger Ashton namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag E-010911/2012. Daarin schrijft zij onder andere: „De EU is principieel fel gekant tegen de doodstraf en de afschaffing ervan is een van de hoofddoelstellingen van haar mensenrechtenbeleid. […] De EU is van oordeel dat samenwerking en politieke dialoog de meest geschikte manieren zijn om democratische hervormingen in Egypte aan te moedigen. Zij meent bovendien dat het opschorten van hulp momenteel niet gerechtvaardigd is. In principe kunnen alle EU-samenwerkingprogramma's worden opgeschort als het begunstigde land zijn verplichtingen niet nakomt inzake eerbiediging van de mensenrechten, de democratische beginselen en de rechtsstaat, en bij ernstige corruptie. De EU is van oordeel dat samenwerking en politieke dialoog de meest geschikte manieren zijn om democratische hervormingen in Egypte aan te moedigen.”

1.

Impliceert de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger met haar antwoord dat het uitvoeren van de doodstraf voor haar geen reden is om de financiële ondersteuning van de EU aan Egypte op te schorten resp. definitief af te schaffen, hoewel zij stelt dat dat in principe wél mogelijk is? Deelt de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger de mening dat dit niet te rijmen valt met haar stelling dat de EU principieel fel gekant is tegen de doodstraf? Hoe verklaart zij deze hypocrisie?

2.

Welke andere verschrikkingen, naast het uitvoeren van de doodstraf, dienen er volgens de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger verder in Egypte nog plaats te vinden, voordat zij besluit de financiële ondersteuning van de EU aan Egypte te beëindigen? Impliceert de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger dat het uitvoeren van de doodstraf in dezen

„niet ernstig genoeg” zou zijn? Zo ja, hoe valt dat de rijmen met haar stelling dat Egypte „democratische hervormingen” zou doormaken? Zo neen, waarom is de financiële ondersteuning dan nog niet beëindigd?

3.

Deelt de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger de mening dat de EU bovendien af dient te zien van de door de heer Van Rompuy aangekondigde additionele financiële ondersteuning van 5 miljard euro aan Egypte?

4.

Waarop baseert de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger haar verwachting dat de situatie in Egypte, middels de financiële ondersteuning van de EU, zal verbeteren?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001692/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Anti-islamfilm verboden in Egypte

Egypte heeft Youtube voor een maand in de ban gedaan vanwege de film Innocence of Muslims. De blokkade volgt op de uitspraak van een administratieve rechter: volgens de rechtbank „stond Youtube erop de beledigende film uit te zenden, waarmee het geloof van miljoenen Egyptenaren en de boosheid van alle moslims wordt genegeerd”.

1.

Is het de Commissie bekend dat Egypte Youtube vanwege de film

Innocence of Muslims

heeft geblokkeerd? Wat vindt de Commissie hiervan? Verwerpt de Commissie deze ordinaire censuur?

2.

Deelt de Commissie de mening dat Egypte met de blokkade in strijd handelt met de vrijheid van meningsuiting? Deelt de Commissie de mening dat dit aantoont dat het land almaar verder afglijdt?

3.

Heeft de blokkade gevolgen voor de door de heer Van Rompuy aangekondigde verstrekking van 5 miljard euro aan Egypte? Is de Commissie bereid van deze financiële ondersteuning af te zien? Zo neen, hoe verantwoordt de Commissie de financiële ondersteuning van een land dat, naar haar zeggen, een

„positieve, democratische ontwikkeling” zou doormaken, maar in feite almaar verder afglijdt, thans door de vrijheid van meningsuiting verder in te perken?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(16 mei 2013)

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter is op de hoogte van deze gebeurtenissen.

Wat het verbod van de anti-islamfilm betreft, hecht de EU veel belang aan de eerbiediging van de vrijheid van meningsuiting zoals deze is beschreven in het Internationaal Verdrag inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten. De eerbiediging van de vrijheid van meningsuiting is eveneens een essentieel onderdeel van de mensenrechtenverbintenissen van Egypte in het kader van de associatieovereenkomst met de EU en wordt ook duidelijk vermeld in het actieplan dat met Egypte is overeengekomen.

De EU is zich sterk en principieel tegen de doodstraf gekant. De afschaffing ervan is een van de kerndoelstellingen van haar mensenrechtenbeleid. De EU is de leidende institutionele actor en belangrijkste donor in de strijd tegen de doodstraf. De afschaffing van de doodstraf komt  ter sprake in alle relevante bilaterale contacten met Egypte, in het bijzonder in de politieke dialoog tussen de EU en Egypte.

Wat de steun van de EU aan Egypte betreft, is de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter van mening dat samenwerking en politieke dialoog de meest geschikte kanalen zijn om democratische hervormingen in Egypte aan te moedigen. De EU is niet van oordeel dat een opschorting van de steun op dit moment gerechtvaardigd is.

In dit verband moet voor ogen worden gehouden dat de EU-programma's steun bieden aan de Egyptische bevolking en met name aan de meest kwetsbare bevolkingsgroepen. In 2012 heeft de EU onder meer steun verleend op belangrijke vlakken als het scheppen van werkgelegenheid, de inzetbaarheid van jongeren en beroepsopleidingen.

De opbouw van democratie vergt veel werk, inzet en geduld, zowel van het land in kwestie als van de internationale gemeenschap. Het is duidelijk dat Egypte in zijn overgang naar democratie te kampen heeft met ernstige belemmeringen, en dat Europa, als buur en partner, de overgang in Egypte nu meer dan ooit moet ondersteunen en tegelijkertijd het belang van de rechtsstaat en van de naleving van internationaal overeengekomen beginselen inzake mensenrechten moet benadrukken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001691/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Christians sentenced to death for anti-Islam film (follow-up question)

On 11 February 2013, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton answered Written Question E-010911/2012 on behalf of the Commission. In her reply she wrote, inter alia: ‘The EU holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty; its abolition is a key objective for the Union’s human rights policy. […] The EU considers that cooperation and political dialogue are the most appropriate channels to encourage democratic reforms in Egypt. Moreover, the EU does not consider that suspension of assistance would be justified currently. In principle, all EU cooperation programmes can be suspended if the beneficiary country breaches an obligation relating to the respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and in serious cases of corruption. The EU considers that cooperation and political dialogue are the most appropriate channels to encourage democratic reforms in Egypt.’

1.

Does the answer given by the Vice-President/High Representative imply that in her view carrying out the death penalty is not sufficient grounds to suspend or terminate the EU’s financial assistance to Egypt, although she states that in principle this is possible? Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that this is not consistent with her assertion that the EU holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty? How does she explain this hypocrisy?

2.

What other appalling actions, besides carrying out the death penalty, does the Vice-President/High Representative think should occur in Egypt before she decides to terminate the EU’s financial assistance to Egypt? Does the Vice-President/High Representative mean to imply that carrying out the death penalty is not

‘serious’ enough to warrant this? If so, how can that be reconciled with her assertion that Egypt is implementing ‘democratic reforms’? If not, why has the financial assistance not yet been terminated?

3.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that the EU ought moreover to refrain from providing the additional EUR 5 bn in financial support for Egypt announced by Mr Van Rompuy?

4.

On what does the Vice-President/High Representative base her expectation that the situation in Egypt will improve as a result of the EU's financial support?

Question for written answer E-001692/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Anti-Islam film banned in Egypt

A month ago, Egypt imposed a ban on YouTube in response to the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. This ban followed a ruling by an administrative court which stated that YouTube had ‘insisted on broadcasting the film, disrespecting the beliefs of millions of Egyptians and disregarding the anger of all Muslims’.

1.

Is the Commission aware that Egypt has imposed a ban on YouTube in response to the film

‘Innocence of Muslims’? What is the Commission’s view of this? Does the Commission reject this crude censorship?

2.

Does the Commission agree that, in imposing this ban, Egypt is acting in contravention of the freedom of expression? Does the Commission agree that this shows that the country is regressing?

3.

Does this ban have any consequences for the EUR 5 billion which Mr Van Rompuy has promised to Egypt? Is the Commission prepared to withdraw this financial support? If not, how does the Commission justify giving financial support to a country which, in the Commission’s own words, should be developing in a positive and democratic manner, but which is in fact regressing by restricting the freedom of expression to an even greater extent?

Question for written answer E-001774/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)

(20 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — YouTube ban in Egypt

In early February 2013, the Egyptian Government imposed a temporary ban on YouTube because of the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, which sparked protests across the Muslim world. A court in Cairo called for a 30-day block on the website. According to Amnesty International, the court ruling said that ‘freedom of opinion [should] not attack the beliefs of others’. Cairo’s Administrative Court stated that freedom of opinion should not ‘provoke the feelings and resentment of believers of other religions, particularly heavenly religions’ and that the media should refrain from ‘defamation’ of religious figures.

However, Egypt is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the expression of ideas even when they are considered to be offensive or insulting. Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa said: ‘this ruling is a clear assault of freedom of expression and has far-reaching consequences in the country where activists have relied heavily on YouTube to expose human rights abuses in the country’.

1.

What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the blocking of YouTube by the Egyptian Government?

2.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to reduce EU aid to Egypt if it continues to act in contravention of the

‘more for more’ policy?

3.

What is the assessment of EU officials in Cairo regarding the government’s curtailment of free expression in Egypt?

Joint answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of the events.

Regarding the ban of the anti-Islam film, the EU is strongly committed to the respect of freedom of expression as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The need to respect freedom of expression is also at the core of the human rights commitments undertaken by Egypt under the Association Agreement concluded with the EU and is also clearly mentioned in the action plan agreed with Egypt.

The EU holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty; its abolition is a key objective for the EU’s human rights policy. The EU is the leading institutional actor and largest donor to the fight against the death penalty. The abolition of the death penalty is raised in all relevant bilateral contacts with Egypt, notably in the context of the EU-Egypt political dialogue.

Regarding EU assistance to Egypt, the HR/VP considers that cooperation and political dialogue are the most appropriate channels to encourage democratic reforms in Egypt. The EU does not consider that suspension of assistance would be justified currently.

In this context it is important to keep in mind that EU programmes support the Egyptian people and the most vulnerable among them. For instance in 2012 the EU provided support in key areas such as Job Creation, Youth Employability and Vocational Training.

Democracy building requires hard work, commitment and patience — both domestically and internationally. It is clear that Egypt is facing severe obstacles in its transition, and more than ever, Europe as a neighbour and a partner has to engage and support Egypt’s transition while strongly emphasising the importance of establishing a society based on the rule of law and respecting internationally agreed human rights principles.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001693/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Staff in the Protocol Service assigned to each Commissioner

How many people in the Protocol Service are assigned to each Commissioner?

Question for written answer E-001696/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

Does the Commission have any plans to reduce or increase the cost of the Protocol Service?

Question for written answer E-001700/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

What is the total number of staff employed in the Protocol Service of the European Commission?

Question for written answer E-001704/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of grades for staff in the Protocol Service of the Commission?

Question for written answer E-001708/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Costs of Protocol Service

What are the costs of the Protocol Service of the European Commission?

Question for written answer E-001711/13

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Protocol Service of the Commission

Does the Commission find it reasonable to have a Protocol Service?

Joint answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

The Protocol Service is placed under the authority of the Secretary General of the European Commission to assist the President and Members of the Commission in implementing their tasks of external representation of the European Union, entrusted upon them by Article 17 of the Treaty.

On 1 January 2013, the Protocol Service was composed of 12 staff: three administrators and nine assistants. None of the members of the Protocol Service is specifically assigned to any Commissioner, all work for the President, the Vice-Presidents and the Members of the College. In 2012, as a contribution to the 5% staff reduction implemented by the Commission, the size of the Protocol Service has been reduced from 13 to 12 staff members.

The cost of the salaries of the Protocol Service staff are part of the overall staff budget of the Commission. The Protocol Service is attached to the Secretariat General.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001694/13

to the Council

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

Does the Council have any plans to reduce or increase the cost of the Protocol Service?

Question for written answer E-001699/13

to the Council

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

What is the total number of staff employed in the Protocol Service of the Council?

Question for written answer E-001703/13

to the Council

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

Can the Council provide a breakdown of grades for staff employed in the Protocol Service of the Council?

Question for written answer E-001707/13

to the Council

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Costs of Protocol Service

What are the costs of the Protocol Service of the Council?

Question for written answer E-001710/13

to the Council

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Protocol Service of the Council

Does the Council find it reasonable to have a Protocol Service?

Joint reply

(2 May 2013)

Given the fact that the General Secretariat of the Council organises each year approximately 6000 multilateral meetings between Member States, some at the highest political level, and that Article 15 TEU provides that the President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy (without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative), a Protocol Service is necessary.

The costs of the Protocol Service are those of the pay of its agents, and the cost of overtime, whenever necessary for the accomplishment of duty, for those agents entitled by the Staff Regulations to financial compensation. They were as follows for 2012:

staff costs: EUR 1 470 194;

overtime: EUR 44 362.

As at 1 March 2013, staff of the Protocol Unit of the General Secretariat of the Council were classed in the following grades:

ADMINISTRATORS

GRADE

NUMBER

12

1

7

1

5

1

Total AD

3

ASSISTANTS

GRADE

NUMBER

7

2

6

4

5

2

4

2

3

3

2

2

Total AST

15

CONTRACTUAL AGENT

Function Group III

1

Grand total

19

The Council is not planning either to reduce or to increase the cost of the Protocol Service.

_________________

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001697/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Reducing or increasing the cost of the Protocol Service

Does the Vice-President/High Representative have any plans to reduce or increase the cost of the Protocol Service?

Question for written answer E-001701/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Number of staff employed in the Protocol Service

What is the total number of staff employed in the Protocol Service of the European External Action Service?

Question for written answer E-001705/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Breakdown of grades for Protocol Service staff

Can the Vice-President/High Representative provide a breakdown of grades for staff employed in the Protocol Service of the European External Action Service?

Question for written answer E-001709/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Costs of Protocol Service

What are the costs of the Protocol Service of the European External Action Service?

Question for written answer E-001712/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Protocol Service of the European External Action Service

Does the Vice-President/High Representative find it reasonable to have a Protocol Service?

Joint answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The Sector of Protocol, Meetings and Conferences of the EEAS was created in July 2012 as part of the Infrastructures Division in the Directorate of Finance and Corporate Support.

This sector mainly deals with incoming visits from Ministerial level and VIP events (meetings, official meals) taking place in the EEAS HQ, diplomatic and protocol related questions for both HQ and delegations, including accreditations as well as the management of meetings and conferences and managing an associated budget (EUR 440.000 in 2012). This could not be handled by the Commission and the GSC protocol services with which the EEAS maintains a close cooperation.

In addition to one AD official working on Protocol issues in the cabinet of the High Representative/Vice-President, the Sector is composed of 8 staff members: the head of sector (AD 5), a second official (AD 12), 3 ASTs and 3 contract agents. These EEAS posts were identified following a screening exercise and they were redeployed from other services.

As a new service, it is not foreseen for the time being to change the size, the activities nor the responsibilities of the Protocol, meetings and conferences sector.

The costs are limited to the cost of the staff composing the Protocol sector and the usual directly related expenses (missions, offices, stationary, etc.).

In this context and for the wide range of services to be provided for handling high level visits in Brussels and dealing with protocol issues in our network of 141 delegations, the creation of this small sector can be considered as an appropriate decision in terms of management and rationalisation of the services. It cannot be compared to the Commission or the General Secretariat of the Council protocol services or even Member States' services.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-001713/13

an die Kommission

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE)

(18. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Ausreisemodalitäten für Minderjährige unter 14 Jahren im Mitgliedstaat Italien

Die Handhabung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 444/2009 wurde durch eine italienische Bestimmung dahin gehend ergänzt, dass die Erlaubnis der Eltern von einer Behörde, im Fall Italiens die Quästur, beglaubigt und mit Stempel versehen werden muss. Besonders für Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Grenzgebieten, die mehrmals monatlich die Grenzen passieren — zum Beispiel Südtirol — bringt dieser Behördengang eine wesentliche Beeinträchtigung der Reisefreiheit mit sich. Minderjährige, die ohne diese schriftliche Genehmigung reisen, reisen somit nicht legal.

Angesichts dieser Tatsache erlaube ich mir, folgende Fragen an die Kommission zu stellen:

Stellt die Verabschiedung des italienischen Gesetzes vom 20. November 2009, Nr. 166 zur Anpassung an die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 444/2009, in Ihren Augen einen Widerspruch zur europäischen Reisefreiheit dar?

Was gedenkt die Kommission zu tun, um die Reisefreiheit in grenznahen Gebieten nicht zu beeinträchtigen, sondern zu fördern?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(9. April 2013)

Die durch das Gesetz Nr. 166 vom 20. November 2009 auferlegte Verpflichtung betrifft die Ausstellung von Pässen zum Überschreiten einer Außengrenze. Beim Überschreiten einer EU-Binnengrenze benötigen italienische Bürger lediglich ihren Personalausweis.

Gemäß Artikel 3 des Königlichen Erlasses Nr. 773 vom 18. Juni 1931, in der Fassung des Artikels 10 Absatz 5 des Gesetzesdekrets Nr. 70/2011, können Minderjährige unter 14 Jahren mit ihrem Personalausweis in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union einreisen, wenn sie von einem Elternteil oder gegebenenfalls von ihrem Vormund begleitet werden. Minderjährige ohne Begleitung müssen ein Dokument vorweisen, das von einer der vorgenannten Personen ausgestellt und von der zuständigen Behörde bestätigt wurde; darin ist der Name der Person, der Einrichtung oder des Beförderungsunternehmens anzugeben.

Aus Sicht der Kommission erscheint eine solche Maßnahme gerechtfertigt, denn der Schutz Minderjähriger stellt ein legitimes Ziel dar und ist mit dem Vertrag vereinbar. Auch scheint die Maßnahme geeignet, die Erreichung des verfolgten Ziels zu gewährleisten, da ein Elternteil und die zuständigen Behörden zustimmen müssen, wenn Kinder ohne elterliche Begleitung reisen. Zudem scheint die Maßnahme nicht über das zur Zielerreichung erforderliche Maß hinauszugehen, da die Genehmigung ohne Weiteres ausgestellt wird und wenn sie einmal erteilt ist, der Minderjährige in Obhut der angegebenen Person oder Einrichtung so lange und so häufig reisen kann wie gewünscht. Das italienische Gesetz besagt in keiner Weise, dass die Genehmigung nur für eine bestimmte Reise erteilt wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001713/13

to the Commission

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Rules on leaving the country for minors under the age of 14 in Italy

Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 has been supplemented in Italy by a provision stipulating that the written authorisation of parents must be certified and stamped by a competent authority — the local police headquarters (‘questura’) in Italy. Particularly for people living in border areas who cross the border regularly (such as the inhabitants of South Tyrol), this bureaucracy results in a considerable restriction on the freedom to travel. Minors who travel without this written authorisation therefore do so illegally.

1.

In the Commission’s view, does the adoption of Italian law No 166 of 20 November 2009 on implementation of Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 contradict the right of Europeans to travel freely?

2.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that freedom to travel is encouraged rather than restricted in border areas?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The obligation imposed by Law n. 166 of 20 November 2009 concerns the issuance of passports with the aim of crossing an external frontier. However, Italian citizens may cross an internal frontier of the European Union with their identity card.

According to Article 3 of Royal decree of 18 June 1931, No 773, as modified by Article 10(5) of Legislative Decree No 70/2011, minors of 14 years may use their identity card to travel to another Member State of the European Union if accompanied by one of their parents or, as the case may be, their tutor. In case none of these persons accompany the minor the accompanying persons must hold a document issued by one of the mentioned persons and validated by the competent authority mentioning the name of the person, the entity or the transport company.

According to the Commission such a measure seems to be justified as the protection of minor children is a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty. Furthermore, the measure seems appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective pursued as one of the parents and the competent authorities are requested to intervene where the children travel without either of their parents. Finally, the measure does not seem to go beyond what is necessary to attain that purpose as, the issuance of the authorisation is simple and once the authorisation has been obtained the minor is free to travel in company of the person or entity identified by the authorisation for as long and as often as desired. There is no indication in the Italian law that would suggest that an authorisation must be issued for individual travelling periods.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-001714/13

do Komisji

Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE)

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Umowa międzyrządowa w sprawie gazociągu transadriatyckiego (TAP)

Komisarz ds. energii Günther Ettinger wydał oświadczenie, w którym odniósł się przychylnie do podpisania w dniu 13 lutego 2013 r. umowy między rządami Włoch, Albanii i Grecji w sprawie budowy gazociągu transadriatyckiego (TAP).

W nawiązaniu do decyzji nr 994/2012/UE z dnia 25 października 2012 r. w sprawie ustanowienia mechanizmu wymiany informacji w odniesieniu do umów międzyrządowych w dziedzinie energii między państwami członkowskimi a państwami trzecimi:

Czy Komisja została oficjalnie powiadomiona o tej umowie międzyrządowej przez Grecję i Włochy zgodnie z ww. decyzją lub innymi przepisami UE?

Czy Komisja została zaproszona do udziału lub odegrała jakąkolwiek rolę w negocjacjach poprzedzających podpisanie tej umowy?

Czy Komisja ustaliła, czy przedmiotowa umowa jest zgodna z prawem UE? A jeśli nie, to czy zostanie to sprawdzone?

Czy inne państwa członkowskie zostały powiadomione o tej umowie, a jeśli tak, to w jakiej formie?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Günthera Oettingera w imieniu Komisji

(2 kwietnia 2013 r.)

1)

Komisja nie otrzymała do tej pory żadnego oficjalnego zgłoszenia dotyczącego Umowy międzyrządowej w sprawie gazociągu transadriatyckiego, wymaganego zgodnie z decyzją 994/2102/UE w sprawie ustanowienia mechanizmu wymiany informacji w odniesieniu do umów międzyrządowych.

2)

Komisja nie była zaangażowana w konkretne negocjacje dotyczące przedmiotowej umowy, ale śledzi uważnie cały proces.

3) i 4)

Komisja oczekuje, że zarówno Grecja, jak i Włochy dokonają oficjalnego zgłoszenia przedmiotowej umowy zgodnie z decyzją 994/2012/UE, jak tylko zostanie ona ratyfikowana. Przedłożona umowa zostanie zasadniczo, w zależności od poziomu poufności, udostępniona pozostałym państwom członkowskim. Zgodnie z decyzją 994/2012 Komisja ma obowiązek oceniać zgodność nowych umów międzyrządowych z prawem Unii Europejskiej, tylko jeżeli zostanie o to wyraźnie poproszona przez państwo członkowskie przed podpisaniem danej umowy. W praktyce jednak Komisja będzie dokonywać oceny zgodności nowych umów międzyrządowych z prawem Unii Europejskiej. W stosownych przypadkach Komisja będzie w tym względzie wykonywać swoje prerogatywy na mocy Traktatu.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001714/13

to the Commission

Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

The Commissioner responsible for energy, Günther Oettinger, has issued a statement welcoming the signing on 13 February 2013 of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Governments of Italy, Albania and Greece to build the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).

Further to Decision No 994/2012/EU of 25 October 2012 establishing an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries in the field of energy:

Has the Commission received official notification of this IGA from Greece and Italy, under this decision or other EU legislation?

Was the Commission invited to take part in or have any role in the negotiations before this agreement was signed?

Has the Commission ascertained whether the agreement is in line with EC law? If not, when will this be checked?

Has the agreement been shared with the other Member States, and if so in what form?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2013)

1.

The Commission has so far not received any official notification of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) pursuant to Decision 994/2102/EU establishing an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements.

2.

The Commission has not been involved in the specific negotiations of the IGA in question but has been closely following the process.

3 and 4. The Commission expects that both Greece and Italy will officially submit the TAP IGA in accordance with Decision 994/2012/EU, as soon as it has been ratified. Once submitted, the IGA will, in principle, depending on the level of confidentiality, be shared with the other Member States. Pursuant to Decision 994/2012, the Commission is only obliged to assess the compatibility of new IGAs with European Union law, if it is explicitly asked to do so by a Member State before signing the IGA. In practice, however, the Commission will assess the new IGAs compatibility with European Union law. If appropriate, the Commission will exercise its prerogatives under the Treaty in this respect.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-001716/13

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(18. februar 2013)

Om: Høringsfrist i forbindelse med interkalibrering

I 2008 blev arbejdet med 1. vandplanperiode færdiggjort. Forslaget om den efterfølgende vandplanperioder var til afstemning i Udvalget for Vandrammedirektivet den 28. januar 2013. Forud for denne afstemning lå et interkaliberingsarbejde.

Kommissionens udkast til beslutning om fastsættelse i overensstemmelse med Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2000/60/EF af værdierne for klassifikationerne i medlemsstaternes overvågningssystem som resultat af interkalibreringen (kommissionsbeslutning om interkalibreringsresultater), KOM(2013)XXXX, blev af den danske regering sendt til høring i miljøspecialudvalget fra den 11. til den 18. januar 2013. Det betød, at danske organisationer kun havde fem hverdage til at afgive høringssvar (173).

Kan Kommissionen oplyse, om den korte høringsfrist i Danmark skyldtes, at Kommissionen først sendte forslaget til beslutning til den danske regering selvsamme dag, dvs. den 11. januar 2013?

Kan Kommissionen endvidere oplyse, om den mener, at det er rimeligt med en høringsfrist på kun fem dage for en så kompleks videnskabelig og teknisk opgave som interkalibrering?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik

(3. april 2013)

Medlemsstater deltager fuldt ud i interkalibreringsprocessen ved at indgive resultater/forslag til en arbejdsgruppe (ECOSTAT), som kontrollerer/vedtager disse på grundlag af videnskabelige kriterier.

ECOSTAT omfatter alle medlemsstater, og dens arbejde støttes af Kommissionen. Kommissionen udarbejdede udkastet til den afgørelse, som det ærede medlem henviser til, på grundlag af ECOSTAT's synspunkter og en uafhængig fagfællebedømmelse, som blev forelagt for medlemsstaterne til udtalelse i sommeren/efteråret 2012. Det gjorde det muligt at behandle spørgsmål fra medlemsstaterne forud for afstemningen om Kommissionens endelige afgørelse.

I overensstemmelse med det relevante udvalgs forretningsregler fremsendte Kommissionen udkastet til afgørelsen om interkalibrering til udvalgets medlemmer to uger før afstemningen. Det er op til den enkelte medlemsstat at organisere dets interne høringsproces.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001716/13

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Deadline for hearing in connection with intercalibration

In 2008 work on the first River Basin Management Plan period was completed. The vote on the proposal for the subsequent River Basin Management Plans was due to be held in the Danish Parliament’s Committee on the Water Framework Directive on 28 January 2013. This vote followed on from the intercalibration exercise.

The Commission’s proposal for a decision establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise (Commission decision on intercalibration results), COM(2013) XXXX, was sent by the Danish Government for a hearing in the Committee of Environmental Experts from 11 to 18 January 2013. That meant that the Danish bodies had only five working days to provide the answers from the hearings (174).

Can the Commission state whether this short deadline for the hearings in Denmark was due to the fact that the Commission only sent the proposal for a decision to the Danish Government on the same day, 11 January 2013?

Does the Commission consider it is reasonable to set a hearing deadline of only five days for such a complex scientific and technical exercise as intercalibration?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2013)

Member States fully participate in the intercalibration process by submitting results/proposals to a working group (ECOSTAT) for review/acceptance based on scientific criteria.

ECOSTAT includes all Member States and its work is facilitated by the Commission. The Commission developed the draft proposal for the decisionreferred to by the Honourable Member on the basis of ECOSTAT views and an independent peer review which was submitted to Member States for comment during summer/autumn 2012. This allowed for issues raised by Member States to be addressed in advance of the voting on the final Commission Decision.

The Commission sent the draft intercalibration decision to Committee members 2 weeks in advance of the vote as required by the rules of procedure of the relevant Committee. It is up to Member States to organise their internal consultation process.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001718/13

to the Commission

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Tobacco lobbying

1.

When will the Commission update the existing ethics rules for Commissioners and officials, prescribing the standards with which they should comply in their dealings with the tobacco industry, in accordance with Recommendation 4 of the guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)?

2.

Can the Commission confirm that updated ethics rules for Commissioners and officials dealing with the tobacco industry will ban persons employed by the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests from being members of committees and advisory groups that set or implement tobacco control or public health policy?

3.

Can the Commission outline how it will ensure that it fulfils its obligations towards the UN and fully implements Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which will require changes to the code of conduct for Commissioners, the Staff Regulations and the Transparency Register, and will mean that registration becomes mandatory for all lobbyists employed by entities from the tobacco industry, affiliated organisations or any entity working to further tobacco interests?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E-11643/2012. The Commission confirms that the Ethical framework applicable to Commissioners and staff is fully compatible with the non-binding measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and therefore does not foresee any major changes in this respect.

The Ethical framework applicable to Commissioners and staff is by its nature not applicable to committees in the meaning of comitology regulation (175) and Commission expert groups. Article 11 of the standard rules of procedures for committees (176) makes provision concerning conflicts of interests for participants in committee meetings. Rules on conflict of interests in relation to members of expert groups who are appointed in a personal capacity apply according to Commission's framework for Commission expert groups (177).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001719/13

aan de Commissie

Frank Vanhecke (EFD)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Financiële steun Palestijnse gebieden

Kan de Commissie mij meedelen hoeveel Europese financiële steun naar de Palestijnse gebieden is gevloeid in 2012 en kan de Commissie daarbij tevens aangeven hoeveel van dit bedrag is gegaan naar rechtstreekse begrotingssteun?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(24 april 2013)

In 2012 is uit alle begrotingsposten van de EU voor in totaal 383,45 miljoen euro aan steun voor Palestina en de Palestijnse bevolking uitgetrokken. Daarvan ging 93,8 miljoen euro naar programma's die direct of indirect door de Palestijnse Autoriteit worden uitgevoerd; 27,45 miljoen euro naar institutionele opbouw; 20,10 miljoen euro naar infrastructuur; 11,20 miljoen euro naar rechtstreekse steun voor de privésector; 147 miljoen euro naar UNRWA, met inbegrip van steun uit het stabiliteitsinstrument (Instrument for Stability — IfS); 46,75 miljoen euro naar humanitaire hulp en voedselzekerheid; 8 miljoen euro naar Oost-Jeruzalem en 9,7 miljoen euro naar de ondersteuning van de civiele samenleving. Er werd eveneens 19,45 miljoen euro steun verstrekt in het kader van het IfS en de maatregelen van het gemeenschappelijk buitenlands en veiligheidsbeleid. De EU heeft geen begrotingssteun verleend aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit.

Het geachte Parlementslid wordt eveneens verwezen naar het antwoord op de eerdere schriftelijke vraag E-001483/2013 (178).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001719/13

to the Commission

Frank Vanhecke (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Financial assistance for the Palestinian territories

Can the Commission say how much EU financial assistance was given to the Palestinian territories in 2012, and can it also say how much of that amount went on direct budget support?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

In total, EUR 383.45 million was committed for Palestine and for the Palestinian people in 2012 from all EU budget lines. Of this amount, EUR 93.8 million was provided for programmes implemented directly or indirectly by the Palestinian Authority; EUR 27.45 million for institution-building; EUR 20.10 million for infrastructure; EUR 11.20 million for direct support to the private sector; EUR 147 million to UNRWA (including funds from Instrument for Stability (IfS); EUR 46.75 million in Humanitarian Aid and Food Security; EUR 8 million for East Jerusalem; EUR 9.7 million for support to civil society and EUR 19.45 million financed under the IfS and Common Foreign Security Policy Actions. The EU did not provide any budget support to the Palestinian Authority.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the answer to previous Written Question E‐001483/2013 (179).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-001720/13

aan de Commissie

Frank Vanhecke (EFD)

(18 februari 2013)

Betreft: Opvang‐ en aanwervingscentrum in Mali

Kan de Commissie mij meedelen hoeveel Europese financiële steun er naar het opvang‐ en aanwervingscentrum in Mali is gevloeid sinds de oprichting van dit centrum?

Hoeveel kandidaat-migranten zijn sinds de oprichting opgevangen, geïnformeerd en geadviseerd over tewerkstellingsmogelijkheden in de EU?

Hoeveel personen zijn door bemiddeling van dit centrum geëmigreerd naar de EU?

Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie

(25 april 2013)

Het Informatie‐ en beheerscentrum voor migratie (CIGEM) heeft sinds 6 oktober 2008 10 miljoen EUR ontvangen. Tegen het einde van het project wordt daar nog 2 miljoen EUR (180) aan toegevoegd. Het CIGEM heeft ongeveer 8 000 bezoekers ontvangen (onder wie 1 761  terugkerende migranten). Voor deze bezoekers werden individuele informatiegesprekken georganiseerd en ze kregen begeleiding en advies.

Dankzij de oproep tot het indienen van voorstellen voor de opvang van migranten die niet vrijwillig  terugkeren en/of migranten die via het Malinese grondgebied doorreizen, was het mogelijk om:

2 000  terugkerende migranten op te vangen, te registreren en tijdelijk onder te brengen;

de  terugkeer van 500 personen te vergemakkelijken;

1 000  terugkerende migranten over de voorwaarden voor toegang en verblijf in bepaalde gastlanden te informeren;

een twintigtal arbeidsplaatsen te creëren en 9 tijdelijke opvangcentra op te zetten.

Deze oproep heeft eveneens bijgedragen tot betere medische bijstand (dringende medische zorg), betere juridische bijstand, beter advies en betere psychologische ondersteuning bij de opvang van migranten die niet vrijwillig  terugkeren. 200 migranten, onder wie 62  terugkerende migranten, hebben integratie‐ of re-integratieopleidingen gevolgd. 51 onder hen hebben eveneens een beroepskit ontvangen.

In het kader van een proefproject voor seizoensmigratie dat in juli 2009 tussen Spanje en Mali werd opgestart, heeft het CIGEM 6 migranten aan werk kunnen helpen (op een totaal van 29). In het kader van het programma voor legale studentenmigratie dat met de steun van de Deense ambassade wordt uitgevoerd, zijn 50 beurzen toegekend op het niveau van Afrikaanse referentiescholen.

Het CIGEM ging tijdens verschillende missies op zoek naar (arbeids)mogelijkheden in Europa. Wegens de financiële crisis, de geldende wettelijke voorwaarden en de gevraagde profielen op de arbeidsmarkten zijn die missies echter op niets uitgedraaid.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001720/13

to the Commission

Frank Vanhecke (EFD)

(18 February 2013)

Subject: Reception and recruitment centre in Mali

Can the Commission inform me how much European financial assistance has been provided to the reception and recruitment centre in Mali since the centre was established?

How many applicants for migration have been received, informed and advised about employment opportunities in the EU since the centre was established?

How many people have emigrated to the EU as a result of the centre's acting as an intermediary?

(Version française)

Depuis le 6 octobre 2008, le Centre d'information et de gestion des migrations (CIGEM) a reçu 10 millions d'euros auxquels s'ajouteront d'ici la fin du projet 2 millions d'euros (181). Le CIGEM a accueilli environ 8 000 visiteurs (dont 1 761 migrants de retour) qui ont été reçus en entretien individuel d'information et d'appui-conseils.

L'appel à candidatures sur la thématique «Accueil des migrants de retour involontaire et/ou en transit sur le territoire malien» a permis de:

toucher 2 000 migrants de retour qui ont été accueillis, enregistrés et hébergés temporairement;

faciliter le retour de 500 personnes;

informer 1 000 migrants de retour sur les conditions d'entrée et de séjour dans certains pays d'accueil;

créer une vingtaine d'emplois et mis en place 9 centres d'hébergement temporaire.

Cet appel à candidatures a aussi contribué à améliorer la prise en charge des migrants de retour involontaire au niveau de l'assistance médicale (soins de santé d'urgence), l'assistance juridique, le conseil et le soutien psychologique. 200 migrants, dont 62 de retour, ont bénéficié de formations d'insertion et de réinsertion parmi lesquels 51 ont bénéficié aussi de kits professionnels.

Le CIGEM a placé 6 migrants (sur un total de 29) dans le cadre de la migration saisonnière expérimentale mise en œuvre entre l'Espagne et le Mali en juillet 2009. Le programme de migration légale estudiantine mis en œuvre avec l'appui de l'Ambassade du Danemark a attribué 50 bourses au niveau des écoles africaines de référence.

Le CIGEM a effectué des missions de recherches d'opportunités en Europe qui n'ont pas abouti en raison de la crise financière, des exigences légales en vigueur et des profils exigés par les marchés de l'emploi.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001723/13

προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)

Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)

(19 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: VP/HR — Να αποφυλακιστούν άμεσα οι Παλαιστίνιοι πολιτικοί κρατούμενοι από τις ισραηλινές φυλακές

Σε άμεσο κίνδυνο βρίσκεται η ζωή τριών Παλαιστινίων πολιτικών κρατουμένων σε φυλακές του Ισραήλ, οι οποίοι πραγματοποιούν απεργία πείνας διαμαρτυρόμενοι ενάντια στο απαράδεκτο μέτρο της «διοικητικής κράτησης» που επιβάλλει στους Παλαιστίνιους το ισραηλινό κράτος και τις άθλιες συνθήκες κράτησής τους. Εξαιρετικά κρίσιμη είναι η κατάσταση του Παλαιστίνιου πολιτικού κρατούμενου Σαμέρ Ισάουι, που απέχει από τη σίτιση εδώ και 200 ημέρες, ενώ μάχη για τη ζωή δίνουν και οι άλλοι δύο πολιτικοί κρατούμενοι, ο Τάρκε Κααντάν και ο Τζαφάρ Αζιντίν, που διανύουν 78 ημέρες απεργίας πείνας. Το Ισραήλ ρίχνει στις φυλακές, που ονομάζει «διοικητικά κέντρα κράτησης», χιλιάδες Παλαιστίνιους χωρίς δίκη, χωρίς καν οποιαδήποτε κατηγορία σε βάρος τους. Οι Παλαιστίνιοι πολιτικοί φυλακισμένοι κρατούνται κάτω από απάνθρωπες συνθήκες, χωρίς να γνωρίζουν αν και πότε θα τελειώσει η μαρτυρική φυλάκισή τους. Το Ισραήλ είναι υπεύθυνο για τη ζωή των τριών Παλαιστινίων πολιτικών κρατουμένων-απεργών πείνας.

Η θηριωδία του Ισραήλ ενάντια στον Παλαιστινιακό λαό, που δεν έχει τέλος, ενισχύεται και αποθρασύνεται από τη στήριξη της ΕΕ και των ΗΠΑ στα πλαίσια των ιμπεριαλιστικών σχεδιασμών και επεμβάσεών τους στην ευρύτερη περιοχή, με στόχο τον έλεγχο των πλουτοπαραγωγικών πηγών, των δρόμων μεταφοράς τους και την άγρια εκμετάλλευση των λαών.

Ερωτάται η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος της ΕΕ για την Εξωτερική Πολιτική:

Καταδικάζει την εγκληματική πολιτική του Ισραήλ ενάντια στον Παλαιστινιακό λαό, που συνεχίζεται με αμείωτη ένταση; Σε τι μέτρα θα προβεί για την άμεση απελευθέρωση των τριών απεργών πείνας, αλλά και των χιλιάδων Παλαιστινίων πολιτικών κρατουμένων, πριν προστεθούν στον ατελείωτο κατάλογο των ισραηλινών εγκλημάτων;

Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(24 Απριλίου 2013)

Η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος/Αντιπρόεδρος (ΥΕ/ΑΠ) έχει παρακολουθήσει εκ του σύνεγγυς το θέμα των Παλαιστινίων απεργών πείνας κατά τη διάρκεια του 2012 και του τρέχοντος έτους. Έχει ζητήσει από την κυβέρνηση του Ισραήλ να καταβάλει κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια προκειμένου να διαφυλαχθεί η υγεία και τα δικαιώματα των φυλακισμένων αυτών και έχει εκφράσει την ανησυχία της για τις επιπτώσεις που μπορούν να έχουν τέτοια περιστατικά όσον αφορά την κατάσταση ασφάλειας στην Παλαιστίνη. Στις 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2013, ο εκπρόσωπος της ΥΕ/ΑΠ προέβη σε δήλωση στην οποία εκφράζεται ανησυχία σχετικά με την επιδείνωση της κατάστασης της υγείας ορισμένων απεργών πείνας, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των τριών απεργών που αναφέρονται στην ερώτηση του Αξιότιμου Μέλους του Κοινοβουλίου. Η ΕΕ απηύθυνε εκ νέου έκκληση προς την κυβέρνηση του Ισραήλ προκειμένου να αποκατασταθούν άμεσα τα δικαιώματα επίσκεψης των οικογενειών τους και ζήτησε να τηρούνται πλήρως οι διεθνείς υποχρεώσεις για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα έναντι όλων των Παλαιστινίων κρατουμένων και φυλακισμένων. Επί του παρόντος, μόνο ο Σαμέρ Ισάουι συνεχίζει την απεργία πείνας.

Η ΥΕ/ΑΠ έχει λάβει υπόψη το ψήφισμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, της 5ης Ιουλίου 2012, σχετικά με τη Δυτική Όχθη και την Ιερουσαλήμ, και ιδίως την έκκλησή του να δοθεί τέλος στο μέτρο της διοικητικής κράτησης χωρίς την ύπαρξη επίσημης κατηγορίας ή δίκης. Όπως δήλωσε η ΕΕ στο συμβούλιο σύνδεσης ΕΕ-Ισραήλ του 2012, η διοικητική κράτηση θα πρέπει να παραμείνει έκτακτο μέτρο, και «βάσει του διεθνούς δικαίου, οι κρατούμενοι έχουν το δικαίωμα να ενημερώνονται σχετικά με τους λόγους της κράτησης, η διάρκεια της οποίας πρέπει να καθορίζεται νομίμως και αμελλητί». Πρόσφατα, σημειώθηκε μείωση του αριθμού των διοικητικών κρατουμένων, από 307 τον Δεκέμβριο του 2011 σε 160 τον Ιανουάριο του 2013.

Η ΕΕ θα συνεχίσει τις επαφές με το Ισραήλ όσον αφορά το ζήτημα των Παλαιστινίων φυλακισμένων στις ισραηλινές φυλακές, ιδίως διοικητικών κρατουμένων, με σκοπό επίσης την άμεση επίλυση υποθέσεων απεργών πείνας.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001723/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Demand for immediate release of Palestinian political prisoners from Israeli jails

Three Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails are on hunger strike in protest against the unacceptable measure of ‘administrative detention’ imposed by the Israeli state on Palestinians and the wretched conditions under which they are being held. Their lives are now in great danger. The Palestinian political prisoner Samer Issawi, who has been refusing food for 200 days, is in an extremely critical condition, while the two other political prisoners Tareq Qa’adan and Jafar Ezzedine, who have spent 78 days on hunger strike, are fighting for their lives. Israel throws into prison — so-called ‘administrative detention centres’ — thousands of Palestinians without trial and without even bringing any charges against them. The Palestinian political prisoners are detained under inhuman conditions, without knowing if and when their imprisonment ordeal will come to an end. Israel is answerable for the lives of these three Palestinian political prisoners on hunger strike.

The boundless savagery of Israel against the Palestinian people is boosted and emboldened by the support given by the EU and the US as part of their imperialist schemes and interventions in the region as whole, aimed at controlling the sources of wealth and its transport routes and brutally exploiting the local population.

Will the High Representative of the Union for Foreign and Security Policy say:

Will she condemn the criminal policy pursued by Israel against the Palestinian people, which is continuing unabated? What measures will she take to secure the immediate release of the three hunger strikers and also of the thousands of other Palestinian political prisoners before their names are added to the virtually endless list of victims of Israeli crimes?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The HR/VP has closely followed the issue of Palestinian hunger strikers throughout 2012 and this year. She has called on the Government of Israel to do all it can to preserve the health and rights of these prisoners and has expressed concern about the impact that such incidents can have on the security situation in Palestine. On 16 February 2013, her spokesperson issued a statement expressing concern about the deteriorating health condition of a number of hunger strikers, including the three referred to in the Honourable Member's question. This reiterated the EU's call on the Government of Israel to allow for the immediate restoration of their family visiting rights and called for the full respect of international human rights obligations towards all Palestinian detainees and prisoners. Currently only Samer Issawi is continuing his hunger striker.

The HR/VP has taken note of Parliament resolution of 5 July 2012 on the West Bank and Jerusalem, in particular its call for an end to administrative detention without formal charge or trial. As the EU stated in the 2012 EU-Israel Association Council, administrative detention should remain an exceptional measure, and ‘under international law, detainees have the right to be informed about the reasons underlying any detention and to have the legality of their detention determined without undue delay.’ Recently there has been a decrease in the number of administrative detainees, from 307 in December 2011 to 160 in January 2013.

The EU will continue engaging with Israel on the issue of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, in particular administrative detainees, also with a view to an immediate resolution of cases of hunger strikers.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001724/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: I derivati Cds

In Italia il loro volume di scambio corrisponde a quasi 400 miliardi di euro di titoli assicurati, ovvero il 20 per cento circa del debito pubblico. In realtà — dicono i tecnici — le cifre sono contraddittorie ed il mercato è opaco perché vengono scambiati anche i Cds «nudi», utilizzati cioè a puro scopo speculativo, senza un Btp sottostante assicurato, quindi con grande rischio. Questo enorme mercato delle scommesse finanziarie è reso possibile dalla mancanza di una regolamentazione pertinente e dal fatto che esso è oligopolistico, vale a dire gestito da pochi operatori. Questi Cds si possono comprare e rivendere — ed è questo l'aspetto più inquietante — anche senza possedere Btp. Nell'ordine, dopo l'Italia, vengono la Spagna, la Francia e la Germania come mercati di Cds.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Non ritiene che sia necessario regolamentare tale mercato dei Cds, in attesa che si giunga alla riforma del sistema finanziario internazionale?

Non crede sia opportuno, per evitare il peggio, negare validità ai Cds cosiddetti «nudi», e cioè solo speculativi e non legati a un titolo sottostante?

Non pensa che questa riforma da applicare in seno all'UE possa contribuire a risolvere quella globale?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(12 aprile 2013)

Il regolamento UE relativo alle vendite allo scoperto e ai credit default swap (CDS) (182) è entrato in vigore il 1° novembre 2012. Il regolamento prevede una serie di misure intese a migliorare la trasparenza, a ridurre determinati rischi associati alle vendite allo scoperto effettuate in assenza della disponibilità di titoli e ai CDS nudi in relazione al debito sovrano, e a garantire un approccio normativo comune in tutti gli Stati membri. Il regolamento vieta alle persone fisiche o giuridiche di concludere contratti CDS scoperti o nudi in debito sovrano, per evitare il rischio che i CDS nudi in debito sovrano vengano usati abusivamente per speculare sul declino del valore del debito sovrano in modo tale da aggravarlo. Nel contempo però il regolamento esonera dal divieto i CDS in debito sovrano usati per scopi di copertura legittimi, e consente alle autorità competenti di sospendere temporaneamente il divieto nei casi in cui il mercato del debito sovrano subisca ripercussioni negative.

Il regolamento chiede alla Commissione di presentare una relazione sul riesame del regolamento stesso. La Commissione ha ufficialmente chiesto all'AESFEM (183) un parere tecnico sulla valutazione dell'impatto del regolamento, che dovrebbe pervenire alla Commissione entro la fine di maggio 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001724/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: CDS derivatives

In Italy their trading volume is equivalent to around EUR 400 billion of insured securities, namely 20% of government debt. But in reality, according to the experts, the figures are contradictory and the market is opaque because ‘naked’ CDSs are also being traded, i.e. are being used purely for speculative purposes, without an underlying insured Btp (Italian Government bond). This involves great risks. This huge financial betting market is made possible by the lack of relevant legislation and the fact that it is oligopolistic, i.e. run by only a few operators. These CDSs can be bought and sold — and this is the most disturbing aspect of it all — even without holding any Btps. At the top of the CDS market is Italy, followed by Spain, France and Germany.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does it not think that the CDS market should be regulated, pending the reform of the international financial system?

Does it not agree that it would be prudent, to avoid the worst, to ban the so-called naked CDSs, which are only speculative and not tied to any underlying security?

Does it not think that this reform, to be applied within the EU, could help to resolve the global situation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

The EU Regulation on short selling and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) (184) entered into application on 1 November 2012. The regulation comprises a number of measures to enhance transparency, to reduce certain risks associated with uncovered short selling and uncovered CDS in relation to sovereign debt, and to ensure a common regulatory approach across Member States. The regulation prohibits natural or legal persons from entering into uncovered or naked CDS in sovereign debt. It addresses the risk of naked sovereign CDS being used abusively to speculate on a decline in the value of sovereign debt in a way which could exacerbate such a decline. But at the same time it exempts from the ban sovereign CDS used for legitimate hedging purposes, and allows competent authorities to suspend the ban temporarily in cases where the sovereign debt market is being negatively affected.

The regulation requires the Commission to present a report on the review of the regulation. The Commission has formally asked ESMA (185) for technical advice on the evaluation of the effects of the regulation, which it expects to receive by end May 2013.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001725/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Contraffazione nel gioco d'azzardo

La contraffazione che dilania l'industria manifatturiera europea ha trovato un altro ambito cui allargare i propri malaffari, ovvero il gioco d'azzardo, dove i comportamenti illegali hanno terreno fertile. In Italia questo settore ha fatturato, nel 2012, 70 miliardi di euro, e la criminalità organizzata ci ha messo le mani: la Guardia di Finanza ha riscontrato 3.300 violazioni e sequestrato 2.600 slot machines che alteravano i dati per truffare il fisco, e ha deciso di aprire a Bari una centrale operativa nazionale anticontraffazione .

La Commissione:

Intende elaborare nuove comunicazioni che aggiornino il precedente «Verso un quadro normativo europeo approfondito relativo al gioco d'azzardo on-line»?

In caso affermativo, quali misure intende adottare riguardo alla pratica della contraffazione in tale ambito?

Non ritiene necessario creare un organismo anticontraffazione europeo sullo stampo di quello italiano, vista l'internazionalità del fenomeno?

Come ha provveduto a tutelare i consumatori, in particolare quelli più giovani, dalla contraffazione e dalle truffe delle organizzazioni criminali nel gioco d'azzardo?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(15 aprile 2013)

La comunicazione (186) riconosce le difficoltà che gli Stati membri incontrano nell’applicazione effettiva dei meccanismi antifrode e antiriciclaggio. La Commissione sta lavorando alle iniziative annunciate nella comunicazione, che non intende aggiornare nel futuro immediato.

La Commissione riconosce che è fondamentale che gli Stati membri attuino la legislazione nazionale in modo efficace, il cui prerequisito è la conformità al diritto dell’UE, per conseguire gli obiettivi di interesse generale che si sono posti. Assicurare il rispetto della normativa nazionale rientra sostanzialmente tra le competenze nazionali. Nell’ambito del gruppo di esperti sul gioco d’azzardo, la Commissione intende agevolare lo scambio di buone pratiche, compresa la lotta alla frode.

L’Osservatorio europeo sulle violazioni dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale (DPI) promuove la cooperazione tra le amministrazioni pubbliche e le organizzazioni competenti degli Stati membri, anche nel settore privato. L’Osservatorio costituisce altresì uno strumento di raccolta, monitoraggio e segnalazione di informazioni e dati in materia e fornirà ai responsabili politici le conoscenze e gli strumenti necessari per migliorare la lotta contro la contraffazione. A livello internazionale Europol e il suo Centro europeo per la lotta alla criminalità informatica contribuiscono alla lotta contro la criminalità e la frode.

La Commissione ha adottato una proposta di revisione della direttiva antiriciclaggio (187), il cui ambito di applicazione verrebbe esteso a tutte le forme di gioco d’azzardo.

La Commissione sta preparando due raccomandazioni (188) con l’obiettivo di fornire un elevato livello di protezione comune ai consumatori dei servizi connessi al gioco d’azzardo, compresa la tutela dei minori, e di garantire una pubblicità del gioco d’azzardo responsabile. Fra i principi da elaborare rientrano la verifica dell’età e controlli dell’identità dei giocatori.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001725/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Counterfeiting in the gambling business

The counterfeiting that is destroying European manufacturing has found another area in which to extend its unlawful business — that of gambling, in which illegal behaviour has found fertile ground. In Italy, in 2012, the gambling sector had a turnover of EUR 70 billion and organised crime has now become involved in it. The Guardia di Finanza (financial police) recently detected 3 300 violations and confiscated 2 600 slot machines in which the data had been altered in order to defraud the tax system. They then decided to open a national anti-counterfeiting operations centre in Bari.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Will it draw up any further communications to update the previous ‘Towards a comprehensive European framework on online gambling’?

If so, what measures will it adopt with regard to the practice of counterfeiting in this sector?

Does it not agree that a European anti-counterfeiting body should be set up, along the lines of the Italian one, given the international nature of the phenomenon?

What steps has it taken to protect consumers, especially younger ones, from counterfeiting and fraud by criminal organisations in the gambling sector?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2013)

The communication (189) recognises Member States’ challenges as regards the effective application of anti-fraud and anti-money laundering mechanisms. The Commission is now working on the initiatives announced in the communication and will not, in the immediate future, update the communication.

The Commission recognises that effective enforcement by Member States of their national legislation, a prerequisite of which is compliance with EC law, is essential for the attainment of the public interest objectives they pursue. Compliance with national law is primarily a national competence. Within the expert group on gambling services the Commission aims to facilitate an exchange of good practices, including combatting fraud.

The European Observatory on Infringements of IPRs promotes cooperation between the competent public administrations and organisations in the Member States, as well as in the private sector. It is also a resource for gathering, monitoring and reporting relavant information and data and will provide policymakers with the necessary knowledge and tools to enhance the fight against counterfeiting. At international level, Europol and its European Cybercrime Centre contribute to the aim of combatting crime and fraud.

The Commission has adopted a proposal for a revision of the anti-money laundering Directive (190). According to this proposal, the scope of the directive would be extended to cover all forms of gambling.

The Commission is preparing two recommendations (191) with the aim of providing a high level of common protection of consumers of gambling services, including the protection of minors, and responsible gambling advertising. The principles to be elaborated include age verification and player identification controls.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001726/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Separazione tra credito e speculazione

Sembra ragionevole il progetto tedesco di indurre le banche a separare alcune delle loro attività più rischiose dalle operazioni bancarie tradizionali. Separare infatti l'attività commerciale da quella legata agli investimenti rappresenta una maggiore garanzia per il denaro dei risparmiatori. È vero che la banca universale ha svolto ottime funzioni, ma è vero anche che molte di esse, con l'attività speculativa, hanno recato gravi danni ai risparmiatori, oltre che agli azionisti, ed il loro salvataggio è stato fatto con i soldi dei contribuenti, tutte operazioni riprovevoli sul piano etico e non remunerative sul piano economico.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Non ritiene che lo spirito del Glass-Steagall Act potrebbe contribuire a risanare tante situazioni bancarie?

Non è convinta che la separazione in questione eviterebbe l'uso del denaro dei risparmiatori per operazioni a rischio e quindi da respingere?

Non crede all'utilità degli investimenti bancari a sostegno e per lo sviluppo dell'economia reale anziché per il rischio speculativo, soprattutto in momenti di crisi come l'attuale?

Risposta congiunta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(22 aprile 2013)

Nel febbraio 2012 la Commissione ha istituito un gruppo di esperti di alto livello sulla riforma della struttura del settore bancario dell’UE. Il gruppo, presieduto da Erkki Liikanen, Governatore della Banca di Finlandia, il 2 ottobre 2012 ha pubblicato una relazione in cui raccomanda, tra le altre cose, la separazione obbligatoria di determinate attività di negoziazione rischiose dalle altre attività bancarie. La relazione è stata quindi oggetto di una consultazione fra le parti interessate. La Commissione successivamente ha discusso la questione della riforma strutturale alla luce delle riforme già intraprese. I servizi della Commissione analizzeranno ulteriormente le raccomandazioni del gruppo di esperti al fine di stabilire la forma e i contenuti delle iniziative legislative che seguiranno, previste per l’anno in corso.

La Commissione valuterà di conseguenza diverse opzioni di riforme strutturali, compresa la completa separazione della proprietà, per esempio sulla falsariga delle soluzioni già adottate negli Stati Uniti per effetto del Glass-Steagall Act.

In particolare, valuterà in che modo le diverse opzioni i) tutelano i depositanti riducendo la loro esposizione verso attività bancarie più rischiose e ii) influiscono sulla concessione di crediti a favore dell’economia reale.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-001889/13

a Bizottság számára

Gáll-Pelcz Ildikó (PPE)

(2013. február 21.)

Tárgy: A bankreformról szóló bizottsági javaslatról

2013 szeptemberében tehet javaslatot az Európai Bizottság a bankok működési kereteinek módosítására, amely egy szakértői csoport ajánlásainak értelmében a hagyományos betétgyűjtő tevékenység és a kereskedelmi-spekulatív üzletág jogi szétválasztásához vezethet. A Liikanen-csoport ajánlásai szerint a saját számlás és a származékos termékekkel folytatott kereskedés olyan magas fokú kockázatnak kitett ügyleteknek számítanak, amelyeket jogilag, üzletileg és tőkefedezet szempontjából külön kell választani a hagyományos banki tevékenységektől. A bankcsoportoknak ugyanakkor nem kellene megválniuk az egyik vagy másik üzleti tevékenységtől, és továbbra is nyújthatnák a szolgáltatások eddigi széles skáláját, finanszírozva ezzel a reálgazdaság működését.

A szakértői csoport arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy a kockázatos ügyleteket lebonyolító üzletágat nem célszerű kivonni a szabályozás hatálya alól.

1.

A Bizottság hol kívánja meghúzni a vonalat a jogilag szétválasztandó üzletágak között?

2.

Milyen esetben tartaná célszerűnek a vállalatok és a háztartások hitelezésének teljes elkülönülését?

Michel Barnier egyesített válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. április 22.)

2012 februárjában a Bizottság felállította az uniós bankszektor struktúrájának megreformálásával foglalkozó és a finn központi bank elnöke, Erkki Liikanen által elnökölt magas szintű szakértői csoportot. A csoport 2012. október 2-án közzétett jelentése többek között ajánlást tett egyes nagy kockázatú kereskedelmi tevékenységek egyéb banki tevékenységektől való kötelező elkülönítésére. A jelentés elkészítésekor sor került az érdekelt felek bevonására. A Bizottság azt követően a már megkezdett reformok fényében tárgyalta a strukturális reformokat. A bizottsági szolgálatok ennek alapján tovább elemzik a magas szintű szakértői csoport ajánlásait azzal a céllal, hogy meghatározzák az esetleges jogalkotási kísérő intézkedések megfelelő formáját és tartalmát. Ezen intézkedések még az idén elkészülhetnek.

A Bizottság következésképpen a strukturális reformok számos lehetőségét értékelni fogja, ideértve a teljes tulajdonjogi szétválasztást (hasonlóképpen a Glass–Steagall-törvény alapján egykor az Egyesült Államokban alkalmazotthoz).

A Bizottság mindenekelőtt azt fogja értékelni, hogy az egyes lehetőségek i. a kockázatosabb banki tevékenységeknek való kitettségük csökkentése révén mely módon védik a bankbetéteseket, továbbá ii. hogyan befolyásolják a reálgazdaságba irányuló banki hitelezését.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001726/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Separation of credit and speculation

The German plan to persuade banks to separate some of their riskier activities from traditional banking operations would appear to be reasonable. Separating commercial activity from investment-related activity is a better guarantee for savers' money. While universal banking has done an excellent job, it is also true to say that many of these banks, with their speculative activity, have caused serious damage to savers, as well as to shareholders, and have had to be bailed out with taxpayers' money. All of this is reprehensible from an ethical point of view and non-profitable in economic terms.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

Does it not believe that the spirit of the Glass-Steagall Act could help to resolve many banking problems?

Is it not convinced that such a separation of activities would prevent savers' money from being used for risky, and therefore unwelcome, operations?

Does it not agree that it would be useful for banks to invest in the support and development of the real economy rather than in speculative risks, especially at times of crisis like the present?

Question for written answer E-001889/13

to the Commission

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE)

(21 February 2013)

Subject: Commission proposal on banking reform

In September 2013, the Commission may submit a proposal concerning changes to the operating framework for banks, which, as recommended by the group of experts, may bring about a legal separation between traditional deposit-taking activities and speculative commercial transactions. According to the recommendations of the Liikanen Group, own-account dealing and derivatives trading are highly risky transactions, which need to be separated legally, commercially and from the point of view of capital cover from traditional banking operations. However, banking groups would not have to opt for one type of business or the other, and they would still be able to provide the same broad range of services as hitherto, thus financing the operation of the real economy.

The expert group has concluded that it would not be appropriate to exempt the risky transactions sector from regulation.

1.

Where does the Commission intend to draw the line between the sectors which are to be legally separated?

2.

In what circumstances would the Commission consider it appropriate to completely separate credit for businesses and households?

Joint answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2013)

In February 2012, the Commission set up a High-level Expert Group (HLEG) on reforming the structure of the EU banking sector, chaired by Erkki Liikanen, Governor of the Bank of Finland. The Group published its report on 2 October 2012, recommending among other things the mandatory separation of certain high-risk trading activities from other banking activities. The report was then subject to a stakeholder consultation. The Commission has subsequently discussed the case for structural reform in the light of reforms already undertaken. The Commission services will as a result further analyse the recommendations of the HLEG with a view to determine the appropriate form and substance of any legislative follow up. A legislative follow-up would be envisaged for this year.

The Commission will accordingly assess a number of structural reform options, including full ownership separation (e.g. along the lines previously applied in the United States as a result of the Glass-Steagall Act).

The Commission will notably assess how the different options (i) safeguard depositors by reducing their exposure to more risky banking activities, and (ii) affect the provision of bank credit to the real economy.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001727/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Allagamento del Parco archeologico di Sibari

L'alluvione che ha colpito la Calabria il 18 gennaio scorso ha provocato ingenti danni nel Parco archeologico di Sibari, uno dei più importanti d'Italia, rimasto completamente allagato. Il Comune di Cassano allo Jonio e la Direttrice del Museo archeologico di Sibari, che già tre anni fa richiedeva interventi di messa in sicurezza dell'area, chiedono senza risposte un intervento rapido del Governo italiano e della Regione Calabria.

La Commissione:

Ritiene possibile un suo intervento con il Fondo per le calamità naturali, al fine di contribuire concretamente alla salvaguardia del patrimonio storico e culturale della Magna Grecia?

Non ritiene doveroso prevedere nell'utilizzo dei fondi elargiti alle regioni anche un uso riservato alla tutela del patrimonio culturale del territorio?

Perché non promuove un'iniziativa tendente alla redazione di una mappa europea dei rischi idrogeologici?

Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione

(12 aprile 2013)

1.

Se le autorità italiane ritengono che siano riunite le condizioni per attivare il Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE esse devono presentare una domanda di aiuto finanziario alla Commissione entro dieci settimane dall'inizio della catastrofe. La Commissione non può attivare il Fondo di propria iniziativa. La Commissione è pronta a fornire orientamenti quanto alla preparazione di una domanda. La soglia che si applica di norma per l'Italia per attivare il Fondo di solidarietà corrisponde a un danno superiore a 3,6 miliardi di euro (3 miliardi di euro ai prezzi del 2002). Occorrerebbero informazioni più dettagliate sulla catastrofe per valutare se sia possibile applicare i criteri eccezionali relativi alle catastrofi di minore entità.

2.

Nel periodo 2007-2013 il Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale può erogare finanziamenti per la protezione del patrimonio culturale. In proposito, la priorità V del programma Calabria 2007-2013 dispone di uno stanziamento complessivo di 360 milioni di euro per azioni a tutela delle risorse naturali, del patrimonio culturale e del turismo sostenibile.

3.

In seguito agli Orientamenti per la valutazione e la mappatura dei rischi ai fini della gestione delle catastrofi, emanati dalla Commissione nel 2010, gli Stati membri conducono valutazioni nazionali del rischio e tengono conto dei diversi pericoli potenziali. A tutt'oggi, dodici Stati membri hanno inviato i loro contributi. Su tale base e attingendo alle proprie risorse interne la Commissione produrrà nel 2013 una rassegna intersettoriale del rischio a livello di UE per le calamità naturali e per quelle causate dall'uomo, compresi gli incidenti industriali. Inoltre, come prescritto dalla direttiva UE sulle alluvioni, gli Stati membri devono procedere entro il 2013 a una mappatura dei rischi reali e potenziali di alluvione.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001727/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Flooding of the Archaeological Park of Sybaris

The floods that struck Calabria on 18 January caused extensive damage in the Archaeological Park of Sybaris, one of the most important in Italy, which was completely flooded. The municipality of Cassano allo Jonio and the Director of the Archaeological Museum of Sybaris, who three years ago had already requested that the area be made safe, have been asking in vain for prompt action from the Italian Government and the Region of Calabria.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does it think it might be able to take action, through the fund for natural disasters, in order to make a tangible contribution to the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of Ancient Greece?

Does it not agree that it should provide for, in the use of the funding granted to the regions, funds dedicated to the protection of local cultural heritage?

Could it not promote an initiative with a view to drawing up a European map of hydrogeological risks?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

1.

If the Italian authorities consider that the conditions for activating the EU Solidarity Fund are met they should present an application for financial aid to the Commission within 10 weeks of the start of the disaster. The Commission may not activate the Fund upon its own initiative. The Commission stands ready to provide guidance regarding the preparation of an application. The normal threshold for activating the Solidarity Fund for Italy is damage exceeding EUR 3.6 billion (EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices). More detailed information on the disaster would be needed to assess whether the exceptional criteria for smaller disasters could be applied.

2.

The European Regional Development Fund can provide funds for the protection of cultural heritage during the 2007-2013 period. In this respect, priority V of the 2007-2013 Calabria programme has a total allocation of EUR 360 million for actions for the preservation of natural resources, support of cultural heritage and sustainable tourism.

3.

Following the 2010 Commission's Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management, Member States are carrying out national multi-hazard risk assessments. To date, 12 Member States have sent contributions. On this basis and internal resources, the Commission will produce in 2013 a cross sectorial EU risk overview of natural and man-made disasters, including industrial accidents. In addition, as required by the EU Floods Directive, Member States are expected to develop national flood hazard and flood risk maps by 2013.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001728/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Stop al porno web

In Islanda una consultazione nazionale ha dato un responso largamente positivo al divieto di diffondere la pornografia sul web. Il governo perciò ha avviato un'indagine per decidere i modi di divieto d'accesso al porno su tutta l'isola per proteggere i bambini. Pur essendo una società liberale e progressista in materia di sessualità — afferma il ministro degli Interni — il nostro approccio al problema non è anti-sesso, bensì anti-violenza. Dopo le leggi già approvate sul divieto di stampare pubblicazioni porno e sulla chiusura di night club e topless bar, se il progetto verrà realizzato l'Islanda sarà il primo Paese al mondo a vietare il porno sulla rete.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Condivide l'intenzione del governo islandese?

In caso affermativo, non potrebbe prendere lo spunto da questo progetto per proporre iniziative analoghe a tutela dei minori dell'UE?

È in grado di valutare i risultati, positivi o meno, delle azioni intraprese fino ad ora per proteggere i bambini dalla violenza porno veicolata dal web?

Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione

(3 maggio 2013)

In base all’interpretazione della Commissione, in Islanda non esiste ancora una proposta legislativa contro la pornografia online. Come nel caso degli altri paesi candidati, la Commissione segue gli sviluppi da vicino e valuta la compatibilità della legislazione di tali paesi con l’acquis dell’UE.

La Commissione non prevede di proporre un divieto di diffondere la pornografia su Internet.

La tutela dei minori dall’esposizione a contenuti online nocivi rientra nella «Strategia europea per un'Internet migliore per i ragazzi», avviata dalla Commissione nel 2012 (192). Tra le misure efficaci figurano l’autoregolamentazione dell’industria, per sviluppare ad esempio meccanismi di segnalazione di contenuti nocivi e strumenti di controllo parentale. Inoltre, le attività di informazione per i minori e i genitori svolte in tutta Europa dai centri «Internet più sicuro» hanno contribuito in maniera rilevante alla sensibilizzazione attraverso la formazione e l’istruzione.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001728/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Putting an end to Internet pornography

In Iceland, a national consultation exercise has shown that a majority of people are in favour of a ban on disseminating pornography on the Internet. The government has therefore initiated an inquiry to decide on ways of banning access to pornography throughout the island to protect children. While our society is liberal and progressive with regard to sexuality — says the Minister of the Interior — our approach to the problem is not anti-sex but anti-violence. After the laws which have already been passed banning the printing of pornographic publications and ordering the closure of night clubs and topless bars, if the plan is carried out, Iceland will become the first country in the world to ban Internet pornography.

1.

Does the Commission endorse the intention of the Government of Iceland?

2.

If so, might the Commission not be prompted by this project to propose similar initiatives to protect minors in the EU?

3.

Can the Commission assess the results, positive or otherwise, of action taken to date to protect children against pornographic violence disseminated over the Internet?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

The understanding of the Commission is that there is not yet any proposed draft legislation on tackling online pornography in Iceland. As with all candidate countries, the Commission follows developments closely and assesses the compatibility of the legislation of candidate countries with the Union's acquis.

The Commission has no plans to propose a ban on disseminating pornography on the Internet.

Protecting children from exposure to harmful content online is part of the strategy for a Better Internet for Children launched by the Commission in 2012 (193). Among effective approaches is industry self-regulation to e.g. develop reporting mechanisms for harmful content and parental control tools. In addition out-reach to children and parents across Europe through the Safer Internet centres have been instrumental to raise awareness via training and education.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001729/13

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(19 de febrero de 2013)

Asunto: Competitividad de la siderurgia

El sector de la siderurgia está sufriendo una fuerte crisis que está acarreando el cierre y la reestructuración de muchas empresas, incluso multinacionales, en muchos Estados miembros. Tal es el caso de ArcelorMittal.

En este sentido, el pasado 12 de febrero tuvo lugar una reunión de alto nivel en Bruselas para orientar el impulso al sector europeo del acero. Todas las partes competentes estuvieron presentes, desde la Comisión Europea —con varios de sus Comisarios al frente— hasta políticos de diversos estamentos, tales como gobernantes de Estados miembros, eurodiputados, empresarios y sindicatos.

Los participantes apostaron por conseguir un sector competitivo respetuoso del medio ambiente, frenar la deslocalización de las compañías, mantener el nivel de la producción anual y evitar las reestructuraciones empresariales.

La Comisión Europea tiene previsto adoptar un plan de acción sobre la siderurgia que puede basarse en las conclusiones de la reunión del pasado 12 de febrero.

En este sentido,

— ¿Podría indicar la Comisión cuáles han sido las conclusiones de dicha reunión?

— ¿Cómo se plasmarán dichas conclusiones en la propuesta de la Comisión? ¿Cuáles son las acciones que se van a emprender?

— ¿Tiene previsto la Comisión organizar o participar en alguna otra reunión de similares características?

Respuesta del Sr. Tajani en nombre de la Comisión

(9 de abril de 2013)

La Comisión coincide con Su Señoría en la importancia estratégica del sector del acero para la UE y comparte su preocupación por la difícil situación que dicho sector atraviesa, así como por las consecuencias sociales que podrían tener las operaciones de reestructuración. En este sentido, la Comisión está de acuerdo en que es importante evitar la deslocalización de las plantas siderúrgicas, garantizar la seguridad de la mano de obra y mejorar el equilibrio ecológico, y anima a las empresas y a todas las partes interesadas a tener en cuenta las necesidades de su capital humano y a gestionar la reestructuración de manera responsable desde un punto de vista social.

La tercera reunión tuvo lugar el 12 de febrero de 2013 y en ella se adoptó un conjunto definitivo de recomendaciones específicas para la Comisión. Los principales Estados miembros productores de acero han participado en este ejercicio como observadores junto a representantes del Parlamento. Las recomendaciones de la mesa redonda de alto nivel tienen carácter público (194).

La Comisión tiene previsto responder a dichas recomendaciones, a partir de junio de 2013, con un plan de acción para el sector del acero de la UE. Dicho plan de acción incluirá una estrategia a escala de la UE destinada a garantizar el establecimiento de las condiciones marco adecuadas. A continuación se enviará al Parlamento y al Consejo para que tomen las medidas oportunas. Para cada problema detectado se propondrán acciones específicas con medidas tanto a corto como a largo plazo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001729/13

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Competitiveness of the steel industry

The steel industry is experiencing a severe crisis that is causing a large number of companies, including multinationals, to close down or undergo restructuring in many Member States; one such example is ArcelorMittal.

To discuss proposals for giving new impetus to the industry, a high-level meeting was held in Brussels on 12 February 2013. All competent parties were present; representatives from the Commission attended, including several Commissioners, as well as politicians from various political bodies, such as ministers from Member States and MEPs, and representatives from the steel sector and the unions.

The meeting participants recommended focusing on delivering a competitive and environmentally-friendly sector, halting the trend towards relocation, maintaining annual production levels and avoiding company restructuring.

The Commission intends to adopt a plan of action for the steel industry, which may be based on the conclusions reached at the meeting held on 12 February.

— Can the Commission say what conclusions were reached at that meeting?

— How will these conclusions be reflected in the Commission’s proposal? What measureswill be introduced?

— Does the Commission intend to organise or take part in any similar meetings?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member with regard to the strategic importance of the steel industry for the EU. It is also concerned about the difficult situation of the steel sector as well as the social consequences that restructuring operations could bring. In this regard, the Commission agrees on the importance of preventing the relocation of steel plants, ensuring the security of the workforce and improving environmental performance, and it encourages companies and all stakeholders to anticipate their human capital needs and manage restructuring in a socially responsible way.

The third meeting took place on 12 February 2013 and adopted a final set of specific policy recommendations to the Commission. The most important steel producing Member States have participated in this exercise as observers alongside representatives of the Parliament. The recommendations of the High Level Roundtable are public (195).

The Commission plans to respond to these recommendations, by beginning of June 2013 through an Action Plan for the EU steel industry. The action plan will set up an EU-wide policy strategy aiming to ensure that the right framework conditions are in place. It will then be sent to the Parliament and the Council for appropriate action. For every challenge identified specific actions will be proposed with measures being either of a short or long term nature.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés P-001731/13

a Bizottság számára

Bánki Erik (PPE)

(2013. február 19.)

Tárgy: Európai lóhúsbotrány – Marhahúskészítmények lóhússal való szennyeződése az uniós élelmiszerláncon belül

Az élelmiszer-címkézési rendeletet az Európai Parlament 2011 júliusában fogadta el. A szabályozás célja az, hogy a fogyasztók megfelelő és pontos tájékoztatást kapjanak arról, hogy mit tesznek a kosarukba vásárláskor, pontosan mi kerül otthon az asztalra. A jogszabály szerint kötelező feltüntetni a származási országot a sertés-, marha-, bárány‐ és kecskehús, valamint a baromfi esetében is.

Ez a szabály viszont nem vonatkozik a feldolgozott húsokra, így a hamburgerre, lasagnára, egyéb feldolgozott húskészítményre. 2011-ben, az Élelmiszercímkézési Rendelet háromoldalú tárgyalásai során az EP tárgyalódelegációja felhívta a figyelmet a szabályozás hiányosságaira, ezért szerették volna, ha a feldolgozott húsok származási országának jelölése tekintetében is kötelező szabályozást fogadnak el. Ez azonban a végső szövegbe akkor nem került bele. Cserébe a Bizottság azt ígérte a Parlamentnek, hogy 2 éven belül készít egy jelentést arról, mivel járna, illetve, hogy egyáltalán indokolt-e, hogy a származási hely megjelölésének uniós jogszabályi kötelezettsége kiterjedjen a feldolgozott húsipari termékekre.

A február elején kipattant európai lóhúsbotrány rámutatott, hogy az európai élelmiszer-címkézés területén bizony még komoly hiányosságok vannak, mind a feldolgozott húsok élelmiszerláncban történő nyomon követését, mind a vásárlók tájékoztatását illetően.

Az élelmiszer-címkézési rendelet 2011-es elfogadása óta másfél év eltelt. Milyen stádiumban van a Bizottság ígért jelentése a feldolgozott húsokról?

Milyen intézkedésekkel, jogszabályi módosítással kívánja a Bizottság elkerülni a marhahúskészítménynek eladott lóhús-botrányához hasonló eseteket?

Tonio Borg válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. március 18.)

A Bizottság a fogyasztók élelmiszerekkel kapcsolatos tájékoztatásáról szóló 1169/2011/EU rendeletben (196) előírt 2013. december 13-i határidő előtt jelentést fog tenni a kötelező eredetmegjelölésnek az összetevőként felhasznált húsokra történő kiterjesztésének lehetőségéről. Ennek érdekében egy külső szerződéses megbízottat kértünk fel egy tanulmány (197) elkészítésére, 2013. júliusi határidővel. E tanulmány szolgál majd a jelentés alapjául. A jelentés figyelembe fogja venni a fogyasztók tájékoztatásának szükségességét, a származási ország vagy az eredet helye kötelező megjelölésének alkalmazhatóságát, valamint az ilyen intézkedések költség-haszon elemzését, a jogi következmények és a nemzetközi kereskedelemre gyakorolt hatás elemzését annak érdekében, hogy dönteni lehessen a megfelelő intézkedésekről.

A kötelező eredetmegjelölés nem szolgál eszközül arra, hogy megakadályozza a rosszindulatú gazdasági szereplők csalásait. A jelenlegi botrány megtörténhetett volna akkor is, ha a kérdéses élelmiszerek eredetmegjelölése kötelező lett volna. A megtévesztő gyakorlatok csak az uniós jogszabályok megfelelő végrehajtása által szüntethetők meg; elsősorban a megfelelő kockázatelemzésen alapuló rendszeres hatósági ellenőrzések és a hatékony visszatartó erejű szankciók révén.

Az élelmiszerbiztonsági jogszabályok átfogó rendszere uniós szinten már megvalósult, beleértve az állati eredetű élelmiszerek nyomonkövethetőségi követelményeit (198). Ennek a rendszernek köszönhető, hogy a szóban forgó csalások eredetét és mértékét gyorsan azonosítani lehetett.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-001731/13

to the Commission

Erik Bánki (PPE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: European horsemeat scandal — contamination of beef products with horsemeat within the EU food chain

In July 2011, the European Parliament approved the regulation on food labelling. The aim of the legislation was to ensure that consumers received appropriate and accurate information as to what they were putting in their shopping baskets and on the table at home. According to the legislation, it is mandatory to indicate the country of origin of pork, beef, lamb, goat’s meat and poultry-meat as well.

However, this rule does not apply to processed meat, such as hamburgers, lasagne, etc. In 2011, during the trialogue concerning the regulation on food labelling, the EP delegation drew attention to the inadequacy of the provisions, and therefore expressed the wish for indication of the country of origin of processed meat to be made compulsory too. However, this was not included in the ultimate text. In return, the Commission promised Parliament that it would draw up a report within two years on the possibility of extending compulsory origin labelling under EC law to processed meat products, and whether this was indeed justified at all.

The European horsemeat scandal which emerged at the beginning of February has shown that European food labelling is still seriously deficient, as regards both tracing of processed meat products in the food chain and the information provided to purchasers.

Since the adoption of the regulation on food labelling in 2011, a year and a half has passed. What stage has the report concerning processed meat which was promised by the Commission reached?

By means of what measures, particularly legislative amendments, will the Commission prevent any similar occurrence to the scandal of horsemeat being sold as beef products?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

The Commission will present the report on the possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling to meat used as an ingredient before the deadline of 13 December 2013 required by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (199). To this effect, an external contractor has been engaged to conduct a study (200) which is to be concluded by July 2013. This study will provide the basis for the report. The report will take into account the need of the consumer to be informed, the feasibility of providing the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance as well as a cost-benefit analysis of such measures, along with an analysis of the legal impact and impact on international trade in order to decide the appropriate course of action.

Mandatory origin labelling is not a tool to prevent fraud by malicious operators. The present scandal could have occurred even if origin labelling was mandatory for the foods in question. Only appropriate enforcement of EU legislation can eliminate deceptive practices; mainly by means of regular official controls based on appropriate risk analysis and the imposition of effective dissuasive sanctions.

A comprehensive system of food safety rules is already in place at Union level, including traceability requirements for foods of animal origin (201). It is because of this system that the origin and extent of the fraudulent actions in question were quickly identified.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-001734/13

a Bizottság számára

Bánki Erik (PPE)

(2013. február 19.)

Tárgy: Egységes Európai Égbolt (SESII) és annak jövője

Az egységes égbolttal foglalkozó bizottság (Single Sky Committee) a 2012 decemberében megtartott konferenciáján tárgyalta a teljesítmény‐ és a díjszámítási rendeletek módosításait, azonban nem született megegyezés a Bizottság és a tagállamok között, így február 5-én ad hoc ülésre került sor. A rendeletmódosításokról szóló szavazást a Bizottság azonban ismét kénytelen volt elhalasztani a március 7–8. közötti ülésre. Az ok főleg az, hogy nem sikerült megegyezni a tagállamok által korábban javasolt módosításokról. Emiatt újabb konzultációt kívánnak folytatni a légtérfelhasználókkal és társintézményekkel, a következő módosítási javaslat előtt.

A fentiekre való tekintettel, az alábbi fontos kérdések merülnek fel: Mik a Bizottság voltaképpeni rövid‐ és középtávú SES céljai?

Melyek azok az eszközök, amelyek a Bizottság véleménye szerint hiányoznak a célok eléréséhez?

Hogyan fognak ezek az eszközök megjelenni a jogalkotásban?

Siim Kallas válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. április 10.)

A Bizottság tájékoztatja a tisztelt képviselő urat, hogy az egységes égbolttal foglalkozó bizottság (Single Sky Committee) 2013. március 8-án a vizsgálati eljárás keretében a teljesítményről és a díjfelszámításról szóló felülvizsgált rendeleteket kedvezően véleményezte, miután kisebb, technikai jellegű módosításokra került sor a végleges szövegekben.

A Bizottság ezután el fogja fogadni a felülvizsgált rendeleteket, amelyek bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletek, és a Hivatalos Lapban való kihirdetésüket követően lépnek hatályba.

Az új rendeletek fontos lépést jelentenek annak a jogi keretnek a módosításában, amelyben az egységes európai égbolt teljesítményrendszere a második referenciaidőszak alatt (RP2) – 2015 és 2019 között – működni fog.

A rendeletek elfogadását követően első alkalommal kerül sor kötelező érvényű teljesítménycélok elfogadására az egységes európai égbolt teljesítményrendszerének mind a négy, teljesítmény szempontjából kulcsfontosságú területén, vagyis a biztonság, a kapacitás, a környezetvédelem és a költséghatékonyság terén. A rendszer továbbá a léginavigációs szolgáltatásoknak a repülőtéri műveleteket és az útvonalrepülést is magában foglaló teljes láncolatát érintő, úgynevezett „kaputól kapuig” megközelítés keretében fogja növelni a teljesítményt.

A felülvizsgált rendeletek jelentős előrelépést fognak jelenteni a meglévő jogi kerethez képest, különösen az átláthatóság és a légtérfelhasználókra hárított költségek ellenőrzésének területén.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001734/13

to the Commission

Erik Bánki (PPE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: The Single European Sky (SESII) and its future

At the conference in December 2012, the committee dealing with the Single European Sky (Single Sky Committee) debated changes to the performance and charging regulations, but no agreement was reached between the Commission and the Member States, so on 5 February an ad hoc meeting was held. However, the Committee was again compelled to postpone the vote on the changes to the schemes, this time till the meeting on 7 and 8 March. The main reason was that it did not prove possible to agree on the changes previously recommended by the Member States. Accordingly, there are plans to hold fresh consultations with airspace users and stakeholder organisations before the next amending proposal.

This gives rise to the following important questions.

What are the Commission’s actual short‐ and medium-term objectives?

In the Commission’s opinion, what instruments are lacking with a view to attaining the objectives?

What form will these instruments take in legislation?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2013)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Single Sky Committee gave on 8 March 2013 a positive opinion under the examination procedure on the revised performance and charging regulations after few minor technical modifications were introduced into the final texts.

The Commission will now proceed with the adoption of the revised regulations, which are Commission implementing regulations and which will enter into force after publication in the Official Journal.

The new regulations constitute an important step in revising the legal framework under which the SES performance scheme will operate during the second reference period, RP2, from 2015 to 2019.

Once adopted, binding performance targets will be set for the first time in all four key performance areas of the SES performance scheme, namely Safety, Environment, Capacity and Cost-Efficiency. Furthermore, the scheme will improve performance in a so-called ‘gate-to-gate’ approach covering the entire chain of air navigation services in the terminal and the en-route area.

The revised regulations will entail some significant improvements as compared to the existing legal framework, in particular on transparency and control of costs charged to airspace users.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001735/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 de febrero de 2013)

Asunto: Pequeños frutos

La producción de productos agroalimentarios incluidos en el Anexo 1, como es el caso de pequeños frutos, es una actividad excluida del marco de aplicación de la medida 123, de acuerdo con el Reglamento comunitario (CE) n° 1698/2005 de ayudas cofinanciadas por el Feader y el Reglamento (CE) n° 1974/2006 de aplicación del anterior, que regulan las medidas y actuaciones de las regiones europeas.

Esto hace que los pequeños productores de frutos silvestres y frutas del bosque tengan dificultades para hacer rentable su negocio.

Esto es así porque normalmente son pequeñas empresas situadas en territorios montañosos, con poca población y poca actividad económica.

¿No cree la Comisión que los procesos de transformación y producción de frutos silvestres y frutas del bosque deberían estar incluidos en la lista de actividades con ayudas cofinanciadas?

Respuesta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión

(5 de abril de 2013)

La producción y transformación de frutos silvestres y frutas del bosque son actividades subvencionables al amparo del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (Feader), según las normas previstas en el Reglamento (CE) n° 1698/2005 del Consejo (202), pues se trata de productos del anexo I.

La producción y transformación de productos del anexo I pueden recibir ayuda tanto a través de la medida 123 como de la medida 121 (artículos 28 y 26, respectivamente, del Reglamento del Feader). La principal diferencia entre esas dos medidas es el tipo de beneficiario. En el caso de la medida de «Modernización de las explotaciones agrícolas» (medida 121), los beneficiarios son los agricultores que obtienen productos del anexo I; en el del artículo 28 (medida 123), las pequeñas y medianas empresas que transforman productos del anexo I.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001735/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Small fruit

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 concerning expenditure co‐financed by the EAFRD and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, both of which govern measures and actions taken by European regions, the production of any of the food and agricultural products (such as small fruit) listed in Annex I to the Treaty establishing the European Community does not fall within the scope of Measure 123.

As a result small producers of wild and forest fruits, most of whom are located in sparsely populated and economically underdeveloped mountainous areas, are finding it difficult to make their businesses profitable.

Does the Commission not agree that the production and processing of wild and forest fruits should be included in the list of activities eligible for co‐funding?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2013)

Production and processing of wild and forest fruit are eligible activities under European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), which is provided for under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (203), as these qualify as Annex I products.

Production and processing of Annex I products can be supported under both investment measures 123 and 121 (Articles 28 and 26 respectively of the EAFRD Regulation). The main difference between the two measures is the type of beneficiary. In the case of ‘Modernization of agricultural holdings’ (measure 121), farmers producing Annex I products shall be targeted; on the other hand, eligible beneficiaries under Article 28 (measure 123) shall be small and medium enterprises processing Annex I products.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-001736/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 de febrero de 2013)

Asunto: Competencia en el sector bancario

El Estado español ha vivido los últimos años un gran proceso de concentración bancaria, en buena parte debido a la crisis y la desaparición de las cajas de ahorros.

En la actualidad siguen funcionando 12 entidades bancarias, aunque algunas de ellas han sido nacionalizadas y serán subastadas en los próximos meses y años (204). Esta misma visión tiene el presidente del banco BBVA que cuenta con un 12,5 % de la cuota de mercado en el Estado español y espera que haya en los próximos años nuevas operaciones de concentración en el sector hasta que sólo queden 6 ó 7 entidades (205).

A la luz de lo anterior,

1.

¿Comparte la Comisión esta previsión según la cual sólo existirán 6 ó 7 entidades en el sector bancario español?

2.

¿Cree la Comisión que tal reducción de la competencia puede ser perjudicial para los consumidores?

3.

¿Qué medidas cree la Comisión que serían necesarias para aumentar el número de entidades existentes y así mejorar la competencia? ¿Qué medidas propone para facilitar la aparición de nuevas entidades en el sector bancario español?

Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión

(16 de abril de 2013)

La Comisión no tiene una opinión sobre cuántas entidades bancarias distintas operarán en el mercado español en el futuro. Aunque la reducción de la competencia es perjudicial para los consumidores, la Comisión señala que un menor número de agentes económicos en un mercado determinado no significa automáticamente un menor grado de competencia.

El papel de la Comisión en virtud de las normas sobre competencia se limita a garantizar que las ayudas estatales concedidas a las entidades bancarias no falseen indebidamente la competencia. A este respecto, la Comisión ha estudiado detenidamente los planes de reestructuración o liquidación de los bancos españoles que se han acogido a ayudas estatales. En virtud de las normas sobre concentraciones, la Comisión o la autoridad nacional de competencia pueden bloquear las concentraciones que pudieran obstaculizar de forma importante una competencia efectiva. La autoridad nacional de competencia o la Comisión también pueden tratar los posibles casos de acuerdos ilegales entre empresas que restrinjan la competencia o los abusos de posición dominante. Sin embargo, la mera reducción del número de agentes económicos presentes en el mercado bancario español no es un asunto que entre en el ámbito de aplicación de las normas sobre competencia del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001736/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Competition in the banking sector

In recent years Spain has seen a long-drawn out process of concentration in the banking sector, principally as a result of the crisis and the demise of its savings banks (cajas).

Twelve banking institutions are still operating in Spain, although some of them have been nationalised and will be put up for auction in the coming months and years (206). The CEO of the bank BBVA, which has a market share of 12.5% in Spain, sees things in a similar light, and hopes to see a further concentration of market until there are only six or seven banking institutions in the country (207).

1.

Does the Commission also expect there to be only six or seven banks in Spain in the future?

2.

Does the Commission think that such a reduction in competition could put consumers at a disadvantage?

3.

What measures does the Commission think will be necessary to increase the number of market players and thereby increase competition? What measures does it propose to increase the number of institutions in the Spanish banking sector?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2013)

The Commission does not have a view on how many different banks will be operating on the Spanish market in the future. While reduced competition is harmful for consumers, the Commission notes that fewer players in a certain market does not automatically mean a reduced level of competition.

The role of the Commission under competition rules is limited to ensuring that state aid granted to banks does not unduly distort competition; in this respect the Commission has carefully scrutinised the restructuring or liquidation plans of the Spanish banks which benefitted from state aid. Under merger rules the Commission or the national competition authority can block mergers which would significantly impede effective competition. Possible cases of illegal agreements between undertakings which restrict competition or abuses of a dominant position can also be tackled by the national competition authority or the Commission. However, the mere reduction of the number of players active on the Spanish banking market is not an issue falling under the competition rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-001737/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(19 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Κατάργηση της Ειδικής Υπηρεσίας για την Κοινωνική Ένταξη και την Κοινωνική Οικονομία στο Υπουργείο Εργασίας

Ο νόμος 4019/2011 για την κοινωνική οικονομία γέννησε προσδοκίες κι επιτάχυνε τις προσπάθειες δημιουργίας κοινωνικών συνεταιριστικών επιχειρήσεων. Όμως, με το φορολογικό που ψηφίστηκε αρχές Ιανουαρίου 2013 από την ελληνική Βουλή, καταργήθηκε «η παράγραφος 3 του άρθρου 10 του ν. 4019/2011 (Α’ 216)», που θέσπιζε ειδικές φορολογικές ελαφρύνσεις για τις Κοινωνικές Συνεταιριστικές Επιχειρήσεις, σε μια προσπάθεια ενθάρρυνσης τέτοιων οικονομικών δραστηριοτήτων.

Την Παρασκευή 15.2.2013 ανακοινώθηκε και η κατάργηση της Ειδικής Υπηρεσίας του Υπουργείου Εργασίας για την Κοινωνική Ένταξη και την Κοινωνική Οικονομία (ΕΥΚΕΚΟ), στο πλαίσιο της δραστικής μείωσης του δημόσιου τομέα. Σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες, οι αρμοδιότητές της μεταφέρονται εξ ολοκλήρου στην κεντρική υπηρεσία του Υπουργείου. Η ΕΥΚΕΚΟ σχεδίαζε σειρά ενημερωτικών δράσεων, ενώ προσπαθούσε να επιλύσει γραφειοκρατικά εμπόδια και προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζουν, ήδη από το ξεκίνημά τους, πολλές πρωτοβουλίες κοινωνικών επιχειρήσεων (δημιουργία μητρώου, αποσαφήνιση ασφαλιστικού και φορολογικού καθεστώτος, προϋποθέσεις έναρξης, χρηματοδοτήσεις κ.ά.).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Η επιλογή της συγκεκριμένης υπηρεσίας έγινε κατόπιν υπόδειξης και απαίτησης της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής που έχει αποτυπωθεί σε συμφωνία μεταξύ του Επιτρόπου Andor και των πρώην Υπουργών Εργασίας κυρίας Κατσέλη και κυρίου Κουτρουμάνη (208); Είναι σε γνώση της Επιτροπής οι επιλογές της κυβέρνησης για κατάργηση της συγκεκριμένης υπηρεσίας που έχει υποδειχθεί ως αρμόδια από την Επιτροπή; Συμφωνεί ο εκπρόσωπός της στην τρόικα με την κατάργηση της Ειδικής αυτής Υπηρεσίας;

Κρίνει ότι η κατάργηση της υπηρεσίας συνεισφέρει στην ενίσχυση της αποτελεσματικότητας της διοίκησης και των αναγκαίων μεταρρυθμίσεων, τη στιγμή που η Ειδική αυτή Υπηρεσία είχε ως αντικείμενο την ανάπτυξη της κοινωνικής οικονομίας και της κοινωνικής επιχειρηματικότητας και προσπαθούσε να άρει τα εμπόδια και να περιορίσει την έλλειψη συνεννόησης μεταξύ των εμπλεκόμενων υπουργείων και υπηρεσιών;

Ποιο είναι το μέχρι τώρα ποσοστό απορρόφησης των ευρωπαϊκών πόρων που έχουν δεσμευτεί για την ενίσχυση της κοινωνικής οικονομίας στην Ελλάδα;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(27 Μαΐου 2013)

Για λόγους αρχής, η Επιτροπή δεν εμπλέκεται στην αναδιοργάνωση των εθνικών υπουργείων.

1.

Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει ενημερωθεί για την κατάργηση της συγκεκριμένης υπηρεσίας, η οποία δημιουργήθηκε αρχικά μετά από πρωτοβουλία των ελληνικών αρχών στις αρχές της περιόδου προγραμματισμού 2007-2013 για την ενσωμάτωση των αρχών του προγράμματος

EQUAL. Αργότερα, εκ νέου μετά από πρωτοβουλία των ελληνικών αρχών επελέγη η υπηρεσία αυτή για τη διαχείριση της κοινωνικής ένταξης και της κοινωνικής οικονομίας.

2.

Η Επιτροπή θεωρεί ότι η ανάπτυξη της κοινωνικής οικονομίας, που αποτελεί νέο τομέα της ελληνικής οικονομίας, χρειάζεται ισχυρή διαχείριση, καθοδήγηση και παρακολούθηση. Αρμόδιες για τη διασφάλιση αυτού του ποιοτικού πλαισίου είναι οι ελληνικές αρχές.

3.

Οι δράσεις στο πλαίσιο της κοινωνικής οικονομίας δεν έχουν ακόμα δρομολογηθεί. Επομένως, η απορρόφηση περιορίζεται σε προπαρασκευαστικές δράσεις με χαρακτήρα τεχνικής συνδρομής.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001737/13

to the Commission

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Abolition of special Employment Ministry unit responsible for social inclusion and the social economy

Law 4019/2011 concerning the social economy has given rise to great expectations and boosted efforts to introduce social cooperatives. However, at the beginning of January 2013, the Greek Parliament adopted tax legislation revoking Article 10(3) of the above law introducing special tax concessions for social cooperatives in a bid to encourage their activities.

On Friday, 15 February 2013, it was announced that the special Employment Ministry unit responsible for social integration and the social economy was to be wound up following drastic public sector cut-backs, all of its tasks to be reassigned to central Ministry departments. The unit had planned to take a number of measures (provision of registers, insurance and tax guidance, business launch and funding advice, etc) in a bid to make information available and resolve the bureaucratic obstacles and problems being encountered by numerous embryonic social organisations.

1.

Was this particular service selected on the recommendation or demand of the Commission as embodied in the agreement between Commissioner Andor and Ms Katseli and Mr Koutroumanis, the former Ministers for Employment

1.

Was this particular service selected on the recommendation or demand of the Commission as embodied in the agreement between Commissioner Andor and Ms Katseli and Mr Koutroumanis, the former Ministers for Employment

 (209)? Is the Commission aware of the government decision to abolish a service to which it had given its endorsement? Does its Troika representative agree with the decision?

2.

Does it consider that the abolition of this service, the objective of which was to develop a social economy and social business practices, remove obstacles and improve communication between the ministries and departments involved, will do anything to enhance administrative efficiency and bring about the necessary reforms?

3.

What has been the take-up to date of European funding earmarked for development of the social economy in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2013)

As a matter of principle, the Commission is not involved in the reorganisation of national ministries.

1.

The Commission is not aware of the abolition of this particular service, which was initially created on the initiative of the Greek authorities at the beginning of the 2007-2013 programming period for mainstreaming the principles of EQUAL. Later on, again on the initiative of the Greek authorities, it was selected to manage social integration and the social economy.

2.

The Commission considers that the development of social economy, being a new sector in the Greek economy, merits a solid management, guidance and monitoring. The competence of ensuring such a qualitative setup lies with the Greek authorities.

3.

Actions under social economy have not been launched yet; therefore, take-up is limited to preparatory actions of technical assistance nature.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-001738/13

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(19 februari 2013)

Angående: Cyberincidenter samt nät‐ och informationssäkerhetsincidenter

I arbetsdokumentet från kommissionens avdelningar av den 7 februari 2013, som innehåller en konsekvensanalys av direktivförslaget för nät‐ och informationssäkerhet (SWD(2013)0032), ger kommissionen i första avsnittet om tillämpningsområde (”Scope”) en definition av nät‐ och informationssäkerhet, som baseras på artikel 4c i förordning (EG) nr 460/2004 om inrättandet av den europeiska byrån för nät‐ och informationssäkerhet.

Därefter talar kommissionen konsekvent om nät‐ och informationssäkerhetsincidenter (troligtvis i fall där förmågan hos ett nät eller informationssystem, som den definieras i artikel 4c, äventyras) fram till sidan 14 i dokumentet, där termen cyberincidenter introduceras efter en sammanfattning av svaren från det offentliga samrådet om nät‐ och informationssäkerhetsincidenter. Det står att även den mänskliga faktorn eller okunnighet kan orsaka cyberincidenter om de leder till olyckshändelser (”human error or ignorance can also be the cause of cyber incidents by leading to accidental events”).

Betyder detta att termerna cyberincident och nät‐ och informationssäkerhetsincident motsvarar varandra i kommissionens ögon?

Svar från Neelie Kroes på kommissionens vägnar

(9 april 2013)

Begreppet nät‐ och informationssäkerhet definierades i lagstiftningen i förordning (EG) nr 460/2004 om inrättandet av den europeiska byrån för nät‐ och informationssäkerhet. ”Nät‐ och informationssäkerhetsincidenter” enligt kommissionens förslag till direktiv om nät‐ och informationssäkerhet (KOM(2013) 48) omfattar generellt en omständighet eller händelse som har en faktisk negativ inverkan på säkerheten hos datorer och nät. ”Cyberincidenter” är ett allmänt begrepp som ofta används i pressen för att beskriva incidenter som påverkar IT-säkerheten. De båda begreppen används omväxlande i konsekvensanalysen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001738/13

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Cyber incidents and network and information security (NIS) incidents

In the staff working document of 7 February 2013 containing its impact assessment of the proposal for a directive on network and information security (SWD(2013)0032), the Commission, in Section 1 (‘Scope’), offers a definition of ‘network and information security’ (NIS) grounded in Article 4(c) of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency.

The Commission then consistently refers to ‘NIS incidents’ (presumably instances where the abilities of networks or information systems as defined by that same Article 4(c) are compromised), up to page 14 of the document, where the term ‘cyber incidents’ is introduced following a summary of the responses to the public consultation held on NIS incidents. The exact wording is: ‘human error or ignorance can also be the cause of cyber incidents by leading to accidental events’.

Does this mean that ‘cyber incidents’ and ‘NIS incidents’ are equivalent as far as the Commission is concerned?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2013)

The concept of network and information security (‘NIS’) was legally defined under Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency. ‘NIS incidents’ as defined in the Commission's proposal for a directive on network and information security (COM(2013) 48), covers generally any circumstance or event having an actual adverse effect on the security of computers and networks. ‘Cyber incidents’ is a general concept often used in the press to describe incidents affecting cyber security. The two concepts are used interchangeably in the impact assessment.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001739/13

an die Kommission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(19. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Veränderte Arbeitsbedingungen durch Umstrukturierung

Im Zuge von Restrukturierungen sind seit 2008 EU-weit ca. 1,8 Millionen Erwerbstätige entlassen worden. Für die verbliebenen Beschäftigten bedeutet dies eine Zunahme der Arbeitsintensität. Laut einer aktuellen Studie von Eurofund beklagen über die Hälfte der Betroffenen einen sehr engen Zeitrahmen und damit verbunden ein hohes Arbeitstempo. Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer in restrukturierten Betrieben sind mit ihrer Work — Life — Balance nicht zufrieden und leiden häufiger unter gesundheitlichen Einschränkungen und psychischen Problemen als Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer in Unternehmen, die nicht von Restrukturierungen betroffen sind.

Diese Entwicklung ist auch Folge einer Arbeitsmarktpolitik, die auf leichte Einstellungen und leichte Entlassungen setzt („external flexicurity model“).

1.

Ist sich die Kommission dieser Entwicklung im Zusammenhang mit Restrukturierungen von Unternehmen bewusst?

2.

Was möchte die Kommission gegen die zunehmende Belastung der Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer unternehmen?

3.

Was möchte die Kommission unternehmen, um zukünftige Umstrukturierungen sozialer zu gestalten?

4.

Wird die Kommission den Empfehlungen des Cercas-Berichts folgen und einen Vorschlag für einen Rechtsakt über Unterrichtung und Anhörung von Arbeitnehmern, Antizipation und Management von Umstrukturierungen unterbreiten, der diese Befunde berücksichtigt?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(18. April 2013)

1.

Die Kommission ist sich der potenziell negativen Auswirkungen von Umstrukturierung auf die entlassenen und die verbliebenen Arbeitnehmer wohl bewusst und befürwortet eine frühe Vorbereitung, um die sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Folgen auf ein Mindestmaß zu begrenzen.

2.

Die Frau Abgeordnete wird auf die Antworten der Kommission auf folgende schriftliche Anfragen verwiesen: E‐010378/2011, E‐009623/2011, E‐007973/2012, E‐008839/2012, E‐09561/2012 und E‐011207/2012. Sie beziehen sich auf eine Studie zur psychischen Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz in der EU und in den EWR-/EFTA-Ländern sowie auf den Entwurf von Leitlinien, die derzeit vorbereitet werden, und die sich mit den Auswirkungen von Umstrukturierungen auf Unternehmensebene auf die psychische Gesundheit von Arbeitnehmern beschäftigen. Die für Mitte 2014 erwarteten Ergebnisse werden in angemessener Weise berücksichtigt.

3.

Die Kommission ist nicht befugt, in die Entscheidungen der Unternehmen bezüglich Umstrukturierungen oder Schließungen von Unternehmen in Europa einzugreifen. Allerdings legen EU-Rechtsvorschriften

3.

Die Kommission ist nicht befugt, in die Entscheidungen der Unternehmen bezüglich Umstrukturierungen oder Schließungen von Unternehmen in Europa einzugreifen. Allerdings legen EU-Rechtsvorschriften

 (210) fest, dass vor Entscheidungen, die Massenentlassungen betreffen, die Arbeitnehmervertreter zu unterrichten und zu konsultieren sind. Solche Konsultationen umfassen Wege zur Vermeidung von Entlassungen, zur Reduzierungen ihrer Zahl sowie zur Abmilderung der Folgen durch begleitende soziale Maßnahmen. Die Kommission fordert alle Interessenträger auf, Umstrukturierungen in einer sozial verantwortlichen Art und Weise vorzubereiten und abzuwickeln und verweist auf den Orientierungsleitfaden für die Bewältigung des Wandels und dessen soziale Konsequenzen (211) der Sozialpartner und auf die Checkliste für Umstrukturierungsprozesse (212) der Kommission.

4.

Im Anschluss an das Grünbuch

4.

Im Anschluss an das Grünbuch

 (213) und die Annahme des Cercas-Berichts stellt die Kommission Überlegungen an, wie eine umfassende Beachtung bewährter Verfahren im Bereich der Umstrukturierung und der Antizipierung des Wandels am besten zu fördern wäre. Sie wird dem Parlament über die geplanten Maßnahmen in diesem Zusammenhang Bericht erstatten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001739/13

to the Commission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Changes in working conditions due to restructuring

As a result of restructuring operations, some 1.8 million people have been made redundant in the EU since 2008. For the employees who remain, this means that they are having to work more intensively. According to a recent study by Eurofund, more than half of them are complaining about very short deadlines and the related problem of having to work fast. Employees in businesses that have been restructured are not satisfied with their work-life balance, and there is a higher incidence of health complaints and psychological problems among them than among employees of businesses which have not undergone restructuring.

This trend is also due to a labour market policy geared to making it easy to recruit and dismiss employees (the ‘external flexicurity model’).

1.

Is the Commission aware of this trend associated with business restructuring?

2.

What will the Commission do to combat the increasingly stressful working conditions of employees?

3.

What will the Commission do to ensure that future restructuring operations are carried out in a manner less harsh to employees?

4.

Will the Commission adhere to the recommendations made in the Cercas Report and submit a proposal for legislation on informing and consulting employees and on anticipation and management of restructuring, taking these findings into account?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2013)

1.

The Commission is aware of the potential negative impact of restructuring on the employees made redundant and those who remain, and encourages early preparation to reduce the social and economic consequences to a minimum.

2.

It would refer the

Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E‐010378/2011, E‐009623/2011, E‐007973/2012, E‐008839/2012, E‐09561/2012 and E‐011207/2012. These relate to a study of mental health in the workplace in the EU and EEA/EFTA countries and the drafting of a guidance document, which are currently under way and will cover the implications of restructuring at company level for employees’ mental health. The results will be available by mid-2014 and will be duly taken into consideration.

3.

The Commission has no power to interfere in company decisions involving restructuring or plant closures in Europe. However, EC law

3.

The Commission has no power to interfere in company decisions involving restructuring or plant closures in Europe. However, EC law

 (214) provides that employers are to inform and consult employees' representatives before deciding to carry out collective redundancies. Such consultation covers ways of avoiding redundancies, reducing their number and mitigating the consequences through accompanying social measures. The Commission urges all stakeholders to anticipate and manage restructuring in a socially responsible way and draws attention to the social partners’ Orientations for reference in managing change and its social consequences (215) and the Commission’s Checklist on Restructuring Processes (216).

4.

Following the Green Paper

4.

Following the Green Paper

 (217) and the adoption of the Cercas Report, the Commission is considering how to encourage wide observance of best practice in the field of restructuring and anticipation of change. It will inform Parliament of the action it intends taking in response to its request.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001740/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(19 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Projekty wspierane przez UE w Egipcie

2 lata po protestach na placu Tahrir, które doprowadziły do zmiany politycznej w Egipcie, zwracam się z prośbą do Wysokiej Przedstawiciel o następujące informacje:

Jaka kwota wsparcia została od 2011 r. przekazana przez UE dla Egiptu?

Na jakie projekty zostały przekazane fundusze wsparcia?

W jaki sposób Unia Europejska oraz Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych angażują się obecnie w budowę demokratycznego państwa prawa w Egipcie?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji

(4 czerwca 2013 r.)

Ogólna kwota dwustronnej pomocy finansowej UE dla Egiptu (449 mln EUR) nie uległa zmianie w latach 2011‐2013. W następstwie rewolucji w styczniu 2011 r. dostosowano jednak główny kierunek współpracy, tak by wyjść naprzeciw aspiracjom obywateli do demokracji, wyższego poziomu zatrudnienia i lepszych warunków życia.

W 2012 r. UE finansowała programy wspierające tworzenie miejsc pracy (70 mln EUR), kształcenie techniczne i zawodowe (50 mln EUR) oraz gospodarkę wodną i kanalizacyjną (10 mln EUR). Wszystkie te programy mają bezpośredni wpływ na ludność Egiptu, szczególnie na młodzież i bezrobotnych. W 2013 r. planowane są programy o podobnych celach, np. w zakresie gospodarowania odpadami stałymi, rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich.

Jeśli chodzi o wsparcie UE dla procesu demokratyzacji w Egipcie, poza regularnymi spotkaniami na najwyższym szczeblu politycznym i kierowniczym, będącymi źródłem wyraźnych sygnałów dotyczących praw człowieka i wartości demokratycznych, UE – w szczególności delegatura UE w Kairze – intensyfikowała swój dialog ze społeczeństwem obywatelskim. Organizowane są regularne spotkania, a UE zaobserwowała, że biorą w nich udział coraz liczniejsze różnorodne organizacje społeczeństwa obywatelskiego. UE odnotowała także rosnące zapotrzebowanie Egiptu na pomoc unijną. Zintensyfikowanemu dialogowi towarzyszy pomoc finansowa opiewająca na bezprecedensową kwotę 35 mln EUR przekazaną przez UE organizacjom społeczeństwa obywatelskiego od momentu zrywu ludności w styczniu 2011 r.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001740/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — EU-supported projects in Egypt

It is two years since the protests in Tahrir Square which brought about political change in Egypt. Could the High Representative answer the following questions:

What amount of support has the EU provided to Egypt since 2011?

To which projects has that support been allocated?

How is the European Union and the European External Action Service currently involved in building in Egypt a democratic state based on the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2013)

Overall EU financial bilateral assistance to Egypt remained unchanged (EUR 449 million) over 2011-2013. However, the cooperation focus was adjusted following the January 2011 revolution to adequately respond to citizens' aspirations for more democracy, more jobs and better living conditions.

In 2012, the EU funded programmes supporting job creation (EUR 70 million), technical and vocational education (EUR 50 million) and water and sanitation (EUR 10 million). All programmes have a direct impact on the Egyptian population, in particular the youth and the unemployed. For 2013, programmes with a similar objective are in the pipeline, e.g. in the field of solid waste, agriculture and rural development.

As for EU’s support to Egypt’s democratic transition and apart from regular meetings at top political and senior management level where strong messages on respect for human rights and democratic values are conveyed, the EU — and in particular the EU Delegation in Cairo — has increased its dialogue with civil society. Regular meetings are taking place and overall, the EU has witnessed an increase in the number and variety of Civil Society organisations attending these meetings. The EU has also witnessed an increasing request for EU assistance This increased dialogue has been matched by an unprecedented financial assistance worth EUR 35 Million provided by the EU to Civil Society Organisations since the January 2011 uprising.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-001741/13

do Komisji

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(19 lutego 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Ochrona praw mniejszości w Kosowie

Od wejścia w życie Traktatu z Lizbony, ochrona mniejszości stała się fundamentalną wartością Unii Europejskiej. Jednocześnie Unia złożyła obietnicę rozpoczęcia negocjacji akcesyjnych z Kosowem, gdy państwo będzie na to gotowe. Dochodzące sygnały o naruszeniach praw mniejszości etnicznych sugerują jednakże, że kraj ten jest jeszcze daleki od przystąpienia do UE.

Biorąc pod uwagę uznane w Europie standardy ochrony praw członków mniejszości etnicznych, zwracam się zatem z prośbą o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

W jaki sposób Unia Europejska aktualnie angażuje się w działania mające na celu poprawę sytuacji mniejszości etnicznych zamieszkujących Kosowo i monitoruje postępy w tym obszarze?

Jak Komisja ocenia działania, które podejmuje rząd Kosowa, aby integrować społeczeństwo kraju, szczególnie mniejszość romską?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji

(15 kwietnia 2013 r.)

UE udziela doradztwa i wsparcia rządowi Kosowa w zakresie rozwoju i umacniania poszanowania dla praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności w Kosowie (218), w tym wsparcia technicznego i finansowego w zakresie ochrony mniejszości w ramach Instrumentu Pomocy Przedakcesyjnej.

W studium wykonalności z 10 października 2012 r. (219) Komisja podkreśliła, że władze Kosowa powinny skupić się na promowaniu wieloetnicznego Kosowa oraz stworzyć niezbędne warunki do osiągnięcia tego celu. Komisja zaznaczyła także, że Kosowo musi rozwiązać kilka problemów dotyczących, zarówno egzekwowania prawa, jak i ram politycznych. Odnośnie do integracji społeczności romskich, aszkalskich i egipskich, doświadczających trudnej sytuacji pośredniej i bezpośredniej dyskryminacji, studium wykonalności wskazało, że, zarówno na szczeblu centralnym, jak i lokalnym, brakuje wdrożenia specjalnej strategii i ściśle ukierunkowanych działań.

Perspektywa europejska Kosowa jest zbieżna z perspektywą krajów Bałkanów Zachodnich. W konkluzjach Rady z grudnia 2012 r. zwrócono uwagę, że Komisja zamierza zaproponować wytyczne negocjacyjne dotyczące układu o stabilizacji i stowarzyszeniu, pod warunkiem że Kosowo zrealizuje szereg kluczowych priorytetów. Nie jest to równoznaczne z rozpoczęciem negocjacji akcesyjnych.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001741/13

to the Commission

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(19 February 2013)

Subject: Defence of minority rights in Kosovo

Since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, defence of minorities has been a fundamental value of the European Union. At the same time, the Union has promised to open accession negotiations with Kosovo when the country is ready. However, indications of violations of the rights of ethnic minorities suggest that the country is still far from joining the EU.

Taking into account European standards relating to the protection of the rights of members of ethnic minorities, I would like to ask the following questions:

How is the European Union currently engaged in action to improve the situation of ethnic minorities living in Kosovo and monitoring progress in this regard?

How does the Commission assess the action being taken by the Government of Kosovo to build an integrated society, and in particular to integrate the Roma minority?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2013)

The EU offers advice and support to the Government of Kosovo on the development and consolidation of the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo (220) including through technical and financial support to the protection of minorities under the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance.

In the Feasibility Study of 10 October 2012 (221), the Commission underlined that Kosovo needs to focus on promoting a multi-ethnic Kosovo and create the necessary conditions to achieve this. It also outlined that there are several challenges Kosovo needs to address, relating both to the enforcement of legislation and to the political framework. As regard the integration of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian (RAE) community, which is a vulnerable minority suffering from both direct and indirect discrimination, the Feasibility Study indicated that implementation of a specific strategy and targeted action is lacking, both at central and municipal levels.

Kosovo shares the European perspective of the western Balkans. The Council conclusions of December 2012 noted that the Commission will propose negotiating directives for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement provided Kosovo has addressed a number of key priorities. This should not be mixed up with the opening of accession negotiations.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-001742/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD) e Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(19 febbraio 2013)

Oggetto: Violazione dei principi di sussidiarietà e proporzionalità nella proposta di direttiva COM(2012)0788 relativa ai prodotti del tabacco

Con riferimento alla proposta di direttiva COM(2012)0788 sul ravvicinamento delle disposizioni legislative, regolamentari e amministrative degli Stati membri relative alla lavorazione, alla presentazione e alla vendita dei prodotti del tabacco e dei prodotti correlati, il Senato della Repubblica italiana ha espresso un parere motivato, rilevando che vi sono elementi contrari ai principi di sussidiarietà e proporzionalità enunciati dal Protocollo n. 2 del TFUE.

Si consideri che l'articolo 24 della proposta, in cui si afferma che gli Stati membri sono liberi di adottare differenti regolamentazioni del settore, potrebbe essere in contrasto con l'articolo 114 del TFUE che la Commissione ha posto come base giuridica della proposta.

Inoltre, tenendo presente che uno degli scopi basilari e universalmente condivisi della proposta è la tutela della salute dei cittadini, alcune disposizioni restrittive ivi contenute paiono in contrasto con il principio di proporzionalità, in quanto potrebbero disincentivare o rendere meno efficaci gli investimenti da parte dell'UE e degli Stati membri in ricerca e innovazione finalizzati ad introdurre politiche sanitarie di riduzione del rischio derivato dal fumo.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

ritiene opportuno rivedere le disposizioni della proposta tenendo in debita considerazione sia i principi di sussidiarietà e proporzionalità, sia le ricadute economiche sui lavoratori interessati dalle proposte modifiche della legislazione in vigore?

ritiene opportuno modificare la base giuridica della proposta, aggiungendo l'art. 168 TFUE all'art. 114?

ritiene opportuno valutare adeguatamente le ripercussioni della proposta in termini economici e occupazionali su tutta la filiera del tabacco, dai coltivatori, ai rivenditori, alle entrate erariali degli Stati membri?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(4 aprile 2013)

La proposta di revisione della direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco è corroborata da un'attenta analisi degli impatti economici, sociali e sanitari delle misure prospettate nonché da un'analisi delle ripercussioni sul mercato interno considerato nel suo insieme. La Commissione ha anche condotto un'ampia consultazione degli stakeholder, tra cui i coltivatori di tabacco e i fabbricanti. In detta proposta la Commissione è stata particolarmente attenta ad assicurare il pieno rispetto dei principi di proporzionalità e sussidiarietà.

Le misure previste in forza della proposta sono intese a ridurre il consumo di tabacco del 2 % in un quinquennio. In termini economici gli effetti sono moderati per l'industria del tabacco, in particolare se si tiene conto delle misure contro i traffici illeciti. Se si stima che 5 700 posti di lavoro andrebbero persi nel settore del tabacco, si deve tener presente che questi sarebbero compensati dalla creazione di circa 8 000 nuovi posti di lavoro in altri settori, come illustrato nella valutazione d'impatto.

La scelta dell'articolo 114 del trattato sul funz