’ and was concerned about the ‘

’. How does the Commission explain this sudden about-face since the Treaty of Lisbon?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

The EU Aid Volunteers proposal respond to the challenge to cope with an increased number and magnitude of disasters and the need to improve the competences of volunteers involved in humanitarian aid. The lessons learnt from Haiti confirm that training and preparation are a condition sine qua non-for effective deployment. This initiative has the potential to have a positive impact on the employability of young Europeans giving them the opportunity to acquire important competences. The EU Aid Volunteers do not replace or reduce the need for professionals, but their contribution would reinforce the capacity of humanitarian organisations.

The Lisbon Treaty has maintained in its Article 214.5 the creation of such an initiative which leads to a mandate for the Commission to act. The Commission has engaged since 2006 in extensive consultations, notably with Parliament but also with experts and stakeholders in the field. Over 100 organisations have been heard; a public online consultation has been undertaken; a second review has been published in 2011. These efforts have contributed to developing the concept based on the conclusion that, if organised in the right way, a humanitarian volunteer programme does fill gaps and responds to needs formulated by the sector.

Meeting the basic needs of the population from the affected areas constitutes, indeed, a major objective of EU humanitarian aid. Yet, it is important that the EU's intervention in fragile or crisis-affected countries builds resilience of communities and the EU Aid Volunteers would play a role in this context.

The proposed budget for the EU Aid Volunteers does not encroach on the significant contribution of the EU to humanitarian operations as it foresees a dedicated budget line.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008332/12

à la Commission

Franck Proust (PPE)

(21 septembre 2012)

Objet: Souscrire une assurance automobile dans un autre État membre

Le poste de dépenses que représente l'assurance automobile peut parfois s'avérer très lourd pour les ménages. La concurrence se développe de plus en plus, c'est un fait. Il y a de très nombreux moyens de comparer les offres et il est très aisé de faire son choix. Le marché unique, dont nous fêtons les 20 ans cette année, devrait permettre à chaque consommateur de comparer les offres dans d'autres pays de l'Union.

Il est clair qu'une offre d'assurance à l'étranger, même moins chère, n'est pas forcément la mieux adaptée aux réalités du pays de circulation du véhicule. Mais la directive de 1992 (directive 92/49/CEE) sur la libre prestation dans le marché des assurances au sein de l'Union, pose le cadre réglementaire et autorise, en théorie, le consommateur à souscrire une assurance auprès d'un agent installé et régi par la législation d'un autre État membre que le pays d'immatriculation de son propre véhicule.

1. La Commission peut-elle le confirmer?

2. Dans l'affirmative (question 1), quelles sont les conditions pour y souscrire?

3. Dans l'affirmative (question 1), la Commission a-t-elle constaté que certains dispositifs nationaux (notamment l'obligation pour le futur assureur d'un véhicule d'être certifié et autorisé à exercer par l'État membre d'immatriculation du véhicule, alors même que cet assureur est par ailleurs basé dans un autre État membre et en règle dans son propre pays) pouvaient entraver la libre prestation?

4. En pratique, comment un consommateur peut-il s'informer sur les agents fournissant ce genre de service transfrontalier?

Réponse donnée par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission

(13 novembre 2012)

1-2. La Commission confirme qu'un citoyen de l'UE peut en effet contracter une police d'assurance pour un véhicule automobile soit auprès d'un assureur établi dans l'État membre où ce véhicule est immatriculé, soit auprès d'un assureur établi dans un autre État membre que celui où se trouve le véhicule. La législation européenne n'impose pas de conditions supplémentaires aux consommateurs en ce qui concerne la souscription d'une police d'assurance automobile obligatoire dans un contexte transfrontalier.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008332/12

to the Commission

Franck Proust (PPE)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Purchasing car insurance in another Member State

Car insurance can sometimes place a heavy burden on households as an expenditure. Competition is constantly developing. There are many ways to compare prices and it very easy to choose. The single market, whose 20th anniversary we are celebrating this year, should allow every consumer to compare prices in other EU countries.

Clearly a foreign insurance policy, even if it is cheaper, is not necessarily best adapted to the realities of the country in which the vehicle is used. However, the 1992 Directive (Directive 92/49/EEC) on the freedom to provide services in the insurance market within the EU establishes the regulatory framework and, in theory, authorises consumers to purchase insurance from an agent established and regulated by the legislation of a Member State other than the country in which the vehicle is registered

1. Can the Commission confirm this?

2. If so, what are the conditions governing such a purchase?

3. If so (question 1), is the Commission aware that certain national provisions (particularly the obligation for the future insurer of a vehicle to be certified and authorised by the vehicle registration’s Member State, even though this insurer is based in another Member State and is regulated in his or her own country) could hamper the freedom to provide services?

4. In practice, how can a consumer find out about agents providing this kind of cross-border service?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2012)

1-2. The Commission can indeed confirm that a citizen in the EU can buy an insurance policy for a motor vehicle with an insurer established in the Member State of registration of the vehicle or with an insurer established in any other Member State different from the Member State where the vehicle is. EC law does not impose any additional conditions upon consumers as regards the purchase of a compulsory motor insurance policy in a cross-border context.

can operate under a single licence in all Member States of the EU. Nevertheless, the insurer concerned must comply with host country rules adopted in the general interest. Such provisions must be applied without discrimination to all undertakings operating in that Member State and be objectively necessary and in proportion to the objective pursued. Thus, only those national provisions which respect this strict test, ultimately assessed by the Court of Justice of the EU, may hinder the free provision of insurance services.

https://eiopa.europa.eu/publications/register-of-insurance-undertakings/index.html, through Internet search machines or by contacting national insurance supervisors.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008333/12

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)

(21 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Misura d'emergenza giusta della BCE

La decisione della BCE, che l'interrogante ritiene giusta e positiva, di comprare «senza limiti» titoli europei del debito pubblico, ha scatenato polemiche e discussioni sulla funzione della banca in questione e sulle eventuali conseguenze della misura presa, che è una misura d'emergenza, dovuta al fatto che le vere cause della crisi non sono state ancora rimosse e che le necessarie regole per controllare i flussi di capitale a breve e per limitare le operazioni finanziarie speculative non sono state ancora decise, né a livello europeo, né tanto meno a livello di G20. In questo contesto è doveroso porre la massima attenzione ai possibili effetti futuri dell'acquisto dei titoli di Stato da parte della BCE. Lo farà creando nuova liquidità, cioè stampando nuova moneta con il rischio di una inflazione più forte. La Bundesbank pone questo problema, ma «lo fa — afferma “Italia Oggi” del 12 settembre scorso in un articolo firmato da Lettieri e Raimondi — in modo e con argomenti sbagliati. Preme sui controlli di bilancio, sui tagli delle spese, sugli interventi automatici in caso di mancato mantenimento degli impegni presi dai governi, prima di concedere qualsiasi aiuto». Tanto la BCE, quanto la Bundesbank concordano, tuttavia, nel dare al Fondo Monetario Internazionale un potere di controllo e un ruolo diretto nella gestione dell'economia dei paesi beneficiari.

Assegnando al FMI il ruolo di grande controllore, può la Commissione rispondere a quanto segue:

Risposta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione

(31 ottobre 2012)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008333/12

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Correct emergency measure by the European Central Bank

The European Central Bank's (ECB) decision, with which I agree, to buy ‘unlimited’ European public debt securities has caused controversy and debate over the bank's function and the measure's possible consequences. This is an emergency measure, since the true causes of the crisis have not yet been eliminated and the rules necessary to control short‐term capital flows and to restrict speculative financial transactions have not yet been decided on, either at the European level or within the G20. In this context, we must evaluate the possible future effects of the ECB acquiring State securities. It will buy them by creating new liquidity (printing new currency), thus risking higher inflation. The Bundesbank notes this problem, but according to Mario Lettieri and Paulo Raimondi's article in Italia Oggi, 12 September 2012, it is wrong. The article states that it prioritises budget controls, spending cuts and automatic interventions in the event of governments failing to keep to their commitments, before granting any aid. Both the ECB and the Bundesbank agree, however, on giving the International Monetary Fund (IMF) supervisory powers and a direct role in managing beneficiary countries' economies.

In assigning this supervisory role to the IMF, can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2012)

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008335/12

an die Kommission

Lothar Bisky (GUE/NGL)

(21. September 2012)

Betrifft: Europäisches Zentrum für Pressefreiheit

Ist der Kommission eine „Europäische Charta für Pressefreiheit“ bekannt, die 2009 initiiert und bis zum Herbst 2011 von 47 Chefredakteuren und leitenden Journalisten aus 34 Staaten auch beschlossen und unterzeichnet wurde?

Ist der Kommission ein „Gründungsaufruf für ein Europäisches Zentrum für Pressefreiheit“, das in Leipzig angesiedelt werden soll, bekannt?

Mit Mitteln in welcher Höhe beabsichtigt die Kommission ein „Europäisches Zentrum für Pressefreiheit“ mit Sitz in Leipzig in den Jahren 2013 bis 2016 zu fördern?

Antwort von Frau Kroes im Namen der Kommission

(31. Oktober 2012)

Der Kommission ist bekannt, dass 2009 eine Europäische Charta für Pressefreiheit initiiert und zunächst von 48 europäischen Journalisten unterzeichnet wurde. Genau genommen entstand die Idee zu dieser Charta bereits im Jahr 2007 bei einem hochrangigen Dialog mit Chefredakteuren europäischer Zeitungen, der von der Medien-Taskforce der damaligen Generaldirektion Informationsgesellschaft und Medien veranstaltet wurde. Bis heute haben fast 400 Journalisten diese Charta unterzeichnet, davon über 60 % aus Deutschland.

Die Kommission kennt ferner den Gründungsaufruf für ein Europäisches Zentrum für Pressefreiheit in Leipzig, der im Oktober 2011 von Journalisten und Google Deutschland unterzeichnet wurde.

Im Haushalt 2013 wurde ein Pilotprojekt für ein Europäisches Zentrum für Pressefreiheit mit einer vorläufigen Mittelausstattung von einer Million Euro vorgeschlagen. Dieser Vorschlag wurde von der Kommission günstig aufgenommen. Die Finanzierung könnte bei einer positiven Entscheidung der Haushaltsbehörde im nächsten Jahr um ein weiteres Jahr verlängert werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008335/12

to the Commission

Lothar Bisky (GUE/NGL)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: European Centre for Press Freedom

Is the Commission aware of a ‘European Charter on Freedom of the Press’ which was launched in 2009 and which was agreed and signed by 47 editors-in-chief and leading journalists from 34 countries by autumn 2011?

Is the Commission aware of a ‘Founding Statement for a European Centre for Press Freedom’ which is to be established in Leipzig?

What amount of resources does the Commission intend to spend between 2013 and 2016 on the promotion of a ‘European Centre for Press Freedom’ located in Leipzig?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2012)

The Commission is aware of the existence of a European Charter on Freedom of the Press launched in 2009 and initially signed by 48 European journalists. As a matter of fact, the idea behind this Charter was born in 2007, during a high-level dialogue meeting with editors-in-chief of European newspapers organised by the Media Task Force of the formerly named Information Society and Media Directorate General. Today, nearly 400 journalists have signed the Charter, of which more than 60% from Germany.

The Commission is also aware of the Founding Statement for a European Centre for Press Freedom in Leipzig signed in October 2011 by Journalists and Google Germany.

A Pilot Project for a European Centre for Press Freedom with a tentative budget of one million euro has been proposed as an item on the 2013 budget. This proposal was well received by the Commission. Funding could be renewed for another year, subject to a favourable decision by the budgetary authority next year.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-008336/12

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(21 września 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Stosowanie przemocy seksualnej wobec zatrzymanych na Białorusi

Białoruskie stowarzyszenie „Nasz Dom” poinformowało o przemocy seksualnej oraz groźbach jej stosowania wobec aresztowanych kobiet, które, przypomnę, często są działaczkami społecznymi i politycznymi i odsiadują wyroki za swoją aktywność przeciwko reżimowi Aleksandra Łukaszenki. W białoruskich aresztach nie ma też warunków utrzymania podstawowej higieny, milicjanci obrażają kobiety, biją i urągają ich godności. Działaczki „Naszego Domu” zebrały ponad sto relacji kobiet, które spotkały się podczas zatrzymań i w areszcie z przemocą oraz groźbami o charakterze seksualnym. Również przedstawicielce „Naszego Domu” grożono gwałtem.

Mając na uwadze zawieszenie relacji Unii Europejskiej z Białorusią, apeluję jednak o pomoc torturowanym kobietom. Podkreślając pilność sytuacji, pragnę zapytać, kiedy i jakie działania zostaną podjęte celem pomocy wykorzystywanym kobietom?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(12 października 2012 r.)

Unii Europejskiej znane są doniesienia stowarzyszenia „Nasz Dom” dotyczące gróźb stosowania przemocy seksualnej wobec aresztowanych kobiet. Mimo że przypadki te miały miejsce w następstwie tłumienia demonstracji w 2010 r., stowarzyszenie „Nasz Dom” przekazało te informacje we wrześniu 2012 r.

Unia Europejska wyrażała wobec władz białoruskich wielokrotnie i na różnych szczeblach swoje głębokie zaniepokojenie traktowaniem więźniów politycznych i trwającą nadal praktyką zatrzymywania i więzienia osób z powodów politycznych. UE nałożyła sankcje na część personelu więziennego oraz na ministra spraw wewnętrznych Białorusi, sprawującego tę funkcję podczas tłumienia demonstracji w 2010 r. Szefowie misji UE w Mińsku regularnie spotykają się z uwolnionymi więźniami politycznymi oraz obrońcami praw człowieka w celu otrzymywania najświeższych informacji dotyczących warunków przetrzymywania więźniów.

UE przeznaczyła również środki finansowe na indywidualną pomoc ofiarom prześladowań na Białorusi.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008336/12

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Use of sexual violence against individuals arrested in Belarus

The Belarusian association ‘Nash Dom’ has revealed information about the threats and use of sexual violence against women arrested in Belarus who are often social and political activists and are imprisoned for their activities against the Lukashenka regime. Detention facilities in Belarus fail to meet the basic hygiene requirements; police officers insult and beat women and abuse their dignity. Female activists from the ‘Nash Dom’ association have collected over a hundred of accounts from women who have suffered from threats and the use of sexual violence during their arrest and detention. A representative of ‘Nash Dom’ was threatened with rape.

Even though EU‐Belarus relations have been suspended, I still call on the EU to help the abused women. I would stress the urgency of the situation and ask when and what action will be taken to help them?

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

(12 October 2012)

The EU is aware about the information by ‘Nash Dom’, of cases of threats of sexual violence against women while in official custody. While the cases in question occurred in the aftermath of the 2010 crackdown, ‘Nash Dom’ revealed them in September 2012.

The EU has on numerous occasions and at different levels expressed concern over the treatment and presence of political prisoners and persons detained because of their political activities to the Belarusian authorities. The EU has imposed sanctions on a number of prison staff and also on the Belorusian Minister of the Interior who was in office when the 2010 crackdown happened. EU Heads of Missions in Minsk regularly meet with released political prisoners and human rights defenders in order to receive updates on the prisoners' conditions.

The EU has also dedicated funds to individually assist victims of repression in Belarus.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008337/12

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(21 września 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Raport w sprawie gazu łupkowego

W dniu dzisiejszym Komisja opublikowała raport dotyczący negatywnego wpływu wydobycia gazu łupkowego na środowisko oraz zdrowie ludzi. Autorzy wskazują, że w procesie szczelinowania nie tylko zużywa się znacznie większe ilości wody niż przy wydobyciu gazu łupkowego, lecz istnieje również ryzyko wprowadzenia do wód gruntowych chemikaliów. Negatywny raport może blokować gaz łupkowy, który już od dawna jest przedstawiany jako remedium na problemy energetyczne Unii Europejskiej.

Niepokój wzbudza nie tylko treść raportu, co również wybór firmy zobowiązanej przez Komisję Europejską do jego sporządzenia. Główną firmą odpowiedzialną za powstanie raportu była spółka AEA Technology, wcześniej związana miedzy innymi ze spółką córką Gazpromu operującej na Sachalinie II. Spółka ta mimo wielu raportów negatywnie oceniających wpływ wydobycia gazu ze złóż Sahalin na środowisko, wsparła wysiłki rosyjskiego giganta i sporządziła raport środowiskowy przychylny inwestycji. Pozwoliło to rosyjskiej firmie na rozpoczęcie wydobycia.

1. Jakimi kryteriami kierowała się Komisja wybierając spółkę AEA Technology jako głównego autora raportu dotyczącego wpływu wydobycia gazu łupkowego na środowisko, mając na uwadze, że biznesowe powiązania tej spółki z Gazpromem podważają obiektywizm przedstawionych w raporcie wniosków?

2. Czy według Komisji przygotowany raport nie jest podporządkowany interesom Gazpromu byłego zleceniodawcy spółki AEA, które od dawna kolidują z rozwojem bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Europy opartej między innymi na wydobyciu gazu łupkowego?

3. Jak Komisja ocenia inne raporty mówiące o niewielkiej szkodliwości wydobycia gazu łupkowego na środowisko, np. raport przygotowany przez polskie Ministerstwo Gospodarki? Czy zostaną one wykorzystane przy tworzeniu oficjalnego stanowiska Komisji wobec wydobycia gazu łupkowego?

4. Czy metody badań wykorzystanych przy tworzeniu opublikowanego raportu były zbieżne z metodami wykorzystywanymi przez specjalistów amerykańskich?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janeza Potočnika w imieniu Komisji

(7 listopada 2012 r.)

1. Kryteria wyboru zastosowane przez Komisję przy wyborze firmy AEA Technology zostały opublikowane w Dzienniku Urzędowym (59) w następstwie otwartej procedury przetargowej dotyczącej umowy ramowej ENV.F.1/FRA/2010/0044 o przeprowadzenie analizy ekonomicznej kierunków polityki w dziedzinie środowiska oraz zrównoważonego rozwoju.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008337/12

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Report on shale gas

The Commission has published a report today on the negative effects of shale gas extraction on the environment and human health. The authors state that hydraulic fracturing not only consumes a significantly greater quantity of water than conventional gas development, but that there is also a risk of chemicals entering the groundwater. This negative report may stand in the way of attempts to exploit shale gas, which for many years has been put forward as the answer to the European Union’s energy problems.

Not only is the content of the report alarming, but so is the company selected by the Commission to draft it. Responsibility for the report lies mainly with AEA Technology, a company previously linked to a Gazprom subsidiary working on Sakhalin II. In spite of the many reports that have outlined the adverse environmental effects of extracting gas from the Sakhalin deposits, AEA Technology supported the efforts of this Russian giant and drafted an environmental report in favour of the investments, thus allowing the Russian company to start extraction.

1. Which criteria did the Commission use to select AEA Technology as the main author of the report on the environmental impact of shale gas extraction, given that this company’s business links to Gazprom compromise the objectivity of the conclusions presented in the report?

2. Does the Commission not believe that the report that has been drafted is in thrall to the interests of Gazprom, a former client of AEA which for many years has tried to prevent the European Union from enhancing its energy security, inter alia on the basis of shale gas extraction?

3. What is the Commission’s view of other reports which refer to the absence of any adverse environmental effects caused by shale gas extraction, for example the report drawn up by the Polish Ministry of the Economy? Will these reports be used when the Commission prepares its official position on shale gas extraction?

4. Were the research methods used when drafting the published report the same as the methods used by American specialists?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2012)

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008338/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(21 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Sud Africa — minatori in sciopero

Il 16 agosto 2012 un gruppo di minatori in sciopero sono stati uccisi dagli spari della polizia durante gli scontri nella miniera di platino di Marikana, vicino a Rustenburg, North West Province, Sud Africa. L'incidente si segnala come il più sanguinoso scontro tra polizia e manifestanti nel Sud Africa del post apartheid.

Quel giorno, secondo la stampa locale, sono morti 34 minatori, uccisi dalla polizia a colpi d'arma da fuoco. La polizia ha aperto il fuoco con armi automatiche contro un gruppo di minatori in sciopero, alcuni dei quali armati di machete e bastoni, provocando un massacro, senza precedenti negli ultimi anni. Nei giorni in cui è maturata la sparatoria, 10 persone erano state uccise in una prima serie di scontri mortali innescati dapprima dai sostenitori di due sindacati rivali, il sindacato nazionale dei minatori e il sindacato dell'Associazione dei minatori e dei lavoratori delle costruzioni. Tra i morti c'erano anche due agenti di polizia, e quando le forze di sicurezza hanno aperto il fuoco hanno ucciso tre minatori. Le violenze hanno preso l'avvio da un conflitto salariale. Come riferito dalla stampa locale, erano molti anni che non si verificavano tensioni così forti in Sud Africa, infatti il paese ha vissuto anni di relativa stabilità dopo le prime elezioni multirazziali del 1994.

Sull'episodio è stata presentata una risoluzione del Parlamento europeo che invita le autorità sudafricane a fare tutto il possibile per riportare la situazione sotto controllo ed assicurare alla giustizia quanti hanno perpetrato le violenze e si compiace in tale contesto dell'istituzione di una commissione d'inchiesta giudiziaria per indagare i fatti. Chiede inoltre una revisione completa delle regole di ingaggio della polizia nel servizio di contenimento delle manifestazioni violente, tra cui in particolare l'uso di munizioni non letali, (anti sommossa) in modo da porre termine all'evidente incompetenza.

Si interroga la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sui seguenti quesiti:

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

(25 gennaio 2013)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente si è recata in visita in Sud Africa alcuni giorni dopo la tragedia della miniera di Marikana, di cui ha discusso approfonditamente con le personalità incontrate, fra cui il Ministro degli affari esteri Nkoana-Mashabane e l’allora Ministro dell’interno Dlamini-Zuma. Della tragedia si è altresì discusso nel quinto vertice UE‐Sud Africa tenutosi a Bruxelles il 18 settembre.

In tali occasioni l’Ue ha espresso apprezzamento per il fatto che il Presidente Zuma avesse nominato una commissione giudiziaria d’inchiesta incaricata di fare piena luce sull’incidente e una commissione interministeriale incaricata di assistere e sostenere i familiari delle vittime adoperandosi, nel contempo, per risolvere il problema dell’instabilità nell’industria mineraria.

La commissione giudiziaria d’inchiesta, presieduta da Ian Farlam, giudice a riposo della Corte suprema, ha inaugurato ufficialmente i lavori il 1° ottobre. In base al mandato conferitole, la commissione Farlam dispone di un termine di quattro mesi per presentare la relazione finale al Presidente.

L’UE segue con grande interesse e attenzione i lavori di tale commissione, di cui attende con altrettanto interesse i risultati.

Il governo sudafricano è pienamente impegnato al rispetto dello Stato di diritto, della giustizia sociale e dei diritti umani e condivide totalmente i principi e diritti sanciti dall’Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro, L’UE ha ottenuto da esso rassicurazioni circa il rispetto totale di tali principi e diritti nelle attuali circostanze.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008338/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — South Africa — striking miners

On 16 August 2012 a group of striking miners were shot dead during clashes with the police at the Marikana platinum mine, near Rustenburg, North West Province, South Africa. This incident marked the bloodiest clash between police and protesters in post-apartheid South Africa.

On that day, according to the local press, 34 miners were killed by gunshot blasts from police. The police opened fire with automatic weapons against a group of miners on strike, some of them armed with machetes and sticks, causing a massacre unprecedented in recent years. In the days leading up to the shooting, 10 people were killed in an initial fatal series of clashes initially triggered by supporters of two rival unions, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union. The dead included two police officers, and when the security forces opened fire they killed three miners. The violence began with a dispute linked to salaries. As reported by the local press, it has been many years since there were such tensions in South Africa, as the country has experienced years of relative stability after the first multi-racial elections in 1994.

A motion for a resolution of the European Parliament was tabled on this episode, which: calls on the South African authorities to do everything possible to bring the situation under control and to bring the perpetrators of the violence to book; welcomes in this context the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the facts; and calls for a comprehensive review of the police service rules of engagement in containing violent demonstrations, including in particular the use of live ammunition, in order to close the apparent lack of competences.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative please answer the following questions:

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

(25 January 2013)

The HR/VP visited South Africa a few days after the tragedy at the Marikana mine. She discussed the circumstances in depth with those she met, including with Foreign Minister Nkoana-Mashabane and Dr Dlamini-Zuma, at the time South African Minister of Home Affairs. The matter has been also discussed during the fifth EU-South Africa Summit in Brussels on 18 September.

In these occasions the EU welcomed the appointment by President Zuma of the full judicial Commission of inquiry into the incident and of the Inter-Ministerial Committee tasked with providing assistance and support to the families of the deceased while seeking to find solutions to the instability in the mining industry.

The Judicial Commission of inquiry chaired by Ian Farlam‐ a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal‐ has officially begun its work on 1 October. According to its terms of reference the Farlam Commission has four months to present its final report to the President.

The EU is following with keen interest and attention its proceedings and is looking forward to its findings.

The South African Government is fully committed to the rule of law, social justice and human rights principles and adheres entirely to the International Labour Organisation principles and rights. It has provided reassurances to the EU that they are fully respected under the current circumstances.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008339/12

alla Commissione

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(21 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Differenza salariale tra uomini e donne

L'uguaglianza tra uomini e donne è uno dei principi fondamentali sanciti dal diritto comunitario; lo scopo dell'UE è assicurare le pari opportunità e l'uguaglianza tra donne e uomini, nonché lottare contro ogni forma di discriminazione basata sul sesso.

Ciononostante, nell'ambito dell'occupazione, nell'Unione europea le donne guadagnano circa il 17,1 % in meno rispetto agli uomini, sebbene il divario delle retribuzioni tra uomini e donne oscilli negli Stati membri tra il 3,2 % e il 30,9 %. La differenza salariale è in parte spiegata dal fatto che le donne non occupano i medesimi impieghi degli uomini a causa del persistere della ripartizione del lavoro in base al genere, della segregazione verticale collegata al cosiddetto soffitto di cristallo e della maggior incidenza dell'occupazione a tempo parziale.

Nonostante le numerose iniziative giuridiche con cui si richiede l'uguaglianza salariale, tra cui la strategia per la parità tra donne e uomini 2010-2015, volta a migliorare la posizione delle donne nel mercato del lavoro e nella società, e le proposte approvate dal Parlamento europeo riguardanti tale ambito, suddetto divario persiste e i progressi sono estremamente lenti.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione

(29 ottobre 2012)

Eliminare la disparità retributiva tra i sessi è una delle priorità della Strategia per la parità tra donne e uomini 2010-2015. Il principio della parità di retribuzione, sancito dal trattato, trova attuazione con la direttiva 2006/54/CE (61) e la Commissione verifica regolarmente la corretta applicazione delle norme vigenti in materia da parte degli Stati membri. La Commissione prevede di pubblicare nel 2013 una relazione sull’attuazione della direttiva 2006/54/CE e delle disposizioni sulla parità di retribuzione.

Nel 2009 la Commissione ha lanciato, in tutta l’Unione, una campagna di sensibilizzazione contro le disparità salariali uomo-donna e il 2 marzo 2012 si è celebrata la seconda Giornata europea per la parità retributiva. Il sito web della campagna (62) offre diversi esempi di azioni promosse negli Stati membri per affrontare il problema.

Di recente la Commissione ha lanciato l’iniziativa Equality Pays Off mirata a sensibilizzare le imprese sul divario retributivo uomo-donna con attività di formazione e elaborando strumenti che mettano in risalto i benefici per le imprese. La Commissione prevede inoltre di organizzare a Bruxelles, più o meno in concomitanza con la Giornata europea per la parità retributiva del 2013, un forum che funga da piattaforma per lo scambio di conoscenze tra imprese. Approfondimenti su queste azioni sono disponibili online (63).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008339/12

to the Commission

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Gender gap in pay

Equality between men and women is one of the fundamental principles enshrined in EC law; the EU’s aim is to guarantee equal opportunities and equality, and to combat all forms of gender discrimination.

Despite this, in the EU employment sphere, women earn approximately 17.1 % less than men, although the pay gap varies among Member States (between 3.2 % and 30.9 %). The pay gap is partly because women do not occupy the same roles as men because of gender‐based work distribution, vertical segregation linked to the ‘glass ceiling’ and the greater frequency of part‐time working among women persist.

Despite the many legal initiatives requiring equal salaries, including the strategy for equality between women and men 2010‐15, designed to improve women's position in the labour market and society, and the European Parliament's proposals in this sphere, the salary gap persists and progress is extremely slow.

In view of the above, can the Commission reply to the following questions:

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2012)

Tackling the gender pay gap is one of the Commission's priorities in its Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015. The principle of equal pay is enshrined in the Treaty and in Directive 2006/54/E (64). The Commission is constantly monitoring whether the existing legal framework on equal pay is correctly applied in practice at national level. A report on the implementation of the directive 2006/54/EC, including application of the provisions on equal pay, is envisaged for 2013.

The Commission launched in 2009 an EU-wide awareness-raising campaign on the gender pay gap. On 2 March 2012 the Commission held the second European Equal Pay Day. The campaign website (65) provides numerous examples of actions at national level to tackle the gender pay gap.

The Commission has recently started an initiative which will help to raise awareness in companies about the gender pay gap, ‘Equality Pays Off’. It will do so through the organisation of training activities and preparation of tools for companies to raise awareness on the ‘business case’. Moreover, a business forum, a platform of knowledge exchange for companies, will be organised in Brussels around the European Equal Pay Day in 2013. More information about these actions is available online (66).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008340/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(21. September 2012)

Betrifft: Effekte des Freihandelsabkommens mit Japan auf andere Handelsströme

Die Kommission ersuchte die Mitgliedstaaten im Juli 2012 um Zustimmung für die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein Freihandelsabkommen mit Japan.

1. Falls ein solches Abkommen in Kraft tritt, welche Effekte erwartet die Kommission für den EU-Waren— und Dienstleistungsverkehr mit anderen Ex— und Importländern im ostasiatischen Raum, insbesondere mit a) China, b) Südkorea, c) Thailand, d) Taiwan und e) den Philippinen?

2. Erwartet die Kommission, dass eines der genannten Länder eine Gleichstellung mit Japan oder eine Neuverhandlung bestehender Handelsabkommen verlangen wird?

Antwort von Herr De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(31. Oktober 2012)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008340/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: The effects of the free trade agreement with Japan on other patterns of trade

In July 2012, the Commission sought the approval of the Member States to start negotiations with Japan on a free trade agreement.

1. If such an agreement comes into force, what impact does the Commission expect for the movement of EU goods and services in relation to other exporting and importing countries in the East Asia region, in particular (a) China, (b) South Korea, (c) Thailand, (d) Taiwan and (e) the Philippines?

2. Does the Commission expect that one of the countries mentioned will demand equal treatment with Japan or a renegotiation of existing trade agreements?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2012)

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008341/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(21 septembre 2012)

Objet: Suspension d'autorisation de culture d'OGM/Étude Séralini

Je viens d'obtenir une étude réalisée par l'équipe de Gilles-Éric Séralini, professeur de biologie moléculaire à l'université de Caen.

Les conclusions sont pour le moins stupéfiantes. En effet, elle démontre que des rats nourris avec du maïs génétiquement modifié ont été frappés par des pathologies lourdes, notamment des tumeurs, au bout de 13 mois.

1. Quelle est la réaction de la Commission?

2. Une telle étude va-t-elle geler les demandes de renouvellement d'autorisation de culture OGM (y compris celles accordées à Monsanto)?

3. Jusqu'à présent, les études pour démontrer l'innocuité d'un OGM pour la santé étaient menées sur 90 jours au maximum. Or la durée de cette étude est exceptionnelle et démontrerait des effets lourds de conséquences pour les cobayes. Est-il donc envisageable que des tests de courte durée soient dorénavant assortis de tests de plus longue durée avant d'accepter un OGM sur le marché?

4. Quelle est la règle en matière d'acceptation d'OGM sur le marché?

5. Combien de demandes d'exploitation d'OGM l'EFSA a-t-elle reçu depuis sa création, et ce par année?

6. Combien de demandes d'exploitation ont-elles reçu un avis positif de l'EFSA depuis sa création, et ce par année?

Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission

(9 novembre 2012)

1-4. La Commission invite l'auteur de la question à se reporter à ses réponses aux questions écrites P-008278/2012, P-008302/2012 et P-008334/2012 (69), qui prennent en compte les conclusions de l'étude publiée par Seralini et al. et qui décrivent les procédures d'autorisation de mise sur le marché d'OGM.

5-6. En ce qui concerne le nombre de demandes d'autorisation d'OGM et d'avis scientifiques positifs rendus par l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA), la Commission invite l'auteur de la question à consulter le site web de l'EFSA (70), où les questions sont regroupées dans un registre accessible au public.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008341/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(21 September 2012)

Subject: Suspension of GMO cultivation approval/Séralini Study

I have just obtained a study carried out by the team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen University.

The conclusions are astounding to say the least. The study shows that rats fed with genetically modified maize were struck by serious diseases, especially tumours, after 13 months.

1. What is the Commission’s reaction?

2. Will such a study halt the calls for the renewal of GMO cultivation approval (including those of Monsanto)?

3. Until now, studies to show that GMO pose no risk to health were carried out over a maximum of 90 days. The length of this study is exceptional, however, and shows effects with serious consequences for the guinea pigs. Is it therefore possible from now on for short tests to be accompanied with longer tests before accepting a GMO on the market?

4. What is the rule with regard to accepting GMO on the market?

5. How many applications for GMO exploitation has the EFSA received each year since it was established?

6. How many applications for exploitation have received a positive opinion from the EFSA each year since it was established?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

1-4. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions P-008278/2012, P-008302/2012 and P-008334/2012 (71), which address the findings of the study published by Seralini et al. and describe the authorisation procedures for placing on the market of GMOs.

5-6. As regards the number of applications for GMO authorisations and of positive scientific opinions delivered by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to consult the register of questions on EFSA's website (72), where this information is publicly available.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008342/12

to the Commission

Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: EU research funding for Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories — third follow-up question

With regard to the answer to Parliamentary Question P‐005085/2012 given by Ms Geoghegan‐Quinn on behalf of the Commission (4 July 2012), I thank the Commission for the factual information it has provided in paragraphs 1 to 3.

With regard to paragraph 4, concerning the eligibility of Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories (ADSL) for participation in and funding under FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects, the Commission states that ‘there is flexibility within the Commission Proposal for the Rules for Participation with respect to specifying certain eligibility conditions in view of the place of establishment of participants in future work programmes or work plans’.

This paragraph raises a number of questions:

With regard to paragraph 5 of the Commission’s answer, surely the reason for removing ADSL from the ‘find a partner’ facility on CORDIS is that ADSL is breaking international law (73). Hence, if the application goes ahead it will be disqualified at a later stage.

Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008343/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Turkish-Cypriot athletes at the Olympic games

The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games aimed to support sporting excellence and cross-cultural understanding. However, Turkish-Cypriot athletes have been unable to take part in the Olympic games.

Due to the sporting embargoes and non-recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Turkish-Cypriot sporting federations are prevented from joining their equivalent world federations and are therefore unable to participate as they are not represented on the International Olympic Committee.

However, the Olympic Charter recognises that the ‘practice of sport is a human right’ and that ‘every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which recognises mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play’. The Charter further states: ‘Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement’.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Turkish-Cypriot athletes are able to compete at the highest level, and thereby support the development of sport in the TRNC?

Furthermore, will the Commission be taking any steps to allow athletes from the TRNC to compete in the Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

Decisions related to the organisation of sport competitions, such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including the definition of the conditions for participating in these events, are the responsibility of sport event organisers; the Commission fully respects the principle of autonomy of sport organisations. Regarding EU Member States, decisions on which athletes represent them in Olympic events remain within the scope of exclusive Member States’ competences.

The EU competence in the field of sport (Art. 165 TFEU) provides no possibility for the EU to take steps to influence national representation in the Olympics.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008344/12

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: Fraude met EU-fondsen veel groter dan gedacht

Vandaag werd bekend (74) dat de fraude met EU-fondsen in de lidstaten veel groter is dan gedacht. In dat kader de volgende vragen:

Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie

(4 december 2012)

De cijfers in het artikel 325-verslag van de Commissie betreffen de onregelmatigheden die een lidstaat in een gegeven jaar heeft vastgesteld en gemeld. Het bedrag van 600 miljoen EUR in het verslag over 2010 staat voor het totale bedrag dat gemoeid is met alle (vermoede of bewezen) fraude die de bevoegde autoriteiten van de lidstaten hebben gemeld.

Omdat het verslag berust op gegevens van de lidstaten, kan niet met zekerheid worden gesteld dat het de omvang van fraude in de Europese Unie exact weerspiegelt. Om de administratie voor de nationale autoriteiten te beperken, is in de onderliggende sectorale wetgeving bovendien vastgesteld dat de lidstaten niet alle onregelmatigheden hoeven te melden. Niettemin streeft de Commissie er voortdurend naar de rapportage van de lidstaten nog te verbeteren.

In bijlage 2 van het verslag vindt het geachte Parlementslid een uitsplitsing van de cijfers per lidstaat. Die bijlage bevat tevens aanbevelingen hoe de bevoegde autoriteiten fraude, corruptie en andere onregelmatigheden ten nadele van de EU-begroting nog beter kunnen melden en bestrijden.

Lage gemelde fraudepercentages betekenen niet automatisch dat middelen verloren zijn en niet kunnen worden  teruggevorderd. Ook wanneer geen fraude wordt vastgesteld en het geval als niet-frauduleuze onregelmatigheid wordt behandeld, kunnen betalingen worden  teruggevorderd van begunstigden. Uit het verslag over 2011 blijkt dat op het vlak van  terugvorderingen vooruitgang is geboekt. Niettemin zal de Commissie blijven samenwerken met de lidstaten om hun fraudeopsporing en ‐bestrijding onder meer via opleidingen, ondersteuning en bijstand te verbeteren.

De Commissie is ervan overtuigd dat de oprichting van een Europees openbaar ministerie de meest geschikte manier is om de strijd tegen fraude in alle lidstaten te versterken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008344/12

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Theft of EU funds greater than reported

It has been reported (75) that fraud relating to EU funds in the Member States is much greater than has been thought. The following questions relate to this.

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The figures contained in the Commission's Article 325 Report refer to the irregularities that have been detected and reported by a Member State in a given year. The figure of EUR 600 million in the 2010 Report represents the total impact of the (suspected or confirmed) fraud as reported by the Member States' competent authorities.

Because of this reliance on information provided by the Member States, it cannot be claimed that the report reflects precisely the true level of fraud in the EU. Also, in order to reduce the administrative burden on Member States' authorities the underlying sectorial legislation provides that Member States do not have to report all irregularities. However, the Commission is continuously striving to improve the reporting discipline of Member States further.

In Annex A to the report, the Honourable Member will find the breakdown per Member State. It also contains some recommendations as to how the competent authorities can improve their reporting and fight against fraud, corruption and any other irregularity detrimental to the EU Budget.

A low level of reported fraud does not automatically mean that funds are lost and cannot be recovered. Also where fraud is not established and the case is treated as a non-fraudulent irregularity, money can be recovered from the beneficiaries. The progress made in the area of recoveries is evidenced by the 2011 Report. The Commission will nevertheless continue to work with the Member States to improve their ability to detect and fight fraud, inter alia by providing training, support and assistance.

The Commission is convinced that the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor Office is the most appropriate way to strengthen the fight against fraud in all Member States.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008346/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Access to documents in EU-Cypriot case concerning immovable property in Cyprus

Person X applied to the Secretary-General of the Commission on 16 July 2012 for access to certain documents related to the correspondence that has taken place between the Commission and the Cypriot authorities since 2011 concerning immovable property in Cyprus.

He had previously requested these documents from Vice-President Reding, but had been informed that her DG could not supply these documents because pre-infringement proceedings had been initiated against Cyprus: however, Person X could apply to the Secretary-General of the Commission for them.

However, in response to his application to the Secretary-General, Person X has now received a letter refusing his application and stating that disclosure of the documents could jeopardise the ongoing search for an amicable solution to the dispute.

Can the Commission provide fuller information as to why Person X is unable to access the requested documents?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2012)

Regulation No 1049/2001 (76) lays down the rules for granting (public) access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

Article 4 of the regulation states the grounds for refusing to grant access to these documents. In particular, Article 4(2) clarifies that the access can be refused where such disclosure would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Considering that the disclosure, even partial, of the documents mentioned by the Honourable Member, which have been sent in the context of an ongoing pre-infringement procedure, might jeopardise an amicable solution of the dispute and thus the whole process of investigation and inspection, the European Commission has decided to refuse access to the documents related to the EU-Cypriot case concerning immovable property in Cyprus.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008347/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 de septiembre de 2012)

Asunto: Prevención de discriminación entre los productores entre los productores fotovoltaicos de los diferentes Estados miembros

El Reino de España, auspiciado por la Directiva Comunitaria Directiva 2001/77/CE, desarrolló durante el año 2007 (RD 661/2007) medidas de incentivación de la inversión en tecnología solar fotovoltaica. A partir de ese momento, como sabe esta Comisión, se invirtieron en España decenas de miles de millones de euros, bajo la seguridad que daban los principios de legalidad y de confianza legítima de los ciudadanos ante su Gobierno, ambos defendidos igualmente por constante doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Europea. Sin embargo, el anterior Gobierno de España, mediante los RD 1565/2010 y RDL 14/2010 aplicaron de forma retroactiva normas que no sólo vulneraban aquellos principios, sino que ponían en grave riesgo de default las inversiones de los ciudadanos del país y de los inversores del resto de la Unión (reducen hasta un 30 % las primas concedidas por Ley a los inversores en esta tecnología).

Esta situación es sobradamente conocida por la Comisión Europea que en diferentes actuaciones (fundamentalmente del Comisario Europeo de la Energía) se ha quejado amargamente de dicha evidencia. Asimismo, comparativamente, otros Estados de la Unión, como el Reino Unido, han prohibido taxativamente la implementación de este tipo de normativas retroactivas que vulneran los principios recogidos por el Derecho comunitario (Royal Courts of Justice Case No: C1/2012). Sin embargo, dicha defensa, no se ha producido con el mismo rigor por los Tribunales de Justicia de España, que acogen la posibilidad que el cambio de situación económica permita la alteración por el Estado de los derechos que le reconocen a sus ciudadanos las normas de aplicación nacional de las Directivas Europeas, lo cual va claramente en contra del artículo 1 de la Directiva 2009/208/CE que establece la necesidad de un marco común para el fomento de la energía procedente de fuentes renovables en toda la Comunidad.

En los últimos días, el Gobierno de España ha iniciado los trámites parlamentarios para la implementación de un impuesto que grave la generación de la electricidad, con un tipo marginal del 6 %, lo que supone un descenso de los ingresos de las instalaciones fotovoltaicas del 36 %.

¿Qué medidas tiene previstas la Comisión para exigir al Reino de España que respete los principios de legalidad y confianza legítima de los inversores de tecnología solar fotovoltaica, amparados por el Derecho comunitario?

Respuesta del Sr. Oettinger en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de noviembre de 2012)

Remitimos a Su Señoría a la respuesta a las preguntas escritas E-1178/2011, del Sr. Romeva i Rueda, E-1865/2011, del Sr. Junqueras Vies, y E-2730/2011, del Sr. Melo (77). Por otra parte, la Comisión está realizando un continuo seguimiento de la evolución de la política energética en España con vistas a considerar nuevas acciones a nivel de la UE en caso necesario. Partiendo de la información de que dispone actualmente, la Comisión no ve indicios de infracción de la Directiva relativa a las energías renovables (2009/28/CE).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008347/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Preventing discrimination between photovoltaic producers in different Member States

Under Directive 2001/77/EC, the Kingdom of Spain adopted measures to encourage investment in solar photovoltaic technology in 2007 (RD 661/2007). From this time onwards, as the Commission knows, billions of euros were invested in Spain with the security provided by the principles of legality and legitimate public confidence in government, principles that are also upheld by the settled case law of the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, the former Spanish Government, through RD 1565/2010 and RLD 14/2010, retroactively applied rules that do not only breach those principles but that also give rise to a serious risk of default on investment affecting both Spanish citizens and investors in other Member States (cut of up to 30% in the premiums granted to investors in this technology).

The Commission is well aware of this situation and has complained about it on various occasions (chiefly through the Energy Commissioner). Other Member States such as the United Kingdom have prohibited the implementation of this type of retroactive regulation in breach of the principles underlying Community law (Royal Courts of Justice Case No: C1/2012). Nevertheless, this principle has not been upheld to the same extent by the Spanish courts, which leave open the possibility that a change in the economic situation might allow the State to alter the rights accorded to its citizens under national legislation applying European directives. This is in clear breach of Article 1 of Directive 2009/208/EC, which refers to the need for a common framework to promote renewable energy across the Community.

The Spanish Government has recently launched the parliamentary procedures for the implementation of a tax on electricity generation with a marginal rate of 6%, which represents a 36% cut in income for photovoltaic installations.

What steps will the Commission take with a view to calling on the Kingdom of Spain to respect the principles of legality and legitimate confidence, that are upheld by Community law, with regard to investors in solar photovoltaic technology?

Answer given by M. Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2012)

We would like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply to written questions E-1178/2011 by Mr Romeva i Rueda, E-1865/2011 by Mr Junqueras Vies and E-2730/2011 by Mr Melo (78). Furthermore, the Commission is continuously monitoring energy policy developments in Spain with a view to consider further action at EU level if necessary. On the basis of the information available at the moment, it does not see an indication of a violation of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008348/12

an die Kommission

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) und Birgit Sippel (S&D)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: Datenschutz und Regelungen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre in Freihandelsabkommen

Die Europäische Union tritt zunehmend als globaler Handelspartner auf. Im internationalen Handel tätige Unternehmen sind bisweilen mit Regeln und Praktiken auf dem Gebiet des Schutzes der Privatsphäre und des Datenschutzes konfrontiert, die im Widerspruch zu EU-Recht stehen. Dies führt zu Rechtsunsicherheit sowohl für die Unternehmen als auch für die Bürger der EU und stellt ein potenzielles Hindernis für den freien Handel dar.

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(16. November 2012)

Der Kommission ist bewusst, dass den Bürgern ein hohes Maß an Schutz garantiert werden muss, das zugleich den Handel erleichtert. Daher wird den in Freihandelsabkommen enthaltenen Datenschutzbestimmungen große Bedeutung beigemessen.

In allen Freihandelsabkommen der EU wird auf Artikel XIV GATS verwiesen, der die Annahme oder die Durchsetzung von Gesetzen oder Vorschriften über u. a. den Schutz der Daten von Einzelpersonen legitimiert, sofern deren Durchsetzung nicht in einer Weise angewendet wird, die ein Mittel zu willkürlicher oder unberechtigter Diskriminierung unter Ländern oder eine verdeckte Beschränkung für den Handel mit Dienstleistungen darstellen würde. Diese allgemeine Ausnahmeregelung hat der EU den notwendigen politischen Spielraum gelassen, um ihren eigenen Regelungsrahmen zu entwickeln und anzuwenden.

Ganz allgemein enthalten von der EU geschlossene Handelsabkommen Bestimmungen, in denen die Parteien vereinbaren, für ein hohes Maß an Datenschutz zu sorgen und zu diesem Zweck zusammenzuarbeiten. Parallel dazu hat die EU die Entwicklung hoher technischer Datenschutzstandards in Drittländern und auf internationaler Ebene unterstützt (79).

Mit dem Vorschlag für eine Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (80) werden die Regeln für die internationale Datenübermittlung in Länder, für die kein Angemessenheitsbeschluss gilt, gestrafft und vereinfacht; dies geschieht vor allem durch Modernisierung und häufigere Verwendung von Instrumenten wie verbindlichen unternehmensinternen Datenschutzregeln (81). Dieses Instrument kann genutzt werden, um durch die Einbeziehung der Datenverarbeiter durchgehenden Schutz zu gewährleisten; es spiegelt auch die steigende Zahl der Unternehmen wider, die mit Datenverarbeitung befasst sind.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008348/12

aan de Commissie

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) en Birgit Sippel (S&D)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: Voorwaarden inzake gegevensbescherming en bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer in vrijhandelsovereenkomsten

De Europese Unie is steeds meer een mondiale handelspartner. Bedrijven die actief zijn in de internationale handel kunnen te maken krijgen met voorschriften en praktijken inzake bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer en gegevensbescherming die strijdig zijn met het EU-recht. Dit leidt tot rechtsonzekerheid voor zowel bedrijven als EU-burgers en is een mogelijke belemmering voor vrijhandel.

Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie

(16 november 2012)

De Commissie houdt rekening met de behoefte om een bescherming van hoog niveau tot stand te brengen, die ook bevorderlijk is voor de vrijhandel. Daarom wordt er veel belang gehecht aan de gegevensbescherming in het kader van vrijhandelsovereenkomsten.

Elke EU-vrijhandelsovereenkomst verwijst naar artikel XIV van de GATS, waarmee de aanneming of handhaving van de wetten of voorschriften wordt gevolgd inzake — onder andere — de gegevensbescherming van het individu, zolang hun handhaving niet dusdanig wordt toegepast dat het een willekeurige of onverdedigbare discriminatie vormt tussen landen of een vermomde beperking op handel in diensten. Deze algemene uitzondering heeft de nodige ruimte gelaten in het beleid, zodat de EU haar eigen regelgevend kader kan ontwikkelen en toepassen.

Meer algemeen bevatten door de EU gesloten handelsovereenkomsten ook bepalingen waarin wordt gesteld dat de partijen ermee akkoord gaan een hoog niveau van gegevensbescherming te bevorderen en met het oog hierop zullen samenwerken. De EU heeft ook de ontwikkeling gestimuleerd van normen van hoog technisch niveau van gegevensbescherming in derde landen en op internationaal niveau (82).

Het voorstel voor een algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (83) versterkt en vereenvoudigt regels inzake internationale overdrachten naar landen die niet door de gelijkwaardigheidsbeschikking worden gedekt, in het bijzonder door het gebruik van instrumenten zoals bindende bedrijfsvoorschriften (84) te stroomlijnen en uit te breiden, zodat deze ook kunnen worden toegepast door gegevensverwerkers en binnen bedrijfsconcerns, gezien het toenemende aantal bedrijven dat aan gegevensverwerking doet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008348/12

to the Commission

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE) and Birgit Sippel (S&D)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Data protection and privacy conditionalities in free trade agreements

The European Union is increasingly a global trading partner. Companies involved in international trade may find themselves confronted with rules and practices regarding privacy and data protection which are in conflict with EC law. This leads to legal uncertainty for both companies and EU citizens and is a potential obstacle to free trade.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2012)

The Commission is sensitive to the need to ensure a high level of protection for individuals that will also help facilitate free trade. Therefore, great importance is attached to data protection included in free trade agreements.

Every EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) refers to GATS Article XIV, which legitimises the adoption or enforcement of laws or regulations relating to — inter alia — the individuals' data protection as long as their enforcement is not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries, or a disguised restriction on trade in services. This general exception has provided for the necessary policy space allowing the EU to develop and apply its own regulatory framework.

More generally, trade agreements concluded by the EU include provisions through which the Parties agree to promote a high level of data protection as well as to cooperate to that end. In parallel, the EU has promoted the development of high level technical standards of data protection in third countries and at international level (85).

The proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation (86) reinforces and simplifies rules on international transfers to countries not covered by adequacy decision, in particular by streamlining and extending the use of tools such as the Binding Corporate Rules (87). This tool can be used to ensure continuity of protection by covering data processors and within groups of companies, thus better reflecting the increasing number of companies involved in data processing activities.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008349/12

an die Kommission

Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: Glyphosat und Gensoja

Glyphosat

Gensoja

Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission

(27. November 2012)

1) Bezüglich der Informationen zur ernährungsbedingten Belastung durch Glyphosat möchte die Kommission den Herrn Abgeordneten auf Abschnitt 4 des EFSA-Journals 2012 (88) verweisen. Es wurden keine langfristig bedenklichen Aspekte hinsichtlich der Aufnahme durch die Verbraucher festgestellt. Aufgrund der geringen akuten Toxizität wurde keine Bewertung der akuten Exposition durchgeführt.

2) Rückstandshöchstgehalte (RHG) werden auf der Grundlage einer „einschlägigen guten landwirtschaftlichen Praxis“ festgelegt, die je nach Agrarerzeugnis verschieden ist; dies führt zu unterschiedlichen RHG. Bezüglich der Daten zur ernährungsbedingten Belastung von Nutzvieh durch bestimmte Agrarerzeugnisse möchte die Kommission den Herrn Abgeordneten auf Abschnitt 3.2 des EFSA-Journals 2009 (89) verweisen.

4,7,8) Glyphosat ist seit 2010 systematisch Bestandteil des EU-weit koordinierten Kontrollprogramms für Tests an konventionellem oder genetisch verändertem Getreide, Soja ausgenommen. Die Mindestzahl der Proben insgesamt (642) und eine Aufschlüsselung nach Mitgliedstaaten sind in den Durchführungsrechtsakten (90) festgelegt.

7,9,10) Die Rechtsvorschriften für die Zulassung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen (GVO) und für die Festlegung der RHG für Herbizide sind voneinander unabhängig. Glyphosat-Rückstände werden in den Rechtsvorschriften für Pestizide behandelt, darunter insbesondere die Vorschriften zur Festlegung von RHG für landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse (konventioneller Art und GVO). Dies bedeutet, dass herbizidresistente GVO die Anforderungen beider Rechtsvorschriften erfüllen müssen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008349/12

to the Commission

Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Glyphosate and genetically modified soya

Glyphosate

‘top ten’ for the most severely contaminated foodstuffs? In what relation does contamination stand to the limit values? Are limit values being exceeded? Are tests likewise carried out to detect the presence of tallow amines?

Genetically modified soya

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

4/7/8) Glyphosate has been systematically included in the annual EU-coordinated monitoring programme since 2010 for testing on cereals, but not soya, whether conventional or genetically modified (GM). The total minimum number of samples (642) and a breakdown per Member State are set out in the implementing acts (93).

7/9/10) The legislative tracks to authorise Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and to set MRLs of herbicides are independent from each other. Glyphosate residues are covered by the pesticide legislation, in particular the legislation setting MRLs for agricultural commodities, whether GMOs or not. This implies that GMOs tolerant to herbicides must meet the requirements of both legislations.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008350/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(24 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Il regime siriano prende in considerazione di dare armi chimiche ad Hezbollah

Il 19 settembre 2012 il quotidiano britannico Times ha riportato la notizia secondo cui l'ex capo dell'arsenale chimico siriano, il generale maggiore Adnan Sillu, che aveva disertato tre mesi fa, avrebbe affermato di essere stato presente a discussioni in merito allo spiegamento di armi chimiche sia contro i combattenti ribelli che contro la popolazione civile nella città di Aleppo.

Durante la sua prima intervista dopo la defezione il generale ha rilevato: «Abbiamo discusso seriamente in merito all'uso delle armi chimiche nonché al modo in cui le utilizzeremo e in quali luoghi. Ne abbiamo parlato come di una soluzione estrema — ad esempio nel caso in cui il regime perdesse il controllo di una zona importante come Aleppo». Uno dei motivi della defezione di Adnan Sillu sarebbe stata la sua convinzione che il regime avrebbe finito con l'utilizzare le armi contro i civili.

Inoltre, il generale Sillu ha ammesso che il regime ha anche preso in considerazione la possibilità di dare armi alla milizia Hezbollah basata in Libano: «Volevano sistemare testate dotate di armi chimiche su missili per trasferirle in tal modo ad Hezbollah. Si trattava certo di usarle contro Israele». Sillu ha poi affermato che, non avendo il regime di Assad nulla da perdere, «perché non dovrebbe ricorrere a tali armi? Se inizia una guerra tra Hezbollah e Israele sarebbe solo positivo per la Siria».

Il giornale cita anche il fatto che i servizi di intelligence ritengono che negli ultimi sei mesi la Siria abbia disseminato le sue riserve di armi chimiche in circa due dozzine di siti. Gran parte di esse sono state poste nei pressi delle regioni curde della Siria e nelle vicinanze del suo confine con il Libano. Ufficiali israeliani hanno riferito che un nascondiglio segreto è stato sistemato a trenta minuti di viaggio dalla frontiera libanese. «Stanno collocando le armi chimiche in posizioni in cui possono rappresentare una minaccia tattica. È un messaggio al mondo perché stia attento — i siriani fanno sul serio» ha detto un alto funzionario israeliano della difesa al giornale.

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

(12 dicembre 2012)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente segue con la massima attenzione gli sviluppi in Siria, soprattutto per quanto riguarda le informazioni sulle armi chimiche. Il 25 luglio scorso Jihad Maqdisi, portavoce del ministero degli Affari esteri siriano, ha escluso che la Siria faccia uso di armi chimiche nella crisi interna e ha aggiunto che le armi chimiche sarebbero servite solo in caso di aggressioni esterne. L’Unione non è a conoscenza di informazioni indicanti l’eventuale invio di armi chimiche siriane fuori dal paese.

L’Unione rivolge da sempre appelli alla Siria perché aderisca alla convenzione sulle armi chimiche e ha richiamato di recente il paese a un comportamento responsabile che ricusi a tutti i costi il ricorso alle armi chimiche di cui dispone e garantisca che siano custodite in tutta sicurezza. Ricordando che l’uso di armi chimiche è vietato in generale dal diritto e delle convenzioni internazionali, tra cui il protocollo di Ginevra del 1925, l’Unione ha fatto presente alla Siria che il ricorso alle armi chimiche è un crimine.

L’UE ha adottato programmi di cooperazione e misure di sostegno per la gestione delle frontiere nei paesi confinanti con la Siria, soprattutto il Libano. Queste attività, che dovrebbero proseguire nei prossimi anni, potranno influire positivamente anche sulla lotta contro il traffico illecito, compreso quello di armi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008350/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Syrian regime considers giving chemical weapons to Hezbollah

On September 19 2012, the UK’s Times newspaper reported the former head of Syria’s chemical arsenal, Major-General Adnan Sillu, who defected three months ago, as saying that he had been present at discussions about the deployment of chemical weapons against both rebel fighters and civilians in the city of Aleppo.

During his first interview after his defection, the General noted: ‘We were in a serious discussion about the use of chemical weapons, including how we would use them and in what areas. We discussed this as a last resort — such as if the regime lost control of an important area such as Aleppo’. One of the reasons for Sillu’s defection was due to his conviction that the regime would eventually use these weapons against the civilian population.

Furthermore, General Sillu admitted that the regime had also considered giving weapons to the Lebanon-based militia Hezbollah: ‘They wanted to place warheads with the chemical weapons on missiles — to transfer them this way to Hezbollah. It was for use against Israel, of course’. Sillu warned that if the Assad regime has nothing to lose, ‘why not use these weapons? If a war starts between Hezbollah and Israel it will be only good for Syria’.

The newspaper also cites intelligence services as believing that Syria has spread its chemical weapons stockpiles around nearly two dozen locations over the past six months. Many of these weapons have been placed near Syria’s Kurdish regions and near its border with Lebanon. Israeli officials have reported that a cache was even placed within a thirty-minute drive of the Lebanese border. ‘They are placing them in positions where they can pose a tactical threat. It is a broadcast to the world to watch out — the Syrians are serious,’ a senior Israeli defence official told the newspaper.

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

(12 December 2012)

The HR/VP has been following developments in Syria with the closest attention possible, including information related to Syria's chemical weapons. Jihad Maqdisi, spokesman of the Syrian Foreign Ministry, ruled out on 25 July that Syria would use chemical weapons in the course of its internal crisis and added that such weapons are meant only for cases of external aggression.

The EU is not aware of any information suggesting a possible transfer of Syria's chemical weapons outside the country.

The EU has consistently called upon Syria to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. The EU has recently urged Syria to act responsibly in relation to its chemical weapons, not to use them under any circumstances, and to keep them secure. Recalling that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited by general international law and conventions, including the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the EU has stressed that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be unlawful.

The EU is engaged in cooperation programmes and support measures in the field of border management in countries neighbouring Syria, and particularly Lebanon. These activities are foreseen to continue in the years to come and are expected to have positive impacts also with regard to fighting illegal trafficking, including in arms.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008351/12

à la Commission

Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE)

(24 septembre 2012)

Objet: Extraction en zone Natura 2000

La possibilité d'extraction en zone Natura 2000 me semble contredire directement les objectifs de conservation fixés par la législation à cet égard. Dans le guide qu'elle a publié en juillet 2010 au sujet des zones Natura 2000 et de l'industrie extractive, la Commission identifie les conséquences de l'extraction sur la biodiversité: «Le défrichement et la disparition des éléments de surface lors de la phase d'extraction des minéraux ou de construction des infrastructures associées telles que les routes d'accès, les aires de dépôt des déchets et les bassins de résidus représentent la première incidence de ces activités sur la biodiversité. Au cours de ce processus, les habitats existants sont susceptibles d'être modifiés, endommagés, fragmentés ou de disparaître localement».

Je regrette d'ailleurs que ce guide soit partial quant aux éléments de la réglementation européenne mis en avant. Il y est écrit: «Les lignes directrices […] montrent comment certains projets d'extraction peuvent se révéler finalement bénéfiques pour la biodiversité en offrant des niches écologiques de grande qualité».

De même, le guide rappelle la possibilité de mesures compensatoires en cas de projet relevant de l'intérêt général (la perte de biodiversité est-elle compensable?) mais omet tout simplement de préciser que, d'après l'article 6 de la directive «Habitats», lorsque «le site concerné est un site abritant un type d'habitat naturel et/ou une espèce prioritaires, seules peuvent être évoquées des considérations liées à la santé de l'homme et à la sécurité publique ou à des conséquences bénéfiques primordiales pour l'environnement», et non pas de nature «sociale» ou «économique».

Cette question me semble d'autant plus importante que la Commission indique, dans sa communication du 2 février 2011 venant renforcer l'initiative «matières premières» de 2008, que le deuxième pilier stratégique est l'exploitation du potentiel d'extraction de l'Union européenne. Alors que les mines risquent de se multiplier en Europe, il est plus que jamais urgent de renforcer la protection de ces zones fragiles.

«bénéfiques pour la biodiversité»?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(7 novembre 2012)

L'objectif premier du document d'orientation sur l'extraction des minéraux à des fins non énergétiques et Natura 2000 (94) est de garantir que les activités d'extraction sont menées dans le respect des dispositions des directives «Oiseaux» (95) et «Habitats» (96) et sans compromettre les objectifs de conservation et l'intégrité des sites Natura 2000. À cet égard, le document contient des exemples utiles de bonnes pratiques. Ceux-ci figurent à l'annexe 2 du document et incluent des cas de réhabilitation qui ont été signalés comme bénéfiques pour la biodiversité.

Il incombe aux autorités compétentes des États membres de protéger les sites Natura 2000 des activités d'extraction susceptibles d'avoir une incidence négative, conformément aux dispositions applicables prévues par les directives «Oiseaux» et «Habitats». La Commission peut intervenir si des preuves d'une violation de ces dispositions lui sont fournies.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008351/12

to the Commission

Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Extraction of minerals on Natura 2000 sites

The possibility of extracting minerals from Natura 2000 sites, to my mind, runs counter to the conservation aims laid down in the relevant legislation. In its July 2010 guidance document on Natura 2000 sites and extractive industry, the Commission spells out how biodiversity can be affected by extraction: ‘The NEEI [non-energy extractive industry] sector’s primary impact on biodiversity is often through land clearance and the removal of surface features during the extraction of minerals or the building of associated infrastructures such as access roads, dumping sites and tailings ponds. Through this process, existing habitats may be altered, damaged, fragmented or locally removed.’

One cause for regret is that the guidance document misrepresents the position under European regulations. The document states that: ‘The guidelines … show how some extraction projects can ultimately be beneficial to biodiversity by providing highly (sic) quality ecological niches’.

It also refers to compensatory measures, which may be taken when a project is considered to be of overriding public interest (is it possible to compensate for biodiversity loss?), but completely fails to mention the stipulation laid down in Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive, namely that ‘Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety … [or] to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’; such considerations do not, however, extend to ‘interests of a social or economic nature’.

This point is especially crucial, bearing in mind that, as announced by the Commission in its follow-up communication of 2 February 2011, the second of the three strategic pillars forming the basis of the 2008 Raw Materials Initiative is concerned with exploiting the EU’s own extraction potential. Given the risk, therefore, that more and more mines will be opened up in Europe, it is imperative to strengthen the protection afforded to the fragile Natura 2000 sites.

‘beneficial to biodiversity’?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2012)

The primary aim of the guidance document on Non-Energy Mineral Extraction and Natura 2000 (97) is to ensure that extractive activities are undertaken in a way that complies with the provisions of the Birds (98) and Habitats (99) directives and does not compromise the conservation objectives and integrity of Natura 2000 sites. In that regard the document contains relevant examples of good practice. These examples are presented in Annex A to the document and include rehabilitation cases that have been reported as beneficial to biodiversity.

It is the responsibility of Member State competent authorities to ensure the protection of Natura 2000 sites from potentially damaging extractive activities, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives. The Commission can intervene if it is provided with evidence of a breach of those provisions.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008352/12

an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Sir Graham Watson (ALDE) und Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: VP/HR — Festnahme der Delegation der Internationalen Föderation der Liberalen Jugend (IFLRY) am 18. September 2012 in Belarus

Am 18. September 2012 wurde eine Gruppe von acht Mitgliedern der Internationalen Föderation der Liberalen Jugend (IFLRY) festgenommen, als sie an einer von örtlichen Jugendvereinigungen organisierten Bildungsveranstaltung in Mahiljov bzw. Mogiljow (Belarus) teilnahmen. Der Gruppe gehörten Mitglieder aus Deutschland, den Niederlanden, Russland, Armenien, den USA und Österreich an. Gegen 18.00 Uhr stürmten Beamte der Einwanderungsbehörde, der Polizei und anderer Sicherheitsorgane den Saal. Alle Mitglieder der Delegation wurden zur Einwanderungsbehörde gebracht und dort rund drei Stunden lang verhört. Am 19. September wurde ihnen mitgeteilt, dass sie das Land bis Mitternacht des nächsten Tages verlassen müssten, was sie auch taten. Die Behörden warfen der Gruppe vor, gegen die Visabestimmungen verstoßen zu haben, und erklärten, es sei nicht vorgesehen, dass man im Rahmen einer Touristen- bzw. einer Studienreise an öffentlichen Veranstaltungen teilnehme.

Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission

(14. November 2012)

Die EU bedauert selbstverständlich jede Handlung der belarussischen Behörden, die direkte zwischenmenschliche Kontakte verhindert. Sie ist von der Wichtigkeit solcher Kontakte fest überzeugt und stärkt den demokratischen Kräften in Belarus den Rücken. Die EU fördert Aktivitäten dieser Art im Rahmen verschiedener Initiativen. Seit dem gewaltsamen Vorgehen im Anschluss an die Präsidentschaftswahlen 2010 hat sie ihre Unterstützung für die Zivilgesellschaft verfünffacht. Zu den entsprechenden Maßnahmen zählen u. a. die Einführung eines Stipendienprogramms, die Förderung von Sprachkursen für junge Menschen und die Unterstützung der Europäischen Humanistischen Universität.

Da Belarus bislang nicht auf die im Juni 2011 von der Kommission ausgesprochene Einladung zur Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein Visaerleichterungsabkommen reagiert hat, machen die EU-Mitgliedstaaten den bestmöglichen Gebrauch von der im Visakodex vorgesehenen Flexibilität, insbesondere von der Möglichkeit, für bestimmte Kategorien belarussischer Bürger oder für Einzelpersonen die Visagebühren zu senken oder ganz darauf zu verzichten.

Außerdem hat der EU-Kommissar für Erweiterung und Europäische Nachbarschaftspolitik im März 2012 den „Europäischen Dialog über Modernisierung“ mit der belarussischen Gesellschaft eingeleitet. Im Mittelpunkt der Diskussionen stehen die zur Modernisierung und Demokratisierung von Belarus notwendigen Reformen und — im Zusammenhang damit — die Möglichkeiten zum Ausbau der Beziehungen zur EU.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008352/12

aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Sir Graham Watson (ALDE) en Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: VP/HR — Delegatie van de Internationale Federatie van Liberale Jongeren op 18 september 2012 in Wit-Rusland opgepakt

Op 18 september 2012 is een groep van acht leden van de Internationale Federatie van Liberale Jongeren (IFLRY) opgepakt tijdens een door plaatselijke jeugdorganisaties georganiseerde scholingsbijeenkomst in het Wit-Russische Mogilev. De acht kwamen uit Duitsland, Nederland, Rusland, Armenië, de VS en Oostenrijk. Tegen 6 uur 's middags zijn Wit-Russische immigratiebeambten, politieagenten en functionarissen van andere veiligheidsorganen de vergaderzaal binnengevallen. Alle leden van de delegatie zijn meegenomen naar het immigratiekantoor en zo'n drie uur lang verhoord. Op 19 september werd hun te verstaan gegeven dat zij het land uiterlijk om middernacht de volgende dag moesten verlaten, wat zij ook hebben gedaan. De beschuldiging die door de autoriteiten is geuit, luidde dat de groep visumvoorschriften had overtreden en dat tijdens een toeristisch of studiebezoek geen openbare bijeenkomsten mogen worden bezocht.

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(14 november 2012)

De EU betreurt uiteraard elke actie van de Belarussische autoriteiten die het contact tussen de burgers ontwricht: de EU gelooft sterk in het belang van de bevordering van dergelijke contacten en moedigt de democratische krachten in Belarus aan. De EU heeft door haar verschillende initiatieven deze activiteiten aanzienlijk bevorderd. Sinds het harde optreden na de presidentsverkiezingen van 2010 heeft de EU de hoeveelheid steun voor het maatschappelijk middenveld vervijfvoudigd. Dit omvat ook de opstart van een beurzenprogramma, de bevordering van taallessen voor jongeren en steun aan de Europese universiteit voor menswetenschappen.

Bij gebrek aan een antwoord van Belarus op de uitnodiging van de Commissie van juni 2011 om de onderhandelingen over de visumversoepelingsovereenkomst op te starten, hebben de EU-lidstaten optimaal gebruik gemaakt van de flexibiliteit van de visumcode, in het bijzonder de mogelijkheid om voor bepaalde categorieën Belarussische burgers of in individuele gevallen af te zien van visumkosten of deze te verminderen.

Bovendien bracht de Commissaris voor Uitbreiding en het Europees nabuurschapsbeleid in maart 2012 de Europese dialoog over modernisering met de Belarussische samenleving op gang. De dialoog is toegespitst op de noodzakelijke hervormingen voor de modernisering en democratisering van Belarus en de hieraan gerelateerde mogelijke ontwikkeling van betrekkingen met de EU.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008352/12

to the Commission (Vice-President / High Representative)

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Sir Graham Watson (ALDE) and Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Detention of the delegation of the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) in Belarus on 18 September 2012

On 18 September 2012, a group of eight members of the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) were detained while participating in an educational event in Mogilev (Belarus) hosted by local youth organisations. This group included individuals from Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Armenia, the USA and Austria. Around 6 p.m., Belarusian immigration officers, police and officials from other security institutions raided the event. All the members of the delegation were taken to the immigration office and questioned for about three hours. On 19 September, they were informed that they would have to leave the country by midnight of the next day, which they did. The accusation put forward by the authorities was that the group was violating visa regulations and that a tourist or study visit cannot include visiting public events.

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2012)

The EU naturally regrets any actions by the Belarusian authorities which disrupt people-to-people contacts: the EU firmly believes in the importance of promoting such contacts and encourages democratic forces in Belarus. It has substantially fostered these activites through its different initiatives. Since the crackdown following the 2010 presidential elections the EU has quintupled the amount of its assistance dedicated to civil society. This includes the launch of a scholarship programme, the promotion of language classes for youth and support to the European Humanities University.

In the absence of a response by Belarus to the Commission's June 2011 invitation to start negotiations on a visa facilitation agreement, EU Member States have been making optimal use of flexibilities offered by the Visa Code, in particular the possibilities to waive and reduce visa fees for certain categories of Belarusian citizens or in individual cases.

In addition, the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy launched in March 2012 the European Dialogue on Modernisation with Belarus Society. Discussions are focused on defining the necessary reforms for the modernisation and democratization of Belarus and on the related potential development of relations with the EU.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008353/12

to the Commission

Claude Moraes (S&D)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Free and fair democracy in Bangladesh

According to the Commission’s own figures, the EU has provided over EUR 300 million since 2000 to electoral assistance missions. Although observation missions have no direct power over the election, they provide a powerful tool in improving the quality of information from the election and make an indirect improvement to the electoral process. The EU has also signed a formal agreement with the UN Development Programme (UNDP). Through their recommendations and assessment they have improved the electoral process in 40 countries.

Bangladesh is expected to hold elections in 2013 and has a history of electoral violence.

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

(7 November 2012)

Human rights and democracy are among the main priorities of the EU external policy and an essential element of the EC-Bangladesh Cooperation Agreement signed in May 2000. They are also an important focus of the EU and its Member States’ development programmes, as reflected in the recent document Bangladesh-Europe 2012, published on the EEAS (100) website.

Human rights issues are regularly raised in the formal dialogue that takes place in the Joint Commission (established by the cooperation agreement), as well as in other meetings with the Bangladeshi authorities, including at the highest level. The EU, as well as Member States, has urged the Bangladeshi authorities to investigate thoroughly incidents of forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and to bring those responsible to justice.

The HR/VP is closely monitoring the growing confrontation between the Bangladeshi Government and the opposition, following the constitutional reform in 2011 which led to the abolition of the caretaker government mechanism. In its contacts with all political forces and in its public statements, the HR/VP has stressed the need to avoid a confrontational approach to politics and engage in constructive dialogue inside and outside the parliament, with a view to ensuring the inclusiveness of the next elections.

As part of its commitment to continue its electoral support to Bangladesh, in 2011, the EU adopted a EUR 10 million programme to enhance the capacity of the Election Commission. The EU stands ready to continue its support to the electoral process and to deploy an Electoral Observer Mission for the next election should it be invited to do so, provided that the right conditions for credible elections are met.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008355/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)

(24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ανάληψη δράσης για τη νόσο Alzheimer

Πάνω από 9,9 εκ. άνθρωποι στην Ευρώπη και 35,6 εκ. σε όλο τον κόσμο πάσχουν από κάποιας μορφής άνοια, με την συντριπτική πλειοψηφία να υποφέρει από τη νόσο Alzheimer. Εάν συνεχιστεί η παρούσα δυναμική ανάπτυξης και επαληθευτούν οι εκτιμήσεις, σύμφωνα με τις οποίες ο αριθμός αυτός αναμένεται να τριπλασιαστεί μέχρι το 2050, θα επιβεβαιωθεί η ανησυχία ότι η νόσος Alzheimer προσλαμβάνει διαστάσεις πραγματικής μάστιγας.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Απάντηση του κ. Šefčovič εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(6 Νοεμβρίου 2012)

Η ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με μια ευρωπαϊκή πρωτοβουλία για τη νόσο του Αλτσχάιμερ και άλλες μορφές άνοιας (101) καθορίζει την προσέγγιση της Επιτροπής στα εν λόγω ζητήματα.

Σε σχέση με το θέμα αυτό, η Επιτροπή συγχρηματοδοτεί την κοινή δράση «ALzheimer COoperative Valuation in Europe (ALCOVE)» (102) στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος «Υγεία», το οποίο στοχεύει να βελτιώσει τη γνώση σχετικά με την άνοια και να προωθήσει την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών όσον αφορά τους τρόπους για τη διατήρηση της υγείας, της ποιότητας ζωής, της αυτονομίας και αξιοπρέπειας των ατόμων που πάσχουν από άνοια, καθώς και των ατόμων που τους φροντίζουν. Η κοινή δράση θα παρουσιάσει τα συμπεράσματα και τα σημεία αναφοράς της το 2013.

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή έχει επενδύσει πάνω από 200 εκατομμύρια ευρώ στην έρευνα για το Αλτσχάιμερ μέσω του Εβδόμου Προγράμματος Πλαισίου Έρευνας και Τεχνολογικής Ανάπτυξης (ΠΠ7). Σημαντικό μέρος αυτής της υποστήριξης έχει δοθεί σε σχέδια συνεργασίας ανάμεσα σε πανεπιστήμια, ερευνητικά ιδρύματα και ΜΜΕ διαφόρων ευρωπαϊκών χωρών. Η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει επίσης την εφαρμογή της πρωτοβουλίας κοινού προγραμματισμού για τις νευροεκφυλιστικές νόσους και, ιδιαίτερα, για τη νόσο του Αλτσχάιμερ, πρωτοβουλία που τελεί υπό την ευθύνη των κρατών μελών και στοχεύει στην αύξηση της επίδρασης της ευρωπαϊκής έρευνας σε αυτόν τον τομέα, συντονίζοντας τις προσπάθειες μεταξύ των χωρών (103).

Η Επιτροπή έχει θέσει, επίσης, σε εφαρμογή την ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη καινοτομίας με θέμα την ενεργό και υγιή γήρανση. Σύμφωνα με τη σύμπραξη αυτή, ένα ευρύ φάσμα ενδιαφερομένων έχει δεσμευτεί να εφαρμόσει συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες. Η πρόληψη της λειτουργικής και γνωστικής εξασθένησης συνιστά ένα από τα θέματα στα οποία αναφέρονται οι εν λόγω δεσμεύσεις.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008355/12

to the Commission

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Action regarding Alzheimer's disease

Over 9.9 million people throughout Europe and 35.6 million worldwide suffer from some form of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease in the overwhelming majority of cases. If the rapid spread of this disease continues and if, as expected, the number of cases triples by 2050, fears of Alzheimer’s disease becoming a veritable scourge will be fulfilled.

In view of this:

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2012)

The Commission Communication on a European initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias (104) established the Commission's approach to these issues.

In this context, the Commission is co-financing the Joint Action ‘ALzheimer COoperative Valuation in Europe (ALCOVE)’ (105) under the Health Programme, which aims to improve knowledge on dementia, and to promote the exchange of information on ways to preserve health, quality of life, autonomy and dignity of people living with dementia and their carers.. The Joint Action will present its conclusions and benchmarks in 2013.

In addition, the Commission has invested over EUR 200 million in research on Alzheimer's in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). A substantial part of this support was dedicated to collaborative projects between universities, research institutions, SMEs of various European countries. The Commission also supports the implementation of the Joint Programming Initiative on Neurodegenerative Diseases, in particular Alzheimer's, a Member States-led initiative, aiming at increasing impact of European research in this area by coordinating efforts across countries (106).

In addition, the Commission has launched the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. Under the Partnership, a broad range of stakeholders have committed to concrete actions. The prevention of functional and cognitive decline is one of the themes for which commitments have been invited.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008356/12

aan de Commissie

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: Compatibiliteit Nederlandse kolenbelasting met EU-wetgeving

Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie

(5 november 2012)

Het is de Commissie  ter kennis gebracht dat Nederland voornemens is de vrijstelling van de accijns op kolen die worden gebruikt als brandstof in elektriciteitscentrales, af te schaffen. Overeenkomstig artikel 14, lid 1, onder a), van Richtlijn 2003/96/EG kunnen de lidstaten energieproducten (bv. kolen) uit milieubeleidsoverwegingen aan belasting onderwerpen. Ofschoon de afschaffing van deze vrijstelling dus uit milieuoverwegingen gebeurt, is het gevolg vaak een stijging van de belastingopbrengsten. Het is de Commissie evenwel niet bekend dat het genereren van hogere belastinginkomsten de reden voor de afschaffing is, aangezien in documenten bij de ontwerpwet milieuargumenten worden aangevoerd om kolen die worden gebruikt voor het opwekken van elektriciteit, te belasten; de milieudruk hierbij zou namelijk zwaarder zijn dan bij elektriciteitsopwekking met behulp van andere vaak gebruikte energieproducten zoals aardgas.

De Commissie heeft ook onderzocht of er sprake is van discriminatie tussen het ingevoerde product (kolen) en concurrerende binnenlandse producten (gas). In de zaak-Outokumpu, C-213/96 van 2 april 1998, heeft het Hof van Justitie geoordeeld dat het EU-recht de lidstaten niet verbiedt om aan de hand van objectieve criteria, zoals de aard van de gebruikte grondstoffen of de toegepaste productieprocédés, voor bepaalde producten, zelfs indien deze gelijksoortig zijn in de zin van artikel 110 VWEU, een stelsel van gedifferentieerde belastingheffing in te voeren, wanneer dit gericht is op de verwezenlijking van doelstellingen die eveneens met de vereisten van het Verdrag en van het afgeleide recht verenigbaar zijn. Volgens vaste rechtspraak van het Hof is de bescherming van het milieu een van de wezenlijke doelstellingen van de EU.

Op basis van de gegevens waarover de Commissie beschikt, lijkt de afschaffing van de vrijstelling van de accijns op kolen die worden gebruikt voor het opwekken van elektriciteit, niet in strijd te zijn met het EU-recht.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008356/12

to the Commission

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Compatibility of the Dutch coal tax with EU legislation

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2012)

The Commission was informed that Netherlands intends to cancel the exemption from excise duty on coal used as fuel for power plants. According to Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96/EC Member States may, for reasons of environmental policy, subject energy products (e.g. coal) to taxation. Although this is done for environmental reasons, such an exemption cancellation regularly leads to an increase of tax earnings. The Commission is, however, not aware of the fact that an increase of tax revenue was the reason for introduction, as it follows from documents accompanying the draft law that there are environmental arguments to tax coal used for production of electricity, as it pollutes the environment more than other commonly used energy products such as natural gas.

The Commission also examined whether there is any discrimination between the imported product (coal) and competing domestic products (gas). The Court laid down in the Case Outokumpu C-213/96 of 2 April 1998 that the EC law does not restrict the freedom of each Member State to establish a tax system which differentiates between certain products, even products which are similar within the meaning of the Art. 110 TFEU, on the basis of objective criteria, such as the nature of the raw materials used or the production processes employed, if it pursues objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation. The Court consistently recognised that protection of the environment is one of the essential objectives of the EU.

Based on the information available to the Commission, it seems that the cancellation of the exemption from excise duty on coal used for the production of electricity does not violate the EC law.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008357/12

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(24 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: richiesta immediata di valutazione del regolamento ministeriale italiano

Richiamando:

Si richiede alla Commissione una immediata valutazione, prima della sua entrata in vigore, del decreto del Ministero dell'ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare, del 10 agosto 2012, n. 161 «Regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo» (pubblicato sulla G.U. n. 221 del 21.9.2012). Come già osservato, si ritiene infatti che il decreto possa configurare una violazione della legislazione europea.

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(5 novembre 2012)

La Commissione ha risposto alla precedente interrogazione presentata dall’onorevole parlamentare (P-007683/2012), la quale attestava che i servizi della Commissione stavano valutando se il progetto di decreto italiano sull’uso dei suoli escavati e rocce fosse compatibile con la normativa UE, in particolare con l’articolo 5 della direttiva 2008/98/CE sui rifiuti che definisce le condizioni ai sensi delle quali una sostanza o un oggetto può essere considerato sottoprodotto e dunque non rifiuto.

La Commissione è consapevole del fatto che nel frattempo il progetto di decreto è stato definitivamente adottato e pubblicato come «decreto 10 agosto 2012, n. 161, regolamento recante la disciplina dell’utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo» sulla Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica italiana il 21 settembre 2012.

Dopo un’attenta valutazione del decreto summenzionato la Commissione ritiene che esso sia in linea con la direttiva 2008/98/CE.

La Commissione ha scritto ai denunzianti (inclusa l’associazione Idra menzionata dall’onorevole parlamentare) per informarli delle conclusioni di cui sopra.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008357/12

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

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

Recalling:

The Commission is asked to carry out an immediate assessment, before it comes into force, of Decree No 161 of the Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea of 10 August 2012, entitled ‘Regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo’ [Regulation on rules on the use of excavated land and rocks] which was published in Italian Official Journal No 221 of 21.9.2012. As has already been said, the decree may be in breach of EU legislation.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2012)

The Commission replied to the previous question tabled by the Honourable Member (P-007683/2012 (113)) stating that the Commission services were assessing whether the Italian draft decree on the use of excavated soils and rocks was compatible with EC law, and in particular with Article 5 of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (114), which sets out the conditions under which a substance or object may be regarded as not being waste but as being a by-product.

The Commission is aware that in the meantime the draft decree has been finally adopted and published as ‘Decree 161/2012 regulating the use of excavated soils and rocks’ in the Italian Official Journal on 21 September 2012.

After having assessed the above Decree, the Commission has reached the conclusion that it is in line with Directive 2008/98/EC.

The Commission has written to the complainants (including the association Idra mentioned by the Honourable Member) informing them of the above conclusion.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008358/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 de septiembre de 2012)

Asunto: Precio de la leche

Desde hace meses se constata en los supermercados catalanes de una empresa de gran distribución francesa, en este caso, Carrefour, un precio en la leche de su marca de distribución muy diferente del de la misma leche vendida en sus supermercados franceses. De hecho, en un supermercado de dicha cadena de distribución en Cataluña, de media, el litro de la leche entera es de 0,56 €/l y, en el otro lado de la frontera política de la misma cadena de distribución es de 0,91 €/l. Lo mismo pasa con la leche semidesnatada con un precio 0,56 €/l a 0,74 €/l y la desnatada 0,56 €/l a 1,68 €/l, respectivamente. Dada la diferencia de precios de la leche de marca blanca existentes entre los supermercados catalanes de una misma cadena de distribución de Cataluña y Francia y teniendo en cuenta la homogeneidad del producto mencionado,

Respuesta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión

(16 de noviembre de 2012)

La Comisión no emite evaluaciones sobre la política de precios de las empresas privadas, siempre y cuando no infrinjan la legislación europea.

La Comisión estudia atentamente la situación del mercado de los productos lácteos en colaboración con las autoridades nacionales de competencia, tal como demuestra el Informe REC (115), recientemente publicado. Las autoridades nacionales españolas de competencia están investigando actualmente las posibles prácticas contrarias a la competencia del sector lácteo en el mercado de suministro de leche cruda, consistentes en intercambios de información o en acuerdos de reparto del mercado, así como en la imposición de condiciones comerciales en el mercado de suministro de leche cruda de vaca. Se han efectuado inspecciones en varias asociaciones y empresas lácteas, especialmente en Cataluña (116).

Como se ha mencionado anteriormente, la Comisión no tiene la obligación de interpretar la política de precios de una empresa privada.

Como se ha explicado, las diferencias de precios no constituyen por sí mismas una infracción del Derecho de la UE. Si un producto se vende por debajo de los costes en un Estado miembro, esto puede constituir una violación del artículo 102 del TFUE en la medida en que dicha conducta puede considerarse una exclusión abusiva que lleva a una exclusión de los competidores contraria a la competencia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008358/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Milk price

For some months now a large French distribution chain, Carrefour, has been selling its own-brand milk in Catalan supermarkets at significantly lower prices compared to the same milk sold in its French supermarkets. The average price for a litre of whole milk in one of this chain's supermarkets in Catalonia stands at EUR 0.56/l, against EUR 0.91/l on the other side of the political border. The same is true of semi-skimmed milk, with a price ranging from EUR 0.56/l to EUR 0.74/l, while the price of skimmed milk ranges from EUR 0.56/l to EUR 1.68/l. Given the difference in prices for the same distribution chain's own-brand milk in Catalan and French supermarkets, and bearing in mind that this is a homogeneous product:

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2012)

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008359/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 de septiembre de 2012)

Asunto: Participaciones industriales de Bankia

En su respuesta a la pregunta P-004666/2012, la Comisión aseveraba no conocer aún los detalles de la nacionalización de la entidad bancaria y por lo tanto no poder dar su opinión al respecto.

Por esta razón me gustaría volver a presentar las mismas inquietudes de nuevo a la Comisión ahora que ya han pasado varios meses desde la toma de la decisión.

Por otro lado, se mantiene la grave situación que atraviesan las finanzas públicas del Reino de España y se han aplicado nuevas medidas tanto a nivel de todo el Estado como de las comunidades autónomas, que como se sabe son las administraciones que tienen un impacto más directo sobre la vida de los ciudadanos al ser responsables del gasto en sanidad, educación y bienestar (entre otras materias).

Finalmente, a pesar que Bankia anunció (119) que se desharía de sus participaciones industriales, aún no lo ha hecho. Esta acción podría reducir sensiblemente el importe necesario a inyectar dentro de la entidad y por lo tanto ayudar ligeramente a las finanzas públicas.

A la luz de lo anterior,

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(12 de noviembre de 2012)

La Comisión acoge con satisfacción los esfuerzos realizados por el Gobierno español para apoyar la reestructuración del sector bancario, que incluyen la Decisión del Fondo de Reestructuración Ordenada Bancaria del pasado mes de junio de asumir el control de Bankia, debido a su importancia sistémica en el sector bancario español y europeo. Cualquier acción emprendida por los accionistas y el consejo de administración de Bankia está sujeta al ordenamiento jurídico de España.

Además, el Gobierno español solicitó el 25 de junio de 2012 ayuda financiera exterior del FEEF para los bancos españoles. A raíz de esa petición, el Eurogrupo aprobó el MA, que se firmó el 23 de julio de 2012 y establece las condiciones que deben cumplir las autoridades españolas.

El elemento fundamental de este programa es una reforma de los segmentos débiles del sector bancario e incluirá, en caso necesario, la inyección de capital público en los bancos viables tras la presentación de los planes de reestructuración pertinentes.

De conformidad con las normas sobre ayudas estatales de la UE, la Comisión está evaluando el plan de reestructuración de Bankia, evaluación que se espera esté concluida para noviembre de 2012. Ese plan debe contemplar las medidas necesarias para garantizar la solidez y la viabilidad del banco y, al mismo tiempo, reducir el coste que deberán soportar los contribuyentes. Aunque no es posible facilitar los elementos exactos del plan de reestructuración en esta fase, la Comisión adoptará su decisión sobre el mismo en consonancia con la Comunicación de reestructuración, la cual contempla todas las medidas necesarias para restablecer la viabilidad del banco y reducir la cantidad de ayuda estatal necesaria para la reestructuración, al tiempo que se reduce al mínimo la distorsión de la competencia causada por el rescate. Entre las posibles medidas, se estudiará con seguridad la de la venta de las participaciones industriales del banco.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008359/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Bankia's industrial shares

In its answer to Question P-004666/2012, the Commission said that it did not yet know the details of the bank's nationalisation and consequently could not give its opinion on the matter.

I would therefore like to outline the same concerns again, now that several months have passed since the decision was taken.

Public finances in Spain are still in a serious situation, and fresh measures have been taken by both the central government and the autonomous communities, which are the authorities that have the most direct impact on citizens' lives, since they are responsible for spending on health, education and welfare (among other areas).

Even though Bankia has announced (121) that it would sell off its industrial shares, it has not yet done so. Such a step could significantly reduce the amount that needs to be injected into the bank, thereby slightly reducing the burden on public finances.

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2012)

The Commission welcomes the efforts by the Spanish Government to support the restructuring of the banking sector, which include the decision by the Fondo de Reestructuración Ordenada Bancaria last June to take over the control of Bankia due to its systemic relevance in the Spanish and European banking sector. Any action taken by the shareholders and the Board of Directors of Bankia are subject to the legal framework in Spain.

In addition, on 25 June ‘12 the Spanish Government requested external financial assistance for Spanish banks by the EFSF’. Following that request, the MoU (123) was endorsed by the Eurogroup and signed on 23 July ‘12 establishing the conditionality to be fulfilled by the Spanish authorities’.

The key component of that programme is an overhaul of the weak segments of the banking sector and will include if needed the injection of public capital in viable banks after presenting the relevant restructuring plans.

In compliance with the EU State aid rules, the Commission is currently assessing the restructuring plan for Bankia, which is expected to be completed by November ‘12. That plan should provide for necessary measures in order to ensure the soundness and the viability of the bank, while minimising the cost to be paid by taxpayers’. While it is not possible to provide the exact elements of the restructuring plan at this stage, the Commission will take its decision on that plan in line with the Restructuring Communication which requires all actions that are necessary for the bank's return to viability, for reducing the amount of state aid necessary for the restructuring, while minimising the distortion of competition caused by the bailout. Among the possible actions, the sale of the bank's industrial participations will certainly be considered.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008361/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: Ein Jahr Freihandelsabkommen mit Südkorea

Am 1. Juli 2011 trat das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der Republik Korea (Südkorea) und der Europäischen Union in Kraft.

Einer Pressemeldung der Kommission vom 27.6.2012 zufolge sparten EU-Unternehmen innerhalb von neun Monaten Importzölle von circa 350 Mio. EUR.

„gesparten“ 350 Mio. EUR entfällt jeweils auf große, mittelgroße und kleine EU-Unternehmen?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(7. Januar 2013)

Tatsächlich zahlten die EU‐Unternehmen Schätzungen zufolge dank des Freihandelsabkommens zwischen der EU und der Republik Korea (Südkorea) in den ersten neun Monaten (d. h. vom 1. Juli 2011 bis Ende März 2012) bereits 350 Mio. EUR weniger an Zöllen. In den ersten zwölf Monaten seit Inkrafttreten des Abkommens dürften die Zolleinsparungen für EU-Exporte nach Südkorea nach vorsichtiger Schätzung rund 600 Mio. EUR betragen haben.

Zölle auf Einfuhren von Waren aus Drittländern fließen als Einnahme in den EU-Haushalt. Die Mitgliedstaaten behalten 25 % der Zölle für Erhebungskosten ein. Die Einnahmeausfälle durch die Senkung oder Abschaffung der Einfuhrzölle wurden für die ersten neun Monate auf 340 Mio. EUR und für die ersten zwölf Monate auf 465 Mio. EUR geschätzt.

Zweck des Freihandelsabkommens zwischen der EU und der Republik Korea ist die Öffnung des Handels, nicht die Schaffung neuer Handelshemmnisse. Dies kommt in der Präambel des Abkommens deutlich zum Ausdruck, wo es unter anderem heißt, dass die Vertragsparteien anstreben, „die Beschränkungen der gegenseitigen Handels‐ und Investitionstätigkeit zu reduzieren oder aufzuheben“  (124).

Jedoch kann die EU im Rahmen des Freihandelsabkommens bestimmte Maßnahmen treffen, um dessen ordnungsgemäße Durchführung zu gewährleisten, indem sie z. B. vorherige Überwachungsmaßnahmen ergreift oder eine Untersuchung über die Umsetzung einer Schutzklausel in einem Wirtschaftszweig, unter anderem auf Antrag eines Mitgliedstaats, einleitet, sofern genügend Anscheinsbeweise vorliegen, die dies rechtfertigen würden  (125).

Da bedauerlicherweise keine statistischen Daten darüber vorliegen, welcher Anteil der EU‐Exporte nach Südkorea auf kleine, mittlere und große Unternehmen entfällt, ist es nicht möglich, die Zollersparnis nach Unternehmensgröße aufzuschlüsseln.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008361/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: First anniversary of the free trade agreement with South Korea

The free trade agreement between South Korea and the EU entered into force on 1 July 2011.

According to a Commission press release issued on 27 June 2012, the savings for EU firms after nine months, as far as import duties were concerned, amounted to an estimated EUR 350 million.

‘saved’ are accounted for by large, medium-sized, and small EU firms?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2013)

It is indeed estimated that over the first nine months of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (i.e. from 1 July 2011 until the end of March 2012), EU firms already saved EUR 350 million in duties. Over the first twelve months of the Agreement, under a conservative assumption, duties saved on EU's exports to South Korea amounted to around EUR 600 million.

Customs duties on imports from outside of the EU are a source of revenue for the EU budget.

Member States shall retain, by way of collection costs, 25 % of the amounts of customs duties. Elimination of customs duties, resulting from reduced or abolished import duties, are estimated to amount to EUR 340 million over the first nine months and EUR 465 million over the first 12 months.

The purpose of the EU-Korea FTA is to open up trade, not to create new barriers. This is highlighted in the preamble of the FTA where it is stated, inter alia, that the Parties of the Agreement are seeking to ‘reduce or eliminate the barriers to mutual trade and investment’ (126).

Nevertheless, the EU may take certain measures under the FTA to ensure its proper implementation, for instance, introduce prior surveillance measures or initiate a safeguard investigation in any sector upon the request of, inter alia, a Member State, when there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify such initiation (127).

Unfortunately there are no statistics available which would show the share of EU exports to South Korea by small, medium or large companies. Therefore it is not possible to give a breakdown by company size of the duty savings.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008362/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: Auflistung der Steuergelder für Bankenrettung

In einem Gastbeitrag in der deutschen Tageszeitung „Handelsblatt“ vom 5.9.2012 äußert sich Kommissionspräsident Barroso wie folgt:

„Wir müssen den Teufelskreis durchbrechen, in dem die Nutzung von Steuergeldern zur Bankenrettung — bislang über 4,5 Billionen EUR — die Staatshaushalte belastet, während zunehmend risikoscheue Banken Firmen, die Geld brauchen, keine Kredite gewähren.“

Antwort von Herrn Rehn im Namen der Kommission

(28. November 2012)

Die Kommission veröffentlicht im Anzeiger für staatliche Beihilfen regelmäßig Angaben zu staatlichen Beihilfen für den Finanzsektor. Neueste Detailinformationen, eine Aufschlüsselung nach Mitgliedstaaten und ergänzende Indikatoren können der Anlage des aktuellen Anzeigers für staatliche Beihilfen entnommen werden (S. 32 ff.):

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/2011_autumn_working_paper_en.pdf (auf EN).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008362/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Details of taxpayers' money for bank bailouts

In an article published in the German Handelsblatt newspaper on 5 September 2012 the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, maintained that:

We have to break the vicious circle in which state budgets are being sapped because taxpayers’ money — more than EUR 4.5 billion to date — is being used to bail out banks, which, because they are becoming increasingly risk-averse, are refusing to lend to firms needing cash.

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2012)

Information about state aid to the financial sector is published regularly by the Commission in State Aid Scoreboard. Latest information on the exact compilation, the breakdown among Member States and additional indicators can be found in the annex to latest State-Aid Scoreboard (page 32 and beyond):

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/2011_autumn_working_paper_en.pdf.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008363/12

to the Commission

Diane Dodds (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Segways and self-balancing scooters

In the UK, Segways or self-balancing scooters are subject to road traffic law if used on a public road but must be registered and licensed before being used on the public road.

In order to be registered such vehicles need to comply with basic safety standards in accordance with Directive 2002/24/EC on the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles or with ECWVTA (European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval).

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2012)

Self balancing vehicles do not fall in the scope of the framework Directive 2002/24/EC (128) on the approval of L-category vehicles nor in the scope of the Commission proposal (129) regarding the approval and market surveillance of L-category vehicles. ‘L-category’ is the family name of light vehicles (130). The proposal is currently under scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council. It aims at replacing the framework Directive on 1 January 2016. As these vehicles are not covered by the above legislation, they are therefore not required to comply with the ECWVTA (131).

Consequently, they do fall in the scope of the Machinery Directive (132) whose harmonised rules may be complemented with national requirements for the approval of such vehicles. The reason for excluding self balancing vehicles from the type-approval legislation is that they are equipped with an entirely different propulsion control than L-category vehicle types, which would require the development of dedicated and cost effective rules. Currently, there is only one vehicle manufacturer that offers a self balancing vehicle in some Member States (133). The Commission would like to prevent addressing only one product with approval legislation as it might hinder technical progress in the short to mid term and have a negative effect on competition.

The Commission may consider drafting a proposal if cost-effective measures applicable for a wide range of such vehicles can be identified and also if there is a need among Member States to harmonise approval requirements. Until then, the rules on the approval of these vehicles will continue to be established at national level. However, the Commission will continue monitoring these national rules and may issue a proposal, if deemed necessary and cost-effective.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008365/12

to the Commission

Roger Helmer (EFD)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Broadband system in Rutland (UK)

The Commission may be aware that there has recently been a bidding process for the broadband system for the county of Rutland, which is located in my UK constituency, the East Midlands.

Rutland County Council was one of the bodies involved in selecting the successful bidder, appearing to follow EU procurement legislation. However, it has transpired that the successful bidder was a consortium including the BT company and Rutland County Council itself.

1. Does the Commission believe that the role of Rutland County Council in this consortium is consistent with its role in adjudicating the bids?

Rutland Telecom, an unsuccessful bidder, offered a ‘fibre to the home’ (FTTH) service, whereas the winning consortium, Digital Rutland, proposes a service which only covers ‘fibre to the cabinets’ (FTTC). Local stakeholders believe not only that FTTH would offer higher speeds at a lower cost, but that the service would be available to companies, communities and, potentially, individuals on a fee basis. Rutland County Council would finance its service in part through an additional precept on Council Tax.

2. Does the Commission believe that by imposing a blanket solution and blanket charges, Rutland County Council is creating a barrier to entry for other players, including SMEs, while also holding back technical development and offering an inferior service?

3. Would the Commission agree that, given the background to my first question, this constitutes an abuse of powers by Rutland County Council?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2012)

As for the role of Rutland City Council (RCC) in the bidding process, in their notification (subsequently suspended) the United Kingdom authorities indicated that a tender for deployment of next generation broadband was organised, and that it was open, transparent and ensured equal and non-discriminatory treatment of bidders. The contract was to be awarded to a company presenting the most economically advantageous offer. The pre-qualification stage led to the selection of four bidders but during the dialogue period three of them withdrew. BT was the only remaining bidder and in February 2012 it submitted a final tender, which was evaluated by a panel of representatives of the Digital Rutland Team and the RCC’s legal, procurement and technical advisors.

The Commission will, however, enquire with the United Kingdom authorities about the allegations made.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008366/12

à la Commission

Sylvie Goulard (ALDE)

(24 septembre 2012)

Objet: Représentation externe de la zone euro

Lors de son discours sur l'état de l'Union, l'année dernière, le Président de la Commission avait évoqué la nécessité de disposer d'une représentation externe de la zone euro.

Il avait même expliqué que la Commission présenterait «des propositions à cet effet», «dans le respect du traité», tout en soulignant l'urgence de la situation et le besoin d'agir rapidement. Un an plus tard, qu'en est-il? Car, étrangement, ce point n'a pas été évoqué lors de son discours sur l'état de l'Union cette année.

Réponse donnée par M. Rehn au nom de la Commission

(26 novembre 2012)

Depuis le traité de Lisbonne, l'article 17 du TUE et l'article 138 du TFUE offrent une nouvelle plate-forme pour la mise en œuvre de la représentation externe de l'UE, et de la zone euro en particulier.

D'importantes modifications sont actuellement apportées à la gouvernance économique interne de la zone euro et d'autres changements se profilent, sur la base du rapport «Vers une véritable Union économique et monétaire», présenté par le président du Conseil européen, en coopération avec les présidents de la Commission, de l'Eurogroupe et de la BCE. Ces transformations influenceront nettement, à l'avenir, le fonctionnement de la coordination fiscale, financière et économique. Il importe donc de connaître la teneur de ces modifications avant que la Commission ne puisse, éventuellement, formuler des propositions en matière de représentation externe.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008366/12

to the Commission

Sylvie Goulard (ALDE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: External representation of the euro area

In his State of the Union Address last year the Commission President maintained that the euro area needed to have external representation.

He even announced the Commission’s intention of submitting proposals for that purpose — without overstepping the Treaty — adding that the urgency of the situation demanded swift action. One year on, what is happening on this point? (Strange to say, it was not mentioned in his 2012 State of the Union Address).

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

Following the Lisbon Treaty, Articles 17 TEU and 138 TFEU present a new platform for acting on the external representation of the EU, and of the euro area in particular.

At the moment important changes are underway on the internal economic governance of the Euro area and others should follow, based on the report ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ presented by the President of the European Council in cooperation with the Presidents of the Commission, Eurogroup and ECB. These changes will have an important bearing on how fiscal, financial and economic coordination will work in the future. It is important to see what these changes will be to set out a possible Commission proposal on external representation.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008367/12

aan de Commissie

Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: Implementatie Richtlijn 2011/7/EG bestrijding betalingsachterstand bij handelstransacties

Op 15 maart 2011 trad.d. Richtlijn 2011/7/EU betreffende bestrijding van betalingsachterstand bij handelstransacties in werking. De doelstellingen van deze richtlijn zijn duidelijk: bijdragen tot de goede werking van de interne markt en versterken van de concurrentiekracht van ondernemingen, in het bijzonder van kmo's.

Aangezien de huidige financieel-economische crisis ook enorme uitdagingen met zich meebrengt voor kmo's, lijkt de omzetting van deze richtlijn een cruciaal element voor het weer op gang brengen van de economie. De uiterste datum van omzetting door de lidstaten (16 maart 2013) komt dichterbij. We zien dat, in tegenstelling tot anderen, lidstaten als Frankrijk en Nederland al klaar zijn met hun huiswerk.

In die context graag volgende vragen aan de Commissie:

Antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie

(22 november 2012)

Uiterlijk op 16 maart 2013 moet Richtlijn 2011/7/EU omgezet zijn. Om hulp te bieden bij deze taak, heeft de Commissie de Werkgroep van deskundigen inzake betalingsachterstand opgericht. Het doel van de werkgroep bestaat erin de lidstaten te ondersteunen bij de voltooiing van de omzetting en uitvoering van de richtlijn; ze moet daarbij rekening houden met de recentste ontwikkelingen in elk land en biedt een forum voor gedachtewisseling. De Commissie heeft geregeld contact met de leden van de werkgroep van deskundigen en verschaft waar nodig technische en juridische ondersteuning. De eerste vergadering van de werkgroep vond plaats op 3 februari 2012 en de tweede op 23 oktober 2012.

Zoals op de tweede vergadering van de werkgroep van deskundigen is bevestigd, heeft de Commissie het genoegen het geachte Parlementslid mee te delen dat momenteel twee lidstaten het proces van omzetting in nationale wetgeving hebben voltooid, namelijk Cyprus en Malta. Nederland verwacht de omzetting vóór eind 2012 te voltooien. Zowel België als Frankrijk hebben verklaard dat ze de uiterste implementatiedatum, 16 maart 2013, zullen respecteren.

De Commissie moedigt een spoedige uitvoering van de richtlijn door de lidstaten aan en zal de omzetting en uitvoering van de richtlijn nauwlettend volgen. Bij niet-naleving na 16 maart 2013, de uiterste datum voor omzetting, kunnen inbreukprocedures overeenkomstig artikel 258 van het VWEU worden ingeleid, indien dit nodig wordt geacht.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008367/12

to the Commission

Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions

On 15 March 2011, Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions entered into force. The aims of the directive are clear: to contribute to the effective functioning of the internal market and increase the competitiveness of businesses, particularly SMEs.

As the present financial and economic crisis also entails enormous challenges for SMEs, the transposition of this directive should make a crucial contribution to reviving the economy. The deadline for transposition (16 March 2013) is not far off. Unlike other Member States, such Member States as France and the Netherlands have already completed the necessary procedures.

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2012)

The deadline for the transposition of Directive 2011/7/EU is set for 16 March 2013. To assist with this task, the Commission established the Expert Group on late payment whose aim is to further help Member States in their task of completing the transposition and implementation of the directive, taking into account the latest developments in each country and providing a forum for exchange of views. The Commission is in regular contact with the Members of the Expert Group and is providing technical and legal assistance when required. The first meeting of the Group took place on 3 February 2012, and the second meeting on 23 October 2012.

As confirmed at the occasion of the second meeting of the Expert Group, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that currently two Member States have completed the process of transposition into national law, namely Cyprus and Malta. The Netherlands expects to complete transposition before the end of 2012. Both Belgium and France have stated that they will honour the deadline for implementation by 16 March 2013.

The Commission encourages an early implementation of the directive by Member States and will monitor the transposition and implementation of the directive. In case of non-compliance after the transposition deadline of 16 March 2013, infringement procedures may be launched according to Article 258 TFEU, when deemed appropriate.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008368/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Σύλληψη καταζητουμένου για φόνο στην Κιργιζία

Η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία έχει ειδοποιήσει την ΙΝΤΕΡΠΟΛ από το 1996 σχετικά με τους καταζητούμενους για την βάρβαρες δολοφονίες των Κυπρίων πολιτών Τάσου Ισαάκ και Σολωμού Σολωμού. Πριν 3 μέρες ένας εξ αυτών, ο ERHAN ARIKLI, συνελήφθη στην Κιργιζία αλλά αφέθηκε ελεύθερος, παρότι υπήρχε διεθνές ένταλμα της ΙΝΤΕΡΠΟΛ εναντίον του.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(21 Νοεμβρίου 2012)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008368/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Arrest in Kyrgyzstan of murder suspect

In 1996 the Cyprus Republic contacted Interpol concerning the hunt for those wanted in connection with the barbarous murder of Tassos Isaak and Solomos Solomou, citizens of Cyprus. Three days ago, one of those wanted in this connection, Erhan Arikli, was arrested in Kyrgyzstan but subsequently released, notwithstanding an international warrant issued by Interpol.

In view of this:

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

(21 November 2012)

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008369/12

til Kommissionen

Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL) og Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(24. september 2012)

Om: Den ulovlige anholdelse og udlevering af Joaquin Pérez Becerra

Den 22. april, 2011 blev den svenske statsborger Joaquin Pérez Becerra, tidligere asylansøger fra Columbia og redaktør af det svenskbaseret nyhedssite »Anccol«, arresteret af myndighederne i Venezuela og den 25. april blev han udleveret til Colombia.

Joaquin Pérez Becerra er svensk statsborger, som ikke er mistænkt eller anklaget for forbrydelser i Sverige.

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af den højtstående repræsentant/næstformand Catherine Ashton

(15. november 2012)

De ærede medlemmer henvises til svaret på skriftlig forespørgsel E-005212/2012 (134).

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-008369/12

till kommissionen

Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL) och Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(24 september 2012)

Angående: Det olagliga gripandet och utlämnandet av Joaquin Pérez Becerra

Den svenske medborgaren Joaquin Pérez Becerra, en f.d. asylsökande från Colombia och redaktör för den svenskbaserade nyhetssajten Anccol, greps av myndigheterna i Venezuela den 22 april 2011. Den 25 april utlämnades han till Colombia.

Joaquin Pérez Becerra är svensk medborgare och inte vare sig misstänkt eller anklagad för att ha begått något brott i Sverige.

Svar från den höga representanten/vice ordförande Catherine Ashton på kommissionens vägnar

(15 november 2012)

Parlamentsledamöterna hänvisas till svaret på den skriftliga frågan E-005212/2012 (135).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008369/12

to the Commission

Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL) and Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: The illegal arrest and extradition of Joaquin Pérez Becerra

On 22 April 2011, the Swedish citizen Joaquin Pérez Becerra, a former asylum-seeker from Columbia and editor of the Swedish-based news site Anccol, was arrested by the authorities in Venezuela, and on 25 April he was extradited to Colombia.

Joaquin Pérez Becerra is a Swedish citizen, and is not suspected, or accused, of crimes in Sweden.

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

(15 November 2012)

The Honorable Members are referred to the reply given to Written Question E-005212/2012 (136).

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008370/12

do Rady

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)

(24 września 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Stan prac nad rozporządzeniem ograniczającym lub umożliwiającym wprowadzenie zakazu GMO

Odpowiedź

(19 listopada 2012 r.)

Aktualizując informacje przekazane już w kwietniu 2012 r., (137) Rada informuje Pana Posła, że jeszcze nie zakończyła debaty nad tym dossier, a zatem nie przyjęła jeszcze swojego stanowiska w pierwszym czytaniu.

Po przyjęciu stanowiska Rady w pierwszym czytaniu uzasadnienie stanowiska Rady w sprawie przedmiotowej inicjatywy ustawodawczej zostanie przekazane Parlamentowi Europejskiemu zgodnie z art. 294 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej.

Jeżeli chodzi o drugie pytanie Pana Posła, Rada nie wypowiada się na temat stanowisk państw członkowskich.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008370/12

to the Council

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: State of play concerning regulation on restricting or banning cultivation of GMOs

Reply

(19 November 2012)

As an update to the information already provided in April 2012 (138), the Council informs the Honourable Member that it has not yet concluded its discussions on this file and, accordingly, has not yet adopted its position at first reading.

Upon adoption of its position at first reading, a set of reasons justifying the Council position on the legislative initiative will be communicated to the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

With regard to the second question put by the Honourable Member, it is not for the Council to comment on the positions of Member States.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008371/12

do Komisji

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)

(24 września 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Interwencja w stosunku do rządu Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej w związku z regulacjami dotyczącymi GMO

Czy Komisja podejmowała interwencję w stosunku do rządu Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej w związku z regulacjami dotyczącymi GMO?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Maroša Šefčoviča w imieniu Komisji

(27 listopada 2012 r.)

O ile Pan Poseł nawiązuje do wniosku złożonego przez Polskę w dniu 10 lipca 2012 r. na podstawie art. 16 ust. 2 lit. c) dyrektywy Rady 2002/53/WE w sprawie Wspólnego katalogu odmian gatunków roślin rolniczych (139), dotyczącego wprowadzenia zakazu stosowania materiału siewnego 210 zmodyfikowanych genetycznie odmian kukurydzy MON 810 włączonej do wspomnianego wspólnego katalogu, Komisja może potwierdzić, że obecnie bada tenże wniosek.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008371/12

to the Commission

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Representations to the Polish Government with regard to regulations on GMOs

Has the Commission made representations to the Polish Government with regard to its regulations on GMOs?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

If the Honourable Member refers to the application lodged by Poland on 10 July 2012 under Article 16 (2) (c) of Council Directive 2002/53/EC (140) on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, for the introduction of a ban on using the seed of 210 genetically modified varieties of MON 810 maize included in the said common catalogue, the Commission can confirm that it is currently examining it.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008372/12

a la Comisión

Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)

(24 de septiembre de 2012)

Asunto: Educación de alumnos con altas capacidades

Considerando que los programas vigentes de soporte a la educación permanente y de calidad son el instrumento de referencia europeo en la lucha por la excelencia, hay que tener en cuenta que la educación especializada de estudiantes con altas capacidades alberga un potencial que, si no es encauzado debidamente, termina por perderse.

«altas capacidades» en los trabajos preparatorios de su propuesta de «Erasmus para todos»?

Respuesta de la Sra. Vassiliou en nombre de la Comisión

(9 de noviembre de 2012)

Las actividades de la Comisión en el ámbito de la cooperación política escolar se centra en ayudar a los Estados miembros a mejorar sus sistemas de educación y formación en ámbitos clave como la docencia, el abandono escolar prematuro, la educación infantil y la atención a la infancia. Las cuestiones de la diferenciación y la individualización están presentes en la mayoría de dichas actividades, y la cuestión de cómo atender a los alumnos que tienen necesidades diferentes, tanto si tienen un alto rendimiento como si su rendimiento es insuficiente, se abordan de esa forma. La Comisión no tiene previsto poner en marcha una iniciativa específica centrada en los alumnos con altas capacidades.

El programa Erasmus para Todos está concebido para ser un instrumento flexible que responda a las necesidades de todas las partes interesadas que participan en la educación, la formación, la juventud y el deporte en toda la UE. Dentro de ese marco general, los participantes pueden proponer proyectos y actividades de movilidad que aborden necesidades particulares. Este planteamiento debería ayudar a las escuelas a hacer frente a sus necesidades individuales, así como las de sus profesores y alumnos, incluidas las de los alumnos dotados de gran talento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008372/12

to the Commission

Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Education for highly gifted pupils

The existing permanent and high-quality education support programmes are the outstanding European instrument in the search for excellence. Specialised education for highly gifted students offers a potential that could be lost if it is not properly channelled.

‘Erasmus for all’ proposal?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

The Commission's activities in the field of school policy cooperation focus on helping Member States to improve their Education and Training systems in key areas such as the teaching professions, early school leaving, early childhood education and care. Issues of differentiation and individualisation run through most of these activities, and questions of how to cater for pupils with different needs, over as well as under-performers, are addressed in this way. The Commission has no plans to launch a specific initiative focusing on highly gifted students.

The Erasmus for All programme is designed to be a flexible instrument meeting the needs of all stakeholders involved in education, training, youth and sport across the EU. Within this broad framework, participants can propose projects and mobility activities addressing particular needs. This approach should help schools to tackle their individual needs, as well as those of their teachers and pupils, including the highly gifted ones.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008373/12

to the Commission

Roger Helmer (EFD)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Roadworthiness test for motor vehicles and their trailers

The Commission will be aware of the Roadworthiness Package proposal for a regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (2012/0184 (COD)).

The proposal would introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test to ensure that components of the vehicle comply with safety characteristics in force at the time of the vehicle’s first registration, which would prevent most modifications to vehicles. The proposal would also change the definition of an historic vehicle that may be exempt from periodic testing; this may allow vehicles older than 30 years to be exempt from testing provided the vehicle has been maintained in its original condition, including its appearance.

This will mean that modified historic cars will no longer be exempt, thereby increasing the costs associated with them as the parts are now non-standard and expensive, while also making them potentially dangerous in a road system that is now both busier and faster than the one for which they were originally designed.

Custom car culture is a worldwide interest but in the UK particularly there are many businesses and jobs which would be threatened by this legislation. There are presently estimated to be in excess of two million modified cars in this country and around 28 000 people employed in this industry with a value of GBP 4.3 billion.

Will the Commission please comment on these negative effects that this legislation will have on the classic and modified car industries and provide assurances that the legislation will be modified accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2012)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission proposed to exempt vehicles of historic interest older than 30 years from the scope of the periodic roadworthiness testing.The current Directive 2009/40/EC on roadworthiness tests (141) only provides for an exemption for vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960.

Vehicles with changes affecting their technical characteristics of its main components will not benefit from this exemption but will be subject as is the case today to periodic roadworthiness tests as any other old vehicle.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008374/12

to the Commission

Roger Helmer (EFD)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Rail liberalisation

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2012)

The Commission is aware of the persistence of practices to hinder access of new entrants to rail markets which have been open to competition under EC law (rail freight and international passenger transport) despite the fact that national competition authorities and rail regulatory bodies are increasingly taking action against railway undertakings and infrastrcuture managers. The Commission is also aware of the opposition of some incumbent to further opening of the rail market, in particular for domestic passenger transport. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that market opening and the removal of access barriers for new entrants can contribute to economic growth in Europe. The development of a real internal market of rail transport services and greater attractiveness of the rail market would significantly contribute to creating a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. In this context, the Commission intends to monitor closely the implementation of the recast of the 1st railway package which will enter into force by the end of 2012 and should improve the functioning of the rail market segments already open to competition. It will also propose by the end of 2012 a fourth railway package including new measures to open domestic passenger traffic to competition and to facilitate access to the infrastructure.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008375/12

aan de Commissie

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: Controle op sociale fraude

De afgelopen week is er in België door verschillende instanties aan de alarmbel getrokken met betrekking tot sociale fraude en misbruiken van het sociaal- en arbeidsrecht. De meeste aandacht gaat hierbij uit naar wantoestanden waarbij EU-onderdanen in België komen werken. Hier zijn er meldingen en bewijzen van misbruiken en regelrechte fraude vastgesteld. Bijvoorbeeld van EU-onderdanen die zich in België inschrijven als zelfstandige en als zodanig bepaalde voordelen genieten, maar klaarblijkelijk helemaal geen zelfstandige activiteit uitvoeren. Voorts zijn er problemen met schijnzelfstandigheid, postbusbedrijven en allerlei andere constructies die tot doel hebben om deloyaal te concurreren met diensten/prestaties die geleverd worden door Belgische werknemers.

De inspectiediensten zijn hiervan vaak op de hoogte, maar kunnen vaak niet optreden. De hoofdreden hiervoor is het soms complete gebrek aan Europese coördinatie. Inspectiediensten hebben geen overzicht van bevoegde diensten in andere lidstaten en hun bevoegdheden, of botsen op gebrekkige samenwerking waarbij er geen of, erger nog, gebrekkig en laattijdig antwoord komt vanuit de bevoegde diensten van andere lidstaten. Het spreekt voor zich dat de Commissie hier de rol die haar is toegewezen onder artikel 153 VEU ten volle moet spelen. Vandaar de volgende vragen:

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(19 november 2012)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008375/12

to the Commission

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Controlling social security fraud

During the past week, various official bodies in Belgium have sounded the alarm with regard to social security fraud and abuse of social security and labour law. The matter causing the most concern is abuses that occur when nationals of EU Member States come to work in Belgium. There are reports — and evidence — of abuses and outright fraud. For example, EU nationals register in Belgium as self-employed and enjoy certain advantages in that capacity, but clearly are not performing any work as self-employed persons. There are also problems with bogus self-employed status of people who are in fact employees, shell companies and all manner of other artificial arrangements which have the aim of competing unfairly with services rendered or work done by Belgian employees.

In many cases, inspectorates are aware of this, but cannot take action. The main reason lies in the sometimes complete absence of European coordination. Inspectorates have no overview of the competent services in other Member States and their powers, or are hampered by inadequate cooperation, as the competent services in other Member States either do not reply or, worse still, reply inadequately and too late. It goes without saying that, in these instances, the Commission ought to play in full the role assigned to it under Article 153 TEU.

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2012)

The role of the Committee is to monitor, on the basis of close cooperation between members and the Commission, the enforcement of secondary Community law on health and safety at work, and to analyse the practical questions involved in monitoring the enforcement of legislation in this field.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008376/12

an die Kommission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(24. September 2012)

Betrifft: Südkorea/CETA-Abkommen: Grundrechte und -freiheiten und Datenschutz

Die europäischen Bürger haben dieses Jahr eindrucksvoll ihre Ablehnung gegenüber ACTA deutlich gemacht. Unterdessen wurden Passagen des ACTA-Abkommens wortwörtlich in das CETA-Abkommen mit Kanada übernommen. Nachdem nun seitens der Kommission vermeldet wurde, dass diese Passagen gestrichen werden, finden sich noch schärfere Bestimmungen im Freihandelsabkommen mit Südkorea.

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(5. November 2012)

Die Kommission ist beim umfassenden Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen (CETA) wie bei allen sonstigen Verhandlungen über bilaterale Handelsabkommen sorgsam darauf bedacht, dass die Bestimmungen über Rechte des geistigen Eigentums (IPR) soweit wie möglich dem bestehenden EU-Recht entsprechen, ohne jedoch darüber hinauszugehen. Dies war auch beim Freihandelsabkommen (FHA) zwischen der EU und Korea der Fall, dem das Europäische Parlament vor kurzem zustimmte. Eine Überarbeitung dieses FHA, das jetzt in Kraft ist, ist nicht geplant.

Da die im Freihandelsabkommen EU-Korea oder im umfassenden Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen (CETA) EU-Kanada enthaltenen Bestimmungen über Rechte des geistigen Eigentums nicht über das bestehende EU-Recht hinausgehen, ist für die Kommission nicht nachvollziehbar, inwiefern diese Abkommen zu Eingriffen in die Grundrechte der EU-Bürger führen könnten.

Die Kommission respektiert uneingeschränkt das Ergebnis der Abstimmung über das ACTA‐Abkommen im Europäischen Parlament. Sie gestaltet ihre Verhandlungspositionen so, dass sie — selbstverständlich auch in laufenden Verhandlungen — in vollem Einklang mit der EU-Politik stehen. Das IPR-Kapitel des CETA wird derzeit in diesem Sinne überarbeitet.

Im Einklang mit der Rahmenvereinbarung zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament und der Kommission werden die Texte von Handelsabkommen, die Gegenstand von Verhandlungen sind, dem Ausschuss für internationalen Handel (INTA) regelmäßig zu Informationszwecken übermittelt. Dies gilt auch für das CETA. Der INTA wird regelmäßig über den aktuellen Stand der CETA-Verhandlungen auf dem Laufenden gehalten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008376/12

to the Commission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: South Korea/CETA agreement: fundamental rights and freedoms and data protection

In the course of this year European citizens made their opposition to ACTA resoundingly clear. However, parts of the ACTA agreement were reproduced verbatim in the CETA agreement with Canada. The Commission has announced that the passages concerned will be deleted; be that as it may, there are provisions in the free trade agreement with South Korea which go even further.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2012)

For the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), as with any other negotiation of a bilateral trade agreement, the Commission is carefully ensuring that the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) provisions correspond as much as possible to the existing EU legislation, but without going beyond it. This was also the case for the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), to which the European Parliament recently gave its consent. There is no intention to revise this FTA which is now in force.

As their IPR provisions do not go beyond existing EU legislation, the Commission does not see how the EU-Korea FTA or the EU-Canada CETA should lead to any encroachments of fundamental rights of EU citizens.

The Commission fully respects the vote of the European Parliament on ACTA. The Commission develops its negotiating positions to ensure that they are fully coherent with the EU policy, of course also in ongoing negotiations. The IPR chapter of CETA is currently being reviewed in this perspective.

As agreed in the framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission, trade agreement texts under negotiation are sent on a regular basis to the INTA Committee for information. This is also the case for the CETA. The INTA is also regularly kept up-to-date on the state-of-play of the CETA negotiations.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008378/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Επεξεργασία μητρώου τραπεζικών λογαριασμών

Σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα του Τύπου, ο επικεφαλής της Ομάδα Δράσης για την Ελλάδα κ. Χόρστ Ράιχενμπαχ προωθεί τη δημιουργία μητρώου τραπεζικών λογαριασμών των καταθετών στις ελληνικές τράπεζες και σε δεύτερη φάση και των κινήσεων των λογαριασμών αυτών. Σύμφωνα με τις ίδιες πληροφορίες, η πρόταση εντάσσεται στο πρόγραμμα «Οδικός χάρτης για την τεχνική βοήθεια στο πεδίο του ξεπλύματος χρήματος και της φοροαποφυγής», και, όπως επισημαίνεται, θα προσφερθούν τεχνολογίες και «τεχνική βοήθεια» από τη Γερμανία ώστε τα στοιχεία του μητρώου να μπορούν να τύχουν και αντίστοιχης «επεξεργασίας». Όπως επισημαίνεται ασκούνται πιέσεις για να πειστούν οι εθνικές αρχές να συναινέσουν στην «αναγκαιότητα του μητρώου».

Δεδομένου, αφενός ότι τέτοιου είδους στοιχεία μπορεί να αφορούν ευαίσθητα θέματα προσωπικών δεδομένων αλλά και αφετέρου του κινδύνου διαρροής και αξιοποίησης για ιδιοτελείς σκοπούς πληροφοριών τεράστιας οικονομικής και εμπορικής σημασίας, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι γνωρίζει για το πρόγραμμα «Road Map for Technical Assistance in the Field of Anti-Money Laundering and Tax Evasion»;

Ποιά τα κύρια στοιχεία που περιέχει;

Πώς μπορώ να έχω πρόσβαση στο περιεχόμενο του;

Υπάρχει πράγματι η ιδέα επεξεργασίας τέτοιων στοιχείων από κοινού με αρχές ή υπηρεσίες που βρίσκονται εκτός Ελλάδος;

Ποιός θα έχει την αρμοδιότητα ελέγχου και διαχείρισης του μητρώου, προκειμένου να υπάρξει προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(3 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Η Επιτροπή είναι ενήμερη σχετικά με τον «Χάρτη πορείας για την τεχνική βοήθεια στο πεδίο της καταπολέμησης του ξεπλύματος χρήματος και της φοροδιαφυγής», ο οποίος εκπονήθηκε από τις ελληνικές αρχές (συμπεριλαμβανομένου του Υπουργείου Οικονομικών) με την υποστήριξη της Ομάδα Δράσης για την Ελλάδα και θα δημοσιευτεί προσεχώς. Ο κύριος στόχος του χάρτη πορείας είναι να αξιοποιηθούν όλα τα υφιστάμενα εργαλεία κατά του ξεπλύματος χρήματος, συμπεριλαμβανομένων όλων των διαθέσιμων πληροφοριών από τρίτους, προκειμένου να αντιμετωπιστούν η φοροδιαφυγή και η διαφθορά.

Ένα από τα μέτρα που προβλέπονται στον χάρτη πορείας είναι «εξερεύνηση και συμβουλές σχετικά με τον καλύτερο τρόπο για να δημιουργηθεί ένα κεντρικό μητρώο τραπεζικών λογαριασμών, το οποίο είναι ιδιαίτερα ευεργετικό για την υποστήριξη της επιβολής του νόμου και δημιουργεί οφέλη για την αποτελεσματικότητα των χρηματοπιστωτικών ιδρυμάτων».

Ουδέποτε τέθηκε θέμα από κοινού επεξεργασίας των εν λόγω δεδομένων με αρχές και υπηρεσίες εκτός Ελλάδας. Τον Ιούνιο, γερμανοί εμπειρογνώμονες περιέγραψαν συνοπτικά ένα τέτοιο σύστημα που λειτουργεί επί του παρόντος στη Γερμανία, χώρα με αυστηρή νομοθεσία για την προστασία της ιδιωτικής ζωής.

Επί του παρόντος, οι ελληνικές αρχές συνεργάζονται με εκπροσώπους των ελληνικών χρηματοπιστωτικών ιδρυμάτων και της Ελληνικής Ένωσης Τραπεζών για να εκπονήσουν μια αρχική πρόταση για περαιτέρω συζήτηση. Δεν έχουν καταλήξει ακόμη σε συγκεκριμένη πρόταση.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008378/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Register of bank accounts

According to press reports, Mr Horst Reichenbach, who heads the Task Force for Greece, is proposing a register of Greek bank accounts to monitor deposits and, in a subsequent stage, account movements. It appears that the proposal is part of a ‘Road Map for Technical Assistance in the Field of Anti-Money Laundering and Tax Evasion’, the necessary technology and ‘technical assistance’ to be provided by Germany in order to ‘process’ the data gathered. It is also reported that pressure is being brought to bear on the Greek authorities to ensure their acquiescence regarding the need for such a register.

On the one hand, the information gathered could include sensitive personal data and on the other, there is a danger that information of immense economic and commercial significance might be leaked and exploited for personal gain. In view of this:

Is the Commission aware of the ‘Road Map for Technical Assistance in the Field of Anti-Money Laundering and Tax Evasion’?

What are its principal objectives?

How can its contents be accessed?

Is the joint processing of such data together with authorities and services outside of Greece in fact being envisaged as a possibility?

Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing the register with a view to protecting personal data?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2012)

The Commission is aware of the Road Map for Technical Assistance in the field of Anti-Money Laundering and Tax Evasion, which was prepared by the Greek authorities (including the Ministry of Finance) with support from the Task Force for Greece, and will be published shortly. The principle objective of the Road Map is, in order to tackle tax evasion and corruption, to make full use of existing anti money laundering tools, including all available information from third parties.

The Road Map describes as one action to ‘explore and advise on the best way to set up a central registry of bank accounts, which is highly beneficial to support law enforcement and creates efficiency benefits for the financial institutions.’

Joint processing of such data together with authorities and services outside of Greece has never been envisaged as a possibility. In June German experts gave an overview of such a system as currently operated in Germany, a country with strong privacy laws.

At the moment Greek authorities work with representatives from the Greek financial institutions and the Hellenic Banking Association to prepare a first proposal for further discussion. There is no concrete proposal yet.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-008379/12

till kommissionen

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(24 september 2012)

Angående: SMS-lån och direktivet om konsumentkreditavtal

I maj 2013 ska kommissionen se över vissa delar av direktivet om konsumentkreditavtal. Förberedelserna inför detta är redan igång och kommissionen har beställt en studie om konsekvenserna av direktivet för den inre marknaden och konsumentskyddet. Ett växande problem i många medlemsstater är de så kallade SMS-lånen som man mycket enkelt och snabbt kan komma över. Många av företagen gör bristande kreditprövningar, har låga gränser för utlåning och håller lånen hemliga, vilket gör att en konsument kan låna från flera olika företag utan att de känner till de andra lånen. Dessutom är den information som många av företagen tillhandahåller om den effektiva räntenivån ytterst bristfällig och räntenivåerna är i många av fallen skyhöga (flera tusen procent).

I vilken mån kommer kommissionens studie att undersöka situationen och regelefterlevnaden vad gäller företag som erbjuder SM–ch snabblån? Avser kommissionen i sin översyn av direktivet föreslå skärpa regler för att stävja situationen vad gäller oseriösa företag som erbjuder SM–ch snabblån?

Svar från Šefčovič på kommissionens vägnar

(19 oktober 2012)

Enligt skäl 10 i direktiv 2008/48/EG får medlemsstaterna tillämpa bestämmelserna i direktivet på områden som inte omfattas av dess tillämpningsområde. Därför har ett antal medlemsstater tillämpat några av bestämmelserna i direktivet på SMS-lån. Medlemsstaterna kan alltså kontrollera om långivarna följer de regler som de ålagt dem, eftersom de känner till marknaden. Kommissionen kontrollerar bara om SMS-lånen är förenliga med reglerna inom ramen för direktivets tillämpningsområde.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008379/12

to the Commission

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: ‘SMS’ loans and the directive on consumer credit agreements

In May 2013, the Commission will review certain parts of the directive on consumer credit agreements. The preparations for this are already under way, and the Commission has commissioned a study of the directive’s impact on the internal market and consumer protection. A growing problem in many Member States is so-called ‘SMS loans’, which can be obtained very quickly and easily. Many of the undertakings which provide them make inadequate assessments of creditworthiness, have low limits for loans and keep the loans secret, with the result that a consumer can borrow from a number of different undertakings without each company’s knowing about the loans extended by the others. Moreover, the information which many of the undertakings provide concerning the effective interest rate is extremely inadequate, and in many cases interest rates are sky-high (several thousand per cent).

To what extent will the Commission’s study examine the situation and compliance with regulations in the case of undertakings which provide ‘SMS’ loans and quick loans? In its review of the directive, will the Commission propose stringent rules to bring the situation with regard to rogue operators offering ‘SMS’ and quick loans under control?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2012)

According to Recital 10 of the CCD the Member States are free to apply the provisions of the directive to the areas that are not within its scope. Thus a number of Member States applied some provisions of CCD to SMS loans. On this ground the Member States may check the compliance of the providers with the rules they imposed on them, knowing the particulars of this market. The Commission will only examine compliance of SMS loans within the scope of the CCD.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008381/12

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(24 september 2012)

Betreft: UNESCO bijdrage aan de universiteit van Gaza

Sinds 1996 neemt het aantal projecten van de UNESCO gestaag toe. Dit wordt onder andere mogelijk gemaakt door de financiële bijdrage van de EU.

1. Kan de Commissie aangeven met welke bedragen de EU bijdraagt aan de financiering van de activiteiten van UNESCO?

2. Kan de Commissie aangeven met welk doel de EU deze bijdragen schenkt aan UNESCO?

3. Op welke wijze controleert de Commissie de besteding van de bijdragen die zij aan UNESCO schenkt?

4. Welke financiële of niet-financiële sancties legt de EU op aan UNESO als die organisatie de door de EU gestelde doelen niet volgt?

5. Is het de Commissie bekend dat UNESCO een leerstoel financiert aan de islamitische universiteit van Gaza?

6. Is de Commissie zich ervan bewust dat de EU daarmee (indirect) Hamas ondersteunt?

7. Welke gevolgen trekt de EU uit deze constatering?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(11 december 2012)

1.-2. Voor informatie (150) over de steun die de Commissie toekent aan begunstigden verwijst de Commissie het geachte Parlementslid naar het stelsel voor financiële transparantie en voor details over de projecten op het vlak van onderzoek (151), ontwikkeling (152), onderwijs en cultuur (153) verwijst ze naar de specifieke websites van de Commissie.

3.-4. Het monitoren van EU-steun en het opleggen van sancties worden uitgevoerd overeenkomstig de algemene voorwaarden van de bijdrageovereenkomst tussen de EU en internationale organisaties (154) en een specifieke beoordeling wordt uitgevoerd in het kader van het Financieel Reglement (155). Voor acties onder contract die worden gesteund door het zevende kaderprogramma (FP7) staan de regels en voorwaarden voor het monitoren van de besteding van de door het zevende kaderprogramma toegekende bijdragen in de artikelen 34, 36, 37, en 38, van de regels voor deelneming aan het zevende kaderprogramma (156).

6.-7. De Commissie komt niet tussenbeide in beslissingen die door UNESCO worden genomen. De Commissie verleent geen financiële steun voor deze actie. De veronderstelling dat de EU Hamas enigszins direct of indirect ondersteunt, is dus volledig onjuist.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008381/12

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(24 September 2012)

Subject: Unesco grant to the University of Gaza

Since 1996, the number of Unesco projects has been steadily increasing. This is being made possible, inter alia, by the financial contribution of the European Union.

1. Can the Commission specify how much money the EU is contributing to Unesco’s activities?

2. Can the Commission indicate the purpose of these EU contributions to Unesco?

3. How does the Commission monitor the use made of the funds which it gives to Unesco?

4. What financial or non-financial penalties does the EU impose on Unesco if the organisation does not pursue the aims specified by the EU?

5. Is the Commission aware that Unesco is funding a chair at the Islamic University of Gaza?

6. Is the Commission aware that, in this way, the EU is (indirectly) supporting Hamas?

7. What action will the EU take on the basis of this observation?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2012)

1-2. The Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the Financial Transparency System (158) for information on grants awarded by the Commission to beneficiaries, and refers the Honourable Member to specific Commission websites to find details on projects in the field of research (159), development (160), education and culture (161).

3-4. The monitoring of EU funds and in position of penalties is carried out in accordance with the General Conditions of the EU Contribution Agreement with International Organisations (162) and a specific assessment is foreseen by the Financial Regulation (163). In the case of indirect actions financed under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the rules and conditions concerning the monitoring of the use made of the funds awarded to FP7 grant holders are presented in Articles 34, 36, 37 and 38 of the ‘FP7 Rules of participation’ (164).

6-7. The Commission does not intervene in decisions taken by Unesco. No financial support has been granted for this action by the Commission. Consequently, the assumption that any direct or indirect support to Hamas could have been provided by the EU is entirely incorrect.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-008383/12

an die Kommission

Bernd Posselt (PPE)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Beneš-Dekrete und EU-Grundrechtecharta

Vertritt die Kommission als Hüterin der Verträge — also auch des Lissabon-Vertrages und der EU-Grundrechtecharta — nach wie vor die Ansicht, dass die sogenannten Beneš-Dekrete, mit denen Deutsche und Ungarn in der Nachkriegs-Tschechoslowakei kollektiv entrechtet wurden, mit dem EU-Beitritt erloschen sind, oder teilt sie inzwischen die Auffassung des tschechischen Staatspräsidenten Václav Klaus, wonach diese Dekrete und Gesetze nach wie vor nötig seien, um das „tschechische Nationalinteresse“ zu verteidigen, weshalb er eine Opt-out-Klausel aus der Grundrechtecharta durchsetzen will? Besteht zwischen der Klaus-Klausel und den Beneš-Dekreten nach Ansicht der Kommission ein juristischer Zusammenhang, oder würde eine solche Opt-out-Klausel nicht, wie etwa von tschechischen Oppositionspolitikern geäußert, lediglich die Einklagbarkeit von Sozial— und anderen Grundrechten für tschechische Staatsbürger einschränken?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(23. Oktober 2012)

Was die sogenannten „Beneš-Dekrete“ betrifft, so hat die Kommission bereits in ihren Antworten auf die schriftlichen Anfragen E-5310/11, E-1925/11, E-6938/08, E-4307/08, E-4776/07 und E-2238/04 (166) darauf hingewiesen, dass Rechtshandlungen, die die frühere Tschechoslowakei vor dem Beitritt zur Europäischen Union vorgenommen hat, die aber heutzutage keine dem Unionsrecht zuwiderlaufenden Rechtswirkungen mehr entfalten, nicht rückwirkend überprüft werden können.

Was die mögliche Anwendung der Grundrechtecharta der Europäischen Union betrifft, so gilt diese gemäß Artikel 51 Absatz 1 für die Mitgliedstaaten ausschließlich bei der Durchführung des EU-Rechts. Aus der Anfrage geht nicht hervor, dass der geschilderte Sachverhalt mit der Umsetzung von EU-Rechtsvorschriften in Verbindung steht. Deshalb obliegt es einzig den Mitgliedstaaten sicherzustellen, dass ihre Verpflichtungen in Bezug auf die Grundrechte, die ihnen aus internationalen Übereinkommen und dem innerstaatlichen Recht erwachsen, eingehalten werden. Die Kommission sieht sich daher nicht in der Lage, zu den aufgeworfenen Grundrechtsfragen Stellung zu nehmen. Auch das künftige Protokoll über die Anwendung der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union auf die Tschechische Republik wird daran nichts ändern.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008383/12

to the Commission

Bernd Posselt (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: The Benes Decrees and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

As guardian of the Treaties (including the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), is the Commission still of the view that the Benes Decrees, which deprived Germans and Hungarians of their collective rights in post-World War II Czechoslovakia, have become null and void on accession to the EU, or does it now share the opinion of Czech President Václav Klaus that the decrees and associated laws remain necessary in order to defend the ‘Czech national interests’, with the result that he is trying to obtain an opt-out clause from the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Does the Commission believe that there is a legal connection between the ‘Klaus clause’ and the Benes Decrees? Would such an opt-out clause not simply restrict the enforceability of social and other fundamental rights for Czech citizens, as Czech opposition politicians maintain?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2012)

Regarding the so-called Benes decrees, as noted in the Commission's previous replies E-5310/11, E-1925/11, E-6938/08, E-4307/08, E-4776/07 and E-2238/04 (167), historical acts, undertaken by the authorities of the former Czechoslovakia prior to accession and not giving rise to new legal effects which would be contrary to Union law, cannot be subject to retroactive scrutiny.

As regards a possible application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to its Article 51(1), the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it does not appear that the matter referred to is related to the implementation of EC law. In that matter it is thus for Member States alone to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international agreements and from their internal legislation — are respected. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to comment further on the fundamental rights issues raised by the question of the Honourable Member. The future Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic will not change this situation.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-008384/12

à la Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(25 septembre 2012)

Objet: Contrôle technique des véhicules à moteur

La proposition de règlement présentée le 13 juillet dernier par la Commission européenne, relative au contrôle technique des véhicules à moteur, soulève des interrogations méthodologiques. Dans son texte, la Commission invoque des «études approfondies» selon lesquelles «8 % des accidents impliquant des motocycles sont dus ou liés à des défaillances techniques».

La Commission peut-elle préciser à quelles études elle fait précisément référence? Sont-elles plurielles? Ont-elles, surtout, un lien avec des centres de contrôle technique, qui pourraient en être la source? Les fédérations nationales de motards contestent en effet la statistique avancée, et mettent en avant un chiffre de… 0,7 % (pourcentage où l'âge du véhicule est la source principale de l'accident), selon l'étude «Maids» présentée, en 2004, par les constructeurs de deux-roues à moteur. La Commission peut-elle à cet égard préciser si elle a soutenu cette dernière étude, et selon quelles modalités?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-008596/12

à la Commission

Brice Hortefeux (PPE)

(27 septembre 2012)

Objet: Durcissement des contrôles techniques sur les véhicules motorisés

Le 13 juillet 2012, la Commission a présenté une proposition visant à compléter la réglementation actuelle en matière de contrôle technique dans le sens d'un durcissement des règles et d'une couverture plus large du type de véhicules motorisés contrôlés.

La Commission affirme que les défaillances techniques, qui augmentent avec l'âge du véhicule, sont responsables de 6 % de l'ensemble des accidents de voiture et de 8 % des accidents de moto. Elle établit donc une corrélation directe entre les défaillances techniques et les accidents de la route en se fondant sur des données statistiques.

1. Dans ce cas, la Commission pourrait-elle publier la ou les études à l'appui desquelles elle a produit cette proposition?

2. La Commission pourrait-elle préciser dans quels pays cette étude a été menée et sur quelle période?

3. Pourrait-elle préciser quel échantillon de véhicules motorisés a été étudié?

4. La Commission est-elle en mesure de prouver que le contrôle technique des deux roues contribuerait à la diminution des accidents de la route, de même qu'un contrôle annuel pour les voitures?

5. Est-elle en mesure de prouver que l'obligation d'un contrôle technique contribuerait à la baisse du nombre d'accidents des deux roues chez les jeunes?

Réponse commune donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission

(30 octobre 2012)

Les références des études se trouvent dans l'analyse d'impact (168) sur laquelle se fonde la proposition de la Commission, et ces études ont toutes été rendues publiques (169). Celles-ci couvrent une grande partie de l'Union européenne. Les échantillons de véhicules routiers étudiés varient en fonction des études. En ce qui concerne les accidents de véhicules, notamment ceux impliquant des motocycles, il convient de souligner que la question de la causalité des accidents est complexe et, qu'en général, le même accident de la route est dû à plusieurs causes. Dès lors, les études mentionnées par la Commission présentent différents pourcentages, selon que les défaillances techniques sont la cause principale ou l'un des facteurs. Par exemple, le chiffre de 0,7 % annoncé dans l'étude Maids (170) porte sur les accidents dans lesquels les défaillances techniques constituent le facteur principal alors que cette étude conclut aussi que, dans plus de 5 % des accidents, les défaillances techniques en constituent l'un des facteurs.

Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les cyclomoteurs, très souvent utilisés par les jeunes conducteurs, la Commission aimerait attirer l'attention de l'Honorable Parlementaire sur une publication récente de l'administration suédoise des transports (171) qui se fonde sur une analyse des accidents mortels survenus au cours de la période 2005-2011 pour montrer que seuls quatre cyclomoteurs sur dix impliqués dans des accidents mortels ne présentaient pas de défaillance technique établie. Au moins 23 % des cyclomoteurs impliqués dans des accidents mortels étaient débridés.

L'analyse d'impact de la Commission a établi qu'il existe de solides preuves empiriques et scientifiques démontrant que les mesures envisagées permettront de renforcer la sécurité routière, notamment pour les jeunes conducteurs d'anciens véhicules et les conducteurs de deux-roues motorisés, qui seront moins souvent impliqués dans des accidents liés à une défaillance technique.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008384/12

to the Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles

The proposal for a regulation put forward by the Commission on 13 July 2012 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles raises questions about methodology. The Commission text mentions ‘in-depth studies’ according to which ‘8 % of accidents involving motorcycles happen as a direct or indirect result of technical defects’.

Could the Commission specify the studies to which it is referring? Is there more than one study? And are they linked to roadworthiness test centres, from where they might emanate? National motorcycling associations disagree with the figure given, suggesting a figure of 0.7 % (the percentage for which the age of the vehicle is the main cause of the accident), which is taken from the ‘Maids’ study produced in 2004 by manufacturers of powered two-wheelers. Will the Commission state whether — and in what way — it supported this study?

Question for written answer P-008596/12

to the Commission

Brice Hortefeux (PPE)

(27 September 2012)

Subject: Tougher roadworthiness tests on motor vehicles

On 13 July 2012, the Commission submitted a proposal aimed at supplementing current rules on roadworthiness tests. Under the proposal, rules would be strengthened and a greater number of motor vehicle categories would be subject to tests.

The Commission points out that technical failures, which increase as a vehicle ages, are responsible for 6 % of all car accidents and 8 % of all motorcycle accidents. It therefore establishes, on the basis of statistical data, a direct correlation between technical failures and road accidents.

1. Can the Commission publish the study or studies on which it drew when drafting this proposal?

2. Can it indicate in which countries this study was carried out and over what period?

3. Can it indicate what sample group of motor vehicles was studied?

4. Is the Commission able to prove that roadworthiness tests on two‐wheeled vehicles, as well as annual tests on cars, would help reduce the number of road accidents?

5. Is it able to prove that making roadworthiness tests compulsory would lead to a fall in the number of accidents involving young people and two‐wheeled vehicles?

Joint answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2012)

Reference to studies are indicated in the impact assessment (172) on which the Commission's proposal is based on, all of which are publicly available (173). These studies cover a significant part of the European Union. The different sample groups of road vehicles depend on the different studies. As regards vehicle accidents, notably those involving motorcycle, it should be stressed that the matter of accident causalities is a complex subject where usually more than one element contribute to the causality of an individual road accident. Therefore the studies mentioned by the Commission provide different percentages, depending on whether the technical deficiencies are the primary cause or one of the factors. For instance the figure of 0.7 % in the Maids Study (174) relates to accidents where technical defects constitute the primary accident factor, while the same study also concludes that in more than 5 % of accidents technical failure constitutes one of the contributing factors.

Furthermore in relation to mopeds — a vehicle very frequently used by young drivers — the Commission would like to draw the Honourable member's attention to a recent publication of the Swedish Transport Administration (175) that, based on analysis of fatal accidents, period 2005-2011, shows that only 4 out of 10 mopeds involved in fatal accidents had no known technical defects. At least 23 % of mopeds involved in fatal accidents were tuned.

As established in the Commission's Impact Assessment there is strong empiric and research evidence that the envisaged measures will result in enhanced road safety, in particular among young drivers of old vehicles and riders of powered two-wheel vehicles that would be less frequently involved in accidents in relation to technical failure.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-008385/12

à la Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(25 septembre 2012)

Objet: Report de la réévaluation de la sécurité de l'aspartame

En mai 2011, vous avez demandé à l'EFSA d'avancer la réévaluation complète de la sécurité de l'aspartame (E 951) à 2012.

Précédemment programmé pour être achevé en 2020, l'examen de cet édulcorant relève de la réévaluation systématique de tous les additifs alimentaires autorisés dans l'Union avant le 20 janvier 2009, comme prévu par le règlement UE no 257/2010.

L'EFSA a accepté ce mandat et a lancé un appel public en vue de recueillir des données scientifiques, ainsi qu'un réexamen approfondi de la littérature, permettant au groupe scientifique sur les additifs alimentaires et les sources de nutriments ajoutés aux aliments (ANS) de l'Autorité de commencer son évaluation des risques dès le début 2012.

Attendue pour juillet 2012, la réévaluation complète des risques et de la dose journalière admissible (DJA) de l'aspartame sera finalement réalisée d'ici mai 2013.

Pouvez-vous préciser les raisons de ce report?

Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission

(31 octobre 2012)

Dans une lettre datée du 11 juillet 2012, l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) a demandé à la Commission de prolonger jusqu'au mois de mai 2013 le délai de réévaluation de l'aspartame (E 951). En effet, elle a reçu, à la suite de son appel public de données scientifiques sur cette substance, plus de huit cents ensembles de données inédites — dont des données brutes — ou déjà publiées. Pour analyser ces informations de façon approfondie et se prononcer sur les principales études à prendre en considération dans la caractérisation des dangers, le groupe d'experts de l'Autorité a besoin de plus de temps qu'initialement prévu. D'autre part, ce groupe a constaté que des données supplémentaires étaient requises quant à l'occurrence d'un produit de dégradation de l'aspartame dans les aliments, produit connu sous le nom d'acide 5-benzyl-3,6-dioxo-2-pipérazineacétique (DKP).

Par ailleurs, tenant compte du fait que l'EFSA comptait soumettre le projet d'avis à une consultation publique s'étendant sur les mois de décembre 2012 et janvier 2013, la Commission a accepté d'accorder la prolongation demandée.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008385/12

to the Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Postponement of re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame

In May 2011, the Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to bring forward the complete re-evaluation of aspartame (E 951) to 2012.

The evaluation of this sweetener, originally scheduled for completion in 2020, is part of the comprehensive re-evaluation of all food additives that were already permitted in the EU before 20 January 2009, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 257/2010.

The EFSA accepted the remit, made a public call for submissions, with a view to collecting scientific evidence, and undertook a thorough reassessment of the relevant literature, so that its panel on food additives and nutrient sources added to food (ANS) could begin work on the risk evaluation in early 2012.

The complete re-evaluation of the risks, and the acceptable daily intake, of aspartame was expected to appear in July 2012 but is now scheduled for May 2013.

Can the Commission explain in detail the reasons for the postponement?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2012)

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) requested the Commission by letter of 11 July 2012 to extend the deadline for the re-evaluation of aspartame (E 951) to May 2013 for the following reasons: with its public call for scientific data regarding aspartame over 800 datasets were submitted to EFSA. This data encompassed previously published data as well as unpublished data, also including raw data on aspartame. In order to ensure that the expert Panel in EFSA can thoroughly evaluate this information and take a decision on the key studies to be used in the hazard characterisation, more time for discussions in the relevant Panel is needed than originally foreseen. In addition, the Panel identified the need for additional data on the occurrence of a breakdown product of aspartame in foodstuffs known as 5-benzyl-3,6-dioxo-2-piperazineacetic acid (DKP). This public call for data was published in July 2012.

Taking also into account that EFSA also intends to organise a public consultation on the draft opinion during December 2012 — January 2013, the Commission has accepted the requested extension of the deadline.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-008386/12

an die Kommission

Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Projekt „CleanIT“

In dem von der Kommission geförderten und von der niederländischen Polizei koordinierten Projekt „CleanIT“ wird ein „Leitfaden“ für den „Kampf gegen den Terrorismus im Internet“ ausgearbeitet.

1. Warum werden die Vorschläge zu CleanIT als „vertraulich“ bzw. „nicht zu publizieren“ eingestuft?

2. Welche Ziele verfolgt die Kommission mit CleanIT?

3. Welche Ziele verfolgt die Kommission mit der nächsten CleanIT-Konferenz am 5./6. November 2012 in Wien?

4. In dem jüngsten CleanIT-Papier wird unter anderem als Ziel „die Aufhebung aller gesetzlichen Bestimmungen, die der Filterung/Überwachung der Internetanschlüsse von Angestellten in Betrieben entgegenstehen“ genannt. Was sagt die Kommission dazu?

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008569/12

an die Kommission

Robert Goebbels (S&D)

(27. September 2012)

Betrifft: Clean IT will sämtliche Kommunikation im Internet überwachen

Das von der Europäischen Kommission finanzierte und von der niederländischen Polizei koordinierte Clean-IT-Projekt zielt offiziell darauf ab, die terroristische Nutzung des Internets zu unterbinden.

Internet-Firmen wird empfohlen, ihre allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen und Nutzungsbestimmungen so zu ändern, dass die illegale terroristische Nutzung des Internets unterbunden wird.

Laut Clean IT gibt es keine eindeutige Definition von terroristischer Nutzung des Internets. Auch unterscheidet sich eine eventuelle terroristische Nutzung des Internets in der Technik nicht vom normalen, legalen Gebrauch des Internets.

Diese Sachlage überlässt es Firmen, Inhalte nach ihrem subjektiven Urteilsvermögen zu verbieten, da die Rechtsdurchsetzung auf Privatunternehmen, etwa Provider, übergeht. Unliebsame Inhalte würden somit präventiv herausgefiltert und den Strafverfolgungsbehörden gemeldet.

1. Verfolgt die Kommission diese Vorgänge?

2. Gedenkt die Kommission, etwas gegen diese Form der Internet-Kontrolle zu unternehmen?

3. Ist die Kommission nicht der Meinung, dass sich das Projekt Clean IT wesentlich von seinem ursprünglich angekündigten Ziel entfernt hat?

4. Was berechtigt Internetprovider, die Überwachung der Internet-Aktivitäten selbst zu unternehmen?

Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission

(19. November 2012)

Clean IT ist eine Initiative des niederländischen Ministeriums für Sicherheit und Justiz, die öffentliche und private Partner zu einer offenen Debatte darüber zusammenführt, wie mit illegalen terroristischen Inhalten im Internet umgegangen werden soll (176).

Das Projekt entspricht der Aufforderung des Rates, „Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Missbrauchs des Internet zu terroristischen Zwecken zu entwickeln, wobei jedoch die Grundrechte und Rechtsgrundsätze zu achten sind“ (177) sowie „eine europäische Mustervereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Strafverfolgungsbehörden und privaten Betreibern“ (178) auszuarbeiten.

Dieses Projekt ist eine Bottom-up-Initiative ohne legislative Ziele. Es wurde eine entsprechende Website (179) eingerichtet, die jedem Gelegenheit geben soll, Gedanken und Ideen auszutauschen. Die Teilnehmer der Clean-IT-Workshops werden vom Projektkoordinator (dem niederländischen Ministerium für Sicherheit und Justiz) so ausgewählt und eingeladen, dass alle Interessenkreise in ausgewogener Weise vertreten sind (180).

Die Kommission ist nicht an der Ausarbeitung des Clean-IT-Dokuments beteiligt und nimmt auch nicht an dem in Kürze stattfindenden Workshop in Wien teil. Das Dokument selbst ist nicht vertraulich, sondern lediglich ein Arbeitspapier, das zurzeit noch häufig geändert wird, weshalb es noch als nicht zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt gilt. Die endgültige Fassung wird allerdings veröffentlicht und auf einer Konferenz Anfang 2013 zur Diskussion gestellt.

Die Schlussfolgerungen des Projekts werden ausschließlich die Meinung der Autoren wiedergeben, nicht aber die Auffassung der Europäischen Kommission. Die Kommission wird keine Eigentumsrechte an den Ergebnissen von Clean IT besitzen. Allerdings wird sie, wie bei allen vom Programm „Kriminalprävention und Kriminalitätsbekämpfung“ (ISEC) kofinanzierten Projekten, bei der abschließenden Evaluierung bewerten, ob mit dem Projekt die im Projektvorschlag beschriebenen Ergebnisse erreicht worden sind.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008569/12

à la Commission

Robert Goebbels (S&D)

(27 septembre 2012)

Objet: Le projet Clean IT entend surveiller toutes les communications sur Internet

Le projet Clean IT, financé par la Commission et coordonné par la police néerlandaise, a pour objectif officiel d'empêcher l'utilisation d'Internet à des fins terroristes.

Ainsi, il est recommandé aux entreprises du web de modifier leurs conditions générales de vente et leurs conditions d'utilisation de façon à empêcher les utilisations terroristes illégales d'Internet.

Or, selon Clean IT, il n'existe pas de définition incontestable de ce qu'est une utilisation terroriste d'internet. Sur le plan technique, il n'est pas possible de distinguer une éventuelle utilisation terroriste d'internet d'un usage normal et légal.

Dans cette situation, les entreprises ont toute latitude pour apprécier, de leur point de vue, quels contenus elles doivent interdire, car c'est aux entreprises privées, à savoir aux fournisseurs d'accès, qu'il revient finalement de faire appliquer la réglementation. Ainsi, les contenus indésirables seraient filtrés à titre préventif et signalés aux services répressifs.

Réponse commune donnée par Mme Malmström au nom de la Commission

(19 novembre 2012)

L'initiative «Clean IT» («Nettoyer» l'internet) est organisée par le ministère néerlandais de la sécurité et de la justice. Elle rassemble des partenaires publics et privés en vue de la tenue d'un débat ouvert sur la façon de lutter contre les contenus illégaux à visée terroriste sur l'internet.

Ce projet répond à un appel du Conseil européen à «mettre au point des mesures visant à lutter contre l'utilisation abusive d'Internet à des fins terroristes, dans le respect des droits et principes fondamentaux» et à élaborer «un modèle d'accord européen en matière de coopération entre les services répressifs et les opérateurs privés (…)».

Le projet repose sur une initiative venant de la base («bottom-up») sans aucune visée législative. Un site web spécifique a été créé, fournissant à chacun la possibilité de faire part de son point de vue et de ses idées. Les participants aux ateliers «Clean IT» sont sélectionnés et invités par le coordinateur du projet (le ministère néerlandais de la sécurité et de la justice) afin d'assurer une représentation équilibrée de toutes les parties prenantes concernées.

La Commission ne participe pas au processus d'élaboration du document «Clean IT» et elle ne prendra pas part au prochain atelier organisé à Vienne. Le document lui-même n'est pas classifié, mais est un simple document de travail sujet à des modifications fréquentes durant la phase actuelle, raison pour laquelle il est spécifié qu'il n'est pas destiné à être publié. Sa version définitive sera cependant rendue publique et fera l'objet d'un débat lors d'une conférence qui se tiendra au début de l'année 2013.

Les conclusions auxquelles ce projet aboutira reflèteront uniquement l'opinion de leurs auteurs et ne représenteront aucunement les opinions de la Commission européenne. Celle-ci n'aura pas de droit de propriété sur le document «Clean IT» final; néanmoins, elle évaluera si le projet a, ou non, produit les résultats attendus décrits dans la proposition du projet, comme prévu pour tous les projets cofinancés par le programme ISEC («Prévenir et combattre la criminalité»).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-008906/12

à Comissão

Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE)

(4 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Projeto Clean IT

Em 21 de setembro de 2012, a European Digital Rights, uma organização de defesa dos direitos civis, divulgou um documento redigido no âmbito do projeto Clean IT, financiado pela Comissão, sobre o uso da internet para fins terroristas (181). O documento suscita sérias preocupações quanto à compatibilidade das atividades e propostas do projeto com os direitos fundamentais, apesar das garantias apresentadas no sítio Web do projeto de que este «não tem como objetivo restringir a liberdade na internet, embora as questões de segurança sejam uma preocupação, pelo que se pretende limitar o uso da internet para fins terroristas» (182). A Comissão financia outros projetos como a coligação para a segurança em linha das crianças, com o propósito de combater a circulação de material sobre abusos sexuais de crianças na internet.

Pode a Comissão explicar por que motivo financiou um projeto de cooperação que, aparentemente, não está sujeito a quaisquer obrigações mínimas relativamente aos níveis de representatividade dos participantes?

Resposta conjunta dada pela Comissária Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão

(19 de novembro de 2012)

A iniciativa Clean IT é gerida pelo Ministério da Segurança e da Justiça dos Países Baixos. Reúne parceiros públicos e privados com o objetivo de levar a cabo um debate aberto sobre a forma de lidar com conteúdos ilegais e terroristas na Internet (183).

O projeto responde ao apelo do Conselho de «desenvolver medidas para combater o uso ilícito da Internet para fins terroristas, no respeito dos direitos e princípios fundamentais. (184)» e elaborar «um modelo de acordo europeu de cooperação entre as autoridades de aplicação da lei e os operadores privados (…)» (185).

O projeto é uma iniciativa da base para o topo sem objetivos de natureza legislativa. Foi criado um sítio Web (186) específico com o objetivo de dar a todos os interessados a oportunidade de partilhar opiniões e ideias. Os participantes nos workshops da iniciativa Clean IT são selecionados e convidados pelo Coordenador do Projeto (Ministério da Segurança e da Justiça dos Países Baixos) para garantir uma representação equilibrada de todas as partes interessadas (187).

A Comissão não participa no processo de redação do documento Clean IT e não participará no workshop que se realizará em breve em Viena. O documento em si não é um documento classificado mas apenas um documento de trabalho sujeito a alterações frequentes nesta fase, motivo pelo qual está atualmente marcado como não sendo para publicação. Contudo, a versão final será tornada pública e discutida numa conferência no início de 2013.

As conclusões do projeto refletirão apenas a opinião dos autores e não representarão os pontos de vista da Comissão Europeia. A Comissão não será proprietária do resultado final do projeto Clean IT; contudo, no âmbito da avaliação final do projeto, a Comissão avaliará se o projeto alcançou ou não os resultados descritos na respetiva proposta, como é o caso em relação a todos os projetos cofinanciados pelo ISEC.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-008386/12

to the Commission

Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: ‘CleanIT’ project

A ‘manual’ for the fight against terrorism in the Internet is being put together as part of the ‘CleanIT’ project which is promoted by the Commission and coordinated by the Dutch police.

1. Why are the proposals concerning CleanIT categorised as ‘confidential’ and ‘not for publication’?

2. What are the Commission’s objectives with CleanIT?

3. What are the Commission’s objectives with the coming CleanIT conference, due to take place in Vienna on 5/6 November 2012?

4. One objective which appears in the latest CleanIT paper is given as ‘the lifting of all legal requirements preventing the filtering/monitoring of the Internet connections of employees in businesses’. What is the Commission’s view of this?

Question for written answer E-008569/12

to the Commission

Robert Goebbels (S&D)

(27 September 2012)

Subject: Clean IT project seeks to monitor all communication via the Internet

The official objective of the Clean IT project that is financed by the European Commission and coordinated by the Dutch police is to prevent the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.

Internet firms are being advised to amend their general terms of business and conditions of use so as to prevent illegal use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.

According to Clean IT, there is no clear definition of the term ‘terrorist use of the Internet’, and no distinction can be made in the technology between the use of the Internet for potentially terrorist purposes and normal, legal use of the Internet.

In this situation, it is left to firms to decide whether or not to ban web content according to their own subjective assessment, since enforcement of the law is being transferred to private enterprises, i.e. the providers. Undesirable content would thus be filtered out as a preventive measure and reported to the law enforcement authorities.

1. Is the Commission following these developments?

2. Does it intend to take any action against this form of Internet monitoring?

3. Does it not think that the Clean IT project has deviated substantially from its originally announced aim?

4. What justification is there for Internet providers to take over the task of monitoring activity on the Internet themselves?

Question for written answer P-008906/12

to the Commission

Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE)

(4 October 2012)

Subject: Clean IT

On 21 September 2012, European Digital Rights, a civil rights organisation, released a document written by the Commission-funded Clean IT project on the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes (188). The document raises serious concerns regarding the compatibility of the project’s activities and proposals with fundamental rights, despite the assurances on the project’s website that the ‘project does not aim to restrict Internet freedom, but we do have security concerns and want to limit the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes’ (189). The Commission is also funding projects such as the ‘CEO Coalition’ to fight child abuse material on the Internet.

Why has the Commission funded a ‘cooperation’ project which appears to have no minimum obligations regarding levels of representativeness of the participants?

Joint answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2012)

The Clean IT initiative is run by the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice. It brings together public and private partners for an open debate on how to deal with illegal, terrorist content on the Internet (190).

The project responds to the call from the Council to: ‘develop measures to combat the misuse of the Internet for terrorist purposes while respecting fundamental rights and principles. (191)’ and to draft ‘a European agreement model for cooperation between law enforcement agencies and private operators (…)’ (192).

The project is a bottom-up initiative with no legislative aims. A dedicated website (193) has been developed to provide everyone with the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas. Participants in the Clean IT workshops are selected and invited by the Project Coordinator (Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice) to ensure a balanced representation of all stakeholders concerned (194).

The Commission is not participating in the drafting process of the Clean IT document and will not take part in the upcoming workshop in Vienna. The document itself is not a classified one but simply a working document subject to frequent changes at this stage, which is why it is currently marked as not for publication. However, its final version will be made public and discussed at a conference at the beginning of 2013.

The conclusions of the project will only reflect the opinion of the authors and will not represent the views of the European Commission. The Commission will not be an owner of the Clean IT final result, however, as a part of the project's final evaluation, the Commission will assess whether or not the project has produced the deliverables as described in the project proposal, as it is the case with all projects co-funded by ISEC.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008387/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Accessibility of public transport in Europe for the visually impaired

One in six people in the EU (an estimated 80 million) have a disability. Included in this figure are the estimated 15.5 million European citizens who are visually impaired.

While the safety level of rail transport in Europe is high, there are a number of rail services which have a poor audible announcement system, which makes it increasingly difficult for visually impaired passengers to travel.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that all rail services have a high-quality audible announcement system and are accessible to the visually impaired?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2012)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to Commission Decision 2008/164/EC concerning technical specifications of interoperability for persons with reduced mobility (195) (PRM TSI) which has as its objective to enhance the accessibility of rail transport. The PRM TSI consists of technical requirements which apply to stations and rolling stock and has been applicable in all Member States from 1 July 2008 and applies to new, renewed and upgraded infrastructure and rolling stock on the trans-European rail network. Other national accessibility legislation and requirements may be applicable where the PRM TSI does not apply.

As regards audible announcement systems which facilitate rail travel for passengers with visual impairments, the Commission would refer to sub-Section 4.1.2.12. of the TSI which sets out basic parameters related to spoken information within railway stations and to sub-Section 4.2.2.8. of the TSI which sets out basic parameters related to customer information (including public address systems) on board trains. In addition, other provisions in the TSI relate to tactile surfaces and signage, obstacle free routes and lighting.

Finally, Regulation 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations (196) includes provisions on minimum information to be provided by railway undertakings during a journey. Article 8(3) of the regulation establishes that such information should be provided in the most appropriate format, paying particular attention to the needs of people with auditory or visual impairments.

The Commission seeks to ensure that rail transport in Europe is accessible to all, including passengers with disabilities, and monitors the implementation of the above legislation closely.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008388/12

adresată Comisiei (Vicepreședintelui/Înaltului Reprezentant)

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(25 septembrie 2012)

Subiect: VP/HR — Arestarea a patru cetățeni români în Indonezia

În data de 7 septembrie, patru cetățeni români (Titel Maghiar, Ionuț Maghiar, Sergiu Berci și Denis Daniel Ross) au fost arestați în Republica Indonezia, Insula Maluku, sub acuzația de a fi comercializat literatură religioasă creștină (Biblia). Cei patru sunt misionari la The Christian and Missionary Alliance, cu sediul în statul Colorado, SUA. Ulterior, cei patru cetățeni europeni au fost puși în libertate.

Vicepreședintele / Înaltul Reprezentant este rugat să precizeze în ce mod ar putea Serviciul de Acțiune Externă să se implice în prevenirea unor astfel de situații, pe viitor, precum și dacă are cunoștință de cazuri similare în Republica Indonezia sau în alte state.

Răspuns dat de dna Ashton, Înalt Reprezentant/vicepreședinte, în numele Comisiei

(22 noiembrie 2012)

Doamna Ashton, Înalt Reprezentant/vicepreședinte (ÎR/VP), nu are cunoștință de acest caz specific din Republica Indonezia, însă s-au înregistrat incidente similare în trecut. Cu ocazia dialogului UE‐Indonezia privind drepturile omului din mai 2012, Uniunea Europeană a ridicat, în mod special, problema tratamentului la care sunt supuși creștinii. De asemenea, UE a accentuat necesitatea respectării de către Indonezia a obligațiilor internaționale privind drepturile omului și a interpretării, în sens larg, a libertății religioase sau de credință în temeiul dreptului internațional.

De asemenea, delegația Uniunii Europene la Jakarta întreține contacte frecvente cu reprezentanții principalelor ONG ‐ uri care își desfășoară activitatea în domeniul libertății religioase. În acest sens, delegația UE a organizat, în iulie 2010 și octombrie 2011, două seminare importante privind aspectele interconfesionale și pentru luna octombrie 2012, o conferință cu societatea civilă în Jakarta, intitulată „Nediscriminarea: de la principii la practică”. Mai mult, delegația UE lucrează pe teme interconfesionale împreună cu Nahdlatul Ulama, cea mai mare organizație musulmană la nivel mondial cu rol esențial în protecția minorităților din Indonezia.

În ceea ce privește situația din alte țări, UE va continua să abordeze problema libertății religioase sau de credință și, prin adoptarea noilor orientări ale UE până la sfârșitul anului 2012, ar trebui să își sporească gradul de vizibilitate în materie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008388/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Arrest of four Romanian citizens in Indonesia

On 7 September, four Romanian citizens (Titel Maghiar, Ionut Maghiar, Sergiu Berci and Denis Daniel Ross) were arrested on Maluku Island in the Republic of Indonesia, accused of selling Christian religious literature (the Bible). The four are missionaries of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, based in the state of Colorado, USA. The four European citizens were subsequently released.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative specify how the External Action Service could help prevent such situations in the future, and if she knows of similar cases in the Republic of Indonesia or in other countries?

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

(22 November 2012)

The HR/VP is not aware of this specific case in the Republic of Indonesia but there have been similar incidents in the past. The EU specifically raised the treatment of Christians at the last EU-Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue, which took place in May 2012. The EU equally stressed the need for Indonesia to fulfil international human rights obligations and the broad interpretation of the freedom of religion or belief under international law.

The EU Delegation in Jakarta is also in frequent contact with representatives of leading NGOs dealing with freedom of religion. In this regard, the EU Delegation has organised two major seminars on interfaith issues, in July 2010 and in October 2011 and a conference with civil society in Jakarta in October 2012 on ‘Non-Discrimination: From Principles to Practice’. Moreover, the EU Delegation is working on interfaith issues with Nahdlatul Ulama, the world's largest Muslim organisation which has a pivotal role in protecting minorities in Indonesia.

As regards other countries, the EU will carry on addressing the issue of Freedom of Religion or Belief and should enhance its visibility on the issue by adopting new EU Guidelines before the end of 2012.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008390/12

til Kommissionen

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(25. september 2012)

Om: Inddragelse af ikke-indløst pantmidler — den danske finanslov 2013

I det danske finanslovsforslag for 2013 fremgår det af en tekstanmærkning (nr. 23.23.08) under Miljøministeriet, at det pålægges Dansk Retursystem A/S at indbetale 8,6 mio. EUR (64 mio. DKK) for 2013 og 2014 og 10 mio. EUR (75 mio. DKK) i de følgende år. Pengene skal komme fra ikke indløst pant i Dansk Retursystem A/S. Det er penge, der stammer fra flasker og dåser, der ikke bliver afleveret tilbage i butikkerne. Pantpengene bliver brugt til at forbedre systemet, til miljøinitiativer og informationskampagner, samt almennyttige formål, herunder Hold Danmark Rent.

Dansk Retursystem A/S er et privat selskab, som ejes af bryggerierne, og som har en tildelt eneret. Selskabet drives på non-profit basis og har til opgave at indsamle tomme engangsemballager til genanvendelse. De ikke-indløste pantmidler opstår inden for indsamlingssystemet (pantsystemet) og anvendes i dag inden for indsamlingssystemet. Det er en del af de midler, som den danske regering nu foreslår, at selskabet skal overføre til staten.

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik

(30. november 2012)

Direktiv 94/62/EF om emballage og emballageaffald (197) indeholder ikke specifikke krav vedrørende det emne, der rejses af det ærede medlem. Det er heller ikke omfattet af Kommissionens meddelelse 2009/C 107/01 om drikkevareemballage, pantordninger og fri bevægelighed for varer (198). Dertil kommer, at de foranstaltninger, der gennemføres i Danmark, ikke synes at være i modstrid med de gældende regler om producentens ansvar.

Det specificeres i emballagedirektivet, at indsamlings‐ og genanvendelsessystemer skal gælde for importerede varer på ikke-diskriminerende betingelser. Det fremgår af de oplysninger, Kommissionen råder over, at der i den danske ordning ikke diskrimineres for så vidt angår afgifter, der skal betales af importører og indenlandske producenter.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008390/12

to the Commission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: The confiscation of non-redeemed deposits — the Danish Finance Act 2013

According to a text annotation (No 23.23.08) from the Danish Ministry of the Environment in the Danish budget proposal for 2013, Dansk Retursystem A/S is to pay EUR 8.6 million (DKK 64 million) for 2013 and 2014 and EUR 10 million (DKK 75 million) in the following years. The money is to come from the non-redeemed deposits of Dansk Retursystem A/S. This is money that comes from bottles and cans not returned to the stores. The deposit money will be used for improving the system, for environmental initiatives and information campaigns, and charitable causes, including Keep Denmark Tidy (Hold Danmark Rent).

Dansk Retursystem A/S is a private company owned by the breweries and has been granted a monopoly. The company operates on a non-profit basis and is responsible for collecting empty disposable packaging for recycling. The unredeemed deposit funds accrue within the collection system (the deposit system) and are currently used within the collection system. It is part of the funds the Danish Government now proposes the company transfer to the state.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2012)

Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste (199) does not set out specific requirements concerning the issue raised by the Honourable Member; neither is it covered by Commission Communication 2009/C 107/01 on beverage packaging, deposit systems and free movement of goods (200). Moreover, the measures being implemented in Denmark do not seem to conflict with the existing rules on producer's responsibility.

The Packaging Directive specifies that the collection and recovery systems need to apply to imported products under non-discriminatory conditions. The information available to the Commission indicates that under the Danish system there is no discrimination as regards the charges to be paid by importers and domestic producers.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008391/12

aan de Commissie

Luca. Hartong (NI) en Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(25 september 2012)

Betreft: Vervolgvragen absorptiepercentages EU-spoorprojecten

Op 18 september jl. gaf de Raad ons antwoord op eerder gestelde vragen inzake de absorptiepercentages van EU-spoorprojecten (E-006163/2012). De Raad gaf in zijn beantwoording de juistheid van de PVV aan, namelijk dat „…vrijgemaakte kredieten uiteindelijk ten goede kunnen komen aan de nationale begrotingen…” In dat kader de volgende vervolgvragen aan de Commissie:

Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie

(12 november 2012)

24 lidstaten hebben in het kader van het TEN-T-programma in totaal 384 projecten ingediend voor een totaal bedrag van 12 552,1 miljoen euro. Daarvan werden er 173 geselecteerd voor een totale kostprijs van 4 526,6 miljoen euro. 35 projecten zijn voltooid, 67 zijn nog in uitvoering, vijf projecten werden geschrapt en twee andere zijn stilgelegd. In de TEN-T-subsidiebesluiten voor spoorwegprojecten wordt meestal gewerkt met jaarlijks tranches zodat het niveau van de toegekende middelen zeer nauw aansluit bij de financiële en technische vooruitgang van de projecten. Bedragen die niet worden uitgegeven, kunnen derhalve tijdig worden  teruggevorderd en opnieuw in het programma worden geïnvesteerd. De omvang van de vrijgemaakte kredieten op het einde van het MFK zal daardoor zeer bescheiden zijn.

De structuurfondsen en het Cohesiefonds vallen onder een systeem van gedeeld beheer waarbij veel besluiten door de autoriteiten van de lidstaten worden genomen en zij een groot aantal taken voor hun rekening nemen. De Commissie ontvangt geen informatie van de lidstaten over individuele vervoersprojecten waarvan de totale kostprijs minder dan 50 miljoen euro bedraagt. Zij beschikt over gegevens inzake programmatoewijzingen (goedgekeurde ontwerpplannen), maar niet over de verdeling van de uitgaven per thema. Elk jaar wordt de Commissie via de door de nationale administraties van de lidstaten ingediende jaarlijkse uitvoeringsverslagen in kennis gesteld van de door de beheersautoriteiten aan de verschillende sectoren en subsectoren toegewezen bedragen (geen betalingen). In de bijlage is aangegeven welke bedragen uit het Europees Fonds voor Regionale Ontwikkeling (EFRO) en het Cohesiefonds binnen het programma 2007-2013 zijn toegewezen aan trans-Europese spoorwegprojecten.

De Commissie is het eens met het antwoord van de Raad en wijst erop dat de in het kader van het Cohesiebeleid vrijgemaakte kredieten niet  terugvloeien naar de EU-begroting, maar definitief in mindering worden gebracht van de toewijzingen van de lidstaten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008391/12

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI) and Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Follow-up questions on absorption rates of EU rail projects

On 18 September 2012, the Council replied to our earlier question on the absorption rates of EU rail projects (E-006163/2012). In its reply, the Council vindicated the PVV’s position by saying that ‘decommitted funds may ultimately benefit the national budgets’. In view of this, please answer the follow-up questions below:

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2012)

As regards the TEN-T Programme, 24 Member States have submitted applications for 384 rail projects, for a total of EUR 12 552.1 million, out of which 173 were selected, amounting to EUR 4 526.6 million; 35 projects have been completed, 67 are still ongoing, five projects have been cancelled and two others discontinued. Most of the TEN-T funding Decisions adopted for rail projects foresee annual instalments such that the level of commitment is following very closely the financial and technical progress achieved by the projects. Amounts which will not be spent can therefore timely be recovered and reinjected in the Programme. The level of decommitted funds at the end of the MFF will therefore be minimal.

As regards Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund they are operating under shared management system whereby many decisions are taken and tasks executed by the Member State's authorities. The Commission does not receive information from Member States for individual transport projects whose total cost is below EUR 50 million. While thematic data on programme allocations (agreed initial plans) is available, the Commission does not have data on spending thematically. The Commission is informed by Member States once a year, via the Annual Implementation Reports sent by national administrations, about the amounts selected (not paid) by the managing authorities by sector and subsector. As regards allocations for TEN-T rail in the programmes approved for 2007-2013, the amounts of aid from ERDF and Cohesion Fund foreseen are indicated in the annex.

The Commission agrees with the Council reply and notes that decommitments under cohesion policy do not see funds returned to the EU budget, but instead see funds deducted permanently from Member State allocations.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008392/12

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(25 septembrie 2012)

Subiect: Declarația din 12 septembrie 2012 a Președintelui Barroso în Parlamentul European

În timpul dezbaterii privind Situația Uniunii (miercuri, 12 septembrie 2012, la Strasbourg), Președintele Barroso a făcut următoarea afirmație, adresându-se lui Nigel Farage, copreședinte al Grupului Europa Libertății și Democrației: „Ori de câte ori ați încercat să fiți ales în Marea Britanie, ați eșuat; de aceea ați venit aici. Aceasta arată că poporul britanic știe că este mult mai bine să fiți ținut departe de propriul sistem”.

Aceasta este opinia Comisiei, că deputații în Parlamentul European sunt oameni politici respinși de propriul popor? Președintele Barroso are intenția să prezinte scuze pentru aceste remarci?

Răspuns dat de dl Barroso în numele Comisiei

(6 noiembrie 2012)

Distinsul membru face referire la o observație adresată exclusiv domnului Farage. Această declarație, ca oricare alta, ar trebui să fie considerată în contextul în care a fost făcută, dat fiind că scoaterea ei din context ar putea duce la interpretări eronate, ceea ce s-a întâmplat în cazul de față.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008392/12

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: President Barroso's statement in the European Parliament on 12 September 2012

During the debate on the State of the Union (Wednesday, 12 September 2012 in Strasbourg), President Barroso made the following statement, as a remark addressed to Nigel Farage, Co-Chair of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group: ‘Every time you have tried to be elected in Britain you were rejected; that is why you came here. It shows that the British people know that it is much better to keep you away from your own system’.

Is it the Commission’s view that the Members of the European Parliament are politicians rejected by their own people? Does President Barroso intend to apologise for his remarks?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2012)

The Honourable Member refers to a remark addressed solely to Mr Farage. This statement, as any other, should not be taken out of its context, as it can lead to wrong interpretations, which is the case here.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008393/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto rappresentante)

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(25 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Crisi alimentare in Lesotho

Il Primo Ministro del Lesotho ha dichiarato lo stato di emergenza alimentare. Rispetto alla popolazione totale del paese di 1,8 milioni di persone, infatti, circa 725.519 sono considerate bisognose di ricevere aiuti umanitari.

La crisi alimentare, iniziata tra il 2010 e il 2011, è il risultato di pessime condizioni ambientali, quali piogge tardive e insufficienti e gelate anticipate che hanno provocato scarsi raccolti, distruzione d'infrastrutture, colture e abitazioni. L'Ufficio di statistica del Lesotho ha rilevato che la produzione è diminuita del 77 % rispetto all'anno precedente e che nel 2012/2013 la crisi alimentare colpirà profondamente il paese. Secondo il governo, unendo raccolti interni, importazioni e aiuti alimentari già concessi, mancherebbero ancora almeno 30 mila tonnellate di cereali. Il paese ha chiesto l'aiuto internazionale dopo che la peggiore siccità degli ultimi trent'anni ha distrutto il 30 % del raccolto di mais.

Intanto i prezzi di mais, sorgo, e grano continuano a salire a livelli inaccessibili.

La situazione è critica soprattutto per le fasce più deboli, già vittime di povertà estrema e Aids, sindrome quest'ultima che secondo le stime dell'ONU colpisce il 14 % della popolazione.

Il 30 % della popolazione è costituita da orfani e bambini vulnerabili che basano la propria sopravvivenza su aiuti internazionali o su progetti di assistenza governativi. Risultano di conseguenza fondamentali un'attenzione speciale e un supporto finanziario per garantire le necessità alimentari di coloro che non possono provvedere al proprio sostentamento.

Come intende agire il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per aiutare il governo del Lesotho a evitare questa grave crisi alimentare e garantire alla popolazione l'accesso al cibo, quale diritto fondamentale?

Risposta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione

(9 novembre 2012)

La Commissione segue con la massima attenzione la situazione umanitaria in Lesotho ed è pienamente consapevole dell’aggravarsi dei problemi di sicurezza alimentare nel paese.

La missione di esperti che la Commissione ha inviato in Lesotho nell’agosto 2012 per raccogliere dati e informazioni ha elaborato una relazione da cui risulta chiaramente che, dopo due stagioni agricole disastrose e visto che l’insicurezza alimentare colpisce il 40 % degli abitanti, occorre una risposta della comunità internazionale sotto forma di assistenza umanitaria e di cooperazione allo sviluppo.

All’inizio del 2012 l’UE ha stanziato 1,5 milioni di euro, provenienti dalla riserve del 10° Fondo europeo di sviluppo, per soccorrere le persone più vulnerabili colpite dalle inondazioni del 2011. L’assistenza umanitaria è stata fornita tramite il PAM (201) e la FAO (202), che attuano progetti di assistenza alimentare nella valle del Senqu.

La Commissione sta predisponendo un intervento per far fronte all’insicurezza alimentare in alcuni paesi dell’Africa meridionale (Angola, Lesotho, Malawi e Zimbabwe), che potrebbe comportare lo stanziamento di fondi supplementari a favore del Lesotho per rafforzare gli interventi di emergenza attuati con partner come il PAM e la FAO e soddisfare il fabbisogno più urgente delle persone vulnerabili.

Nell’allegato, che viene trasmesso direttamente all’onorevole parlamentare e al segretariato del Parlamento, figurano informazioni più dettagliate sull’aspetto «sviluppo».

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008393/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Food crisis in Lesotho

The Prime Minister of Lesotho has declared a food emergency. Of the country’s total population of 1.8 million people, some 725 519 are considered to be in need of humanitarian aid.

The food crisis, which started between 2010 and 2011, is the result of terrible environmental conditions, such as late and insufficient rainfall and early frosts which have caused poor harvests, and destruction of infrastructure, crops and homes. The Statistical Office of Lesotho has noted that production has fallen by 77 % compared with the previous year and that in 2012/2013 the food crisis will hit the country hard. According to the government, even combining domestic crops, imports and the food aid that has already been granted, there would still be a shortfall of at least 30 000 tons of cereals. The country asked for international help after the worst drought in the last 30 years destroyed 30 % of the corn crop.

Meanwhile the prices of corn, millet and wheat continue to rise to unaffordable levels.

The situation is critical above all for the weakest groups in society who already suffer from extreme poverty and AIDS, with the latter affecting 14 % of the population according to UN estimates.

30 % of the population consists of orphans and vulnerable children whose survival depends on international aid or on government assistance projects. Consequently, special attention and financial support are essential to guarantee the food needs of those who cannot provide for themselves.

What will the Vice-President/High Representative do to help the Government of Lesotho overcome this serious food crisis and guarantee the population access to food as a fundamental right?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

The Commission is following very carefully the humanitarian situation in Lesotho and it is fully aware of the deteriorating food security situation in the country.

In August 2012 experts from the Commission carried out a mission in Lesotho to collect data and information. This report made clear that, after two consecutive years of poor agricultural seasons and with 40% of the population of the country food insecure, a response of the international community is required, both in terms of humanitarian assistance and development cooperation.

The EU has already allocated, at the beginning of 2012, an amount of EUR 1.5 million from the reserves of the 10th European Development Fund to assist the most vulnerable population affected by the floods in 2011. The humanitarian assistance has been channelled via WFP (203) and FAO (204) who are implementing food assistance projects in the Senqu valley.

An intervention to cope with the food security situation affecting few Southern African countries (Angola, Lesotho, Malawi and Zimbabwe) is currently being identified by the Commission. This might result in additional funds being allocated to Lesotho for reinforcing the emergency interventions with partners such as WFP and FAO and addressing the most urgent needs of the vulnerable people.

The Honourable Member can find further details concerning the Development aspect in the annex, which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008394/12

alla Commissione

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(25 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Interpretazione normativa sull'allevamento in quanto attività agricola ai fini della produzione di lana

La lana, come prodotto agricolo definita dal regolamento (CE) 510/2006 del Consiglio, è un importante comparto nel mercato italiano.

A causa di alcuni problemi subiti da aziende agricole italiane è stata presentata un'interrogazione scritta su un possibile contrasto di norme tra i due regolamenti (CE) 51/2006 e 1069/2009 sulla definizione della lana.

Il regolamento (CE) 510/2006 del Consiglio non fornisce una definizione di lana, ma nell'allegato II, la lana è classificata come prodotto agricolo, essendo stata inclusa nell'elenco dei prodotti agricoli che possono essere tutelati da un marchio DOP o IGP. Il regolamento (CE) 1069/2009 prevede invece norme sanitarie relative ai sottoprodotti di origine animale e ai prodotti derivati non destinati al consumo umano, che considera la lana come prodotto di scarto e, solo dopo un trattamento igienizzante, prodotto tecnico.

Poiché tali regolamenti hanno ambiti di applicazione diversi, come la Commissione ha indicato nella sua risposta del 21.8.2012, essi non confliggono tra loro.

Alla luce di questi elementi, può la Commissione far sapere:

Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione

(26 novembre 2012)

La questione di stabilire se l'allevamento ai fini della produzione di lana sia un'attività agricola deve essere affrontata nel quadro del regime di sostegno pertinente. Con riguardo ai pagamenti diretti di cui al regolamento (CE) n. 73/2009 del Consiglio (205), l'articolo 2, lettera c), di tale regolamento definisce come attività agricola «la produzione, l'allevamento o la coltivazione di prodotti agricoli, comprese la raccolta, la mungitura, l'allevamento e la custodia degli animali per fini agricoli, nonché il mantenimento della terra in buone condizioni agronomiche e ambientali ai sensi dell'articolo 6». L'allevamento in quanto tale rientra quindi nel campo di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 73/2009 del Consiglio.

L'allevamento di ovini può beneficiare dei premi per pecora e per capra di cui al titolo IV, capitolo 1, sezione 10, del regolamento (CE) n. 73/2009 del Consiglio negli Stati membri che hanno optato per il mantenimento di tali pagamenti.

Nessuno Stato membro ha deciso di assegnare fondi europei all'allevamento finalizzato alla produzione di lana nel quadro delle misure di sostegno specifico a norma del titolo III, capitolo 5, del regolamento (CE) n. 73/2009 del Consiglio.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008394/12

to the Commission

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Regulatory interpretation on stock-breeding as an agricultural activity for the purposes of wool production

Wool, as an agricultural product defined by Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, is an important segment on the Italian market.

Owing to some problems experienced by Italian agricultural undertakings, a written question has been submitted on a possible clash between two regulations, (EC) No 51/2006 and 1069/2009, on the definition of wool.

Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 does not provide a definition of wool, but in Annex II, wool is classified as an agricultural product, since it has been included in the list of agricultural products that can be protected by a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) marking. Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, on the other hand, includes healthcare provisions relating to animal by‐products and derived products not intended for human consumption; it considers wool as a waste product and, only after sanitising treatment, as a processed product.

Since these regulations have different scopes, as the Commission stated in its reply of 21 August 2012, they do not conflict.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

The question whether stock breeding for the purposes of wool production is an agricultural activity is to be answered in the context of the relevant support scheme. As far as direct payments under Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (206) are concerned, Article 2(c) of that regulation defines an agricultural activity as ‘the production, rearing or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding animals and keeping animals for farming purposes, or maintaining the land in good agricultural and environmental condition as established in Article 6;’. Stock-breeding as such therefore falls under the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

Stock-breeding of sheep can benefit from ewe and goat premiums based on Title IV, Chapter 1, Section 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in the Member States having opted for maintaining such payments.

No Member State has decided to allocate European funds to stock breeding for the purposes of wool production in the framework of the specific support measures based on Title 3, Chapter 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008395/12

an den Rat

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Kontrollmechanismen bei der Klassifizierung von Dokumenten

Antwort

(10. Dezember 2012)

Die Einstufung von Informationen als EU-Verschlusssachen beinhaltet eine Einschätzung und eine Entscheidung des Herausgebers, dass die Weitergabe dieser Informationen an unbefugte Personen die Interessen der Europäischen Union oder eines bzw. mehrerer Mitgliedstaaten in einem gewissen Maße beeinträchtigen würde. Im Generalsekretariat des Rates dürfen ausschließlich befugte Personen unter Aufsicht ihrer Dienstvorgesetzten Informationen als EU-Verschlusssachen erstellen und einstufen.

Um Informationen als EU-Verschlusssachen mit einem bestimmten Geheimhaltungsgrad einzustufen, müssen die betreffenden Personen die Leitlinien befolgen, die in den Sicherheitsvorschriften des Rates  (207) und dem vom Rat gebilligten „Konzept für die Erstellung von EU-Verschlusssachen“ (Ratsdokument 10872/11) enthalten sind. Es ist Politik des Rates, dass Informationen in den Geheimhaltungsgrad eingestuft werden sollten, der dem Ausmaß des Schadens entspricht, den ihre unbefugte Weitergabe verursachen könnte: weder in einen zu hohen noch in einen zu niedrigen Geheimhaltungsgrad. Der Rat hat vor den Gefahren einer zu hohen Einstufung (da sie einen unnötigen Aufwand bei der Handhabung der Informationen bewirkt und unnötige Kosten verursacht) und einer zu niedrigen Einstufung (da sie die Informationen einem erhöhten Risiko der Weitergabe an unbefugte Personen aussetzt) gewarnt.

In den Jahren 2009, 2010 und 2011 wurden dem Rat keine konkreten Fälle einer unrichtigen Klassifizierung zur Kenntnis gebracht. Der Geheimhaltungsgrad der Informationen kann jedoch mit der Zeit geändert werden. Denn die Einstufung als Verschlusssache ist nur so lange beizubehalten, wie die Informationen vor einer unbefugten Weitergabe geschützt werden müssen. Zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung eines als Verschlusssache eingestuften Dokuments kann der Herausgeber mitteilen, dass dessen Geheimhaltungsgrad zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt oder im Anschluss an ein bestimmtes Ereignis herabgestuft oder aufgehoben werden kann. Anderenfalls werden als Verschlusssache eingestufte Dokumente regelmäßig überprüft, um festzustellen, ob ihr Geheimhaltungsgrad herabgestuft oder aufgehoben werden kann. Eine solche Überprüfung kann auch durch einen konkreten Antrag auf Dokumentenzugang eingeleitet werden, der von einer Einzelperson nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001  (208), einem anderen EU-Organ oder einem Dritten gestellt wird. Der Rat hat die „Leitlinien für eine Herabstufung oder Freigabe von Ratsdokumenten“ (Ratsdokument 14845/11) gebilligt.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008395/12

to the Council

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Control mechanisms for the classification of documents

Reply

(10 December 2012)

Classifying information as EU classified information involves an assessment and a decision by the originator that the disclosure of such information to unauthorised persons would cause a degree of prejudice to the interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States. Within the General Secretariat of the Council, only authorised persons are entitled to create and classify information as EU classified information, under the authority of their hierarchical superiors.

In order to classify information at a given level, those persons must follow the guidelines contained in the Council's security rules (209) and in the ‘Policy on creating EU classified information’ approved by the Council (Council document 10872/11). It is Council policy that information should be classified at the level which corresponds to the degree of prejudice its unauthorised disclosure could cause: not higher, not lower. The Council has warned against the dangers of over-classification (since it puts an unnecessary burden on the handling of the information and entails unnecessary costs) and of under-classification (since it exposes the information to an increased risk of disclosure to unauthorised persons).

No specific cases of ‘incorrect’ classification have been drawn to the attention of the Council in 2009, 2010 or 2011. However, the level of classification of information may be subject to change over time. Indeed, classification is to be maintained only as long as the information requires protection against unauthorised disclosure. At the time of creation of a classified document, the originator may indicate that the document may be downgraded or declassified at a certain date or following a specific event. Otherwise, classified documents are kept under periodic review in order to determine whether they may be downgraded or declassified. Such review may also result from a specific request for access by a member of the public under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (210), by another EU institution or by a third party. The Council has approved ‘Guidelines on downgrading and declassifying Council documents’ (Council document 14845/11).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008396/12

an die Kommission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Kontrollmechanismen bei der Klassifizierung von Dokumenten

Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission

(22. November 2012)

Bei der Festlegung des Geheimhaltungsgrads einer von der Kommission stammenden EU-Verschlusssache wird das Ausmaß des Schadens geprüft, den die unbefugte Weitergabe der betreffenden Informationen den Interessen der EU oder der Mitgliedstaaten zufügen könnte.

Die Kriterien zur Festlegung des Geheimhaltungsgrads finden sich in den Sicherheitsvorschriften im Anhang zum Beschluss der Kommission 2001/844/EG, EGKS, Euratom vom 29. November 2001 zur Änderung ihrer Geschäftsordnung (211). Sie entsprechen in vollem Umfang den EU-Standards sowie den internationalen Standards.

Schon der Wortlaut („den wesentlichen Interessen […] äußerst schweren Schaden zufügen “, „den wesentlichen Interessen […] schweren Schaden zufügen “, „ den wesentlichen Interessen […] Schaden zufügen “, „ für die wesentlichen Interessen […] nachteilig “ ) verdeutlicht, dass der Geheimhaltungsgrad auf der Grundlage von Einzelbewertungen durch den Urheber oder Verfasser in Abstimmung mit der Hierarchie festgelegt wird. Es gibt also keine „zu Unrecht “ als vertraulich eingestuften Dokumente, weshalb die Fragen 2 und 3 nicht beantwortet werden können.

Im Einklang mit den Sicherheitsvorschriften und der Rahmenvereinbarung über die Beziehungen zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament und der Europäischen Kommission (212) stellt die Kommission die Anwendung geeigneter Geheimhaltungsgrade sicher, u. a. durch Unterrichtung der Mitarbeiter über die Sicherheitsvorschriften zum Schutz von EU-Verschlusssachen und durch die jeweilige Neubewertung des Geheimhaltungsgrads, wenn aufgrund einer veränderten Sachlage die Herabstufung oder Aufhebung des Geheimhaltungsgrads einer bestimmten Verschlusssache angezeigt ist.

Bei Verschlusssachen, die nicht von der Kommission stammen, müssen die Kommissionsdienststellen den ursprünglichen Geheimhaltungsgrad beachten, da nur der Urheber zur Festlegung des Geheimhaltungsgrads befugt ist.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008396/12

to the Commission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Control mechanisms for the classification of documents

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2012)

Decisions regarding the classification levels of European Union Classified Information (EUCI) originating in the Commission are based on an assessment of the prejudice the unauthorised disclosure of such information could cause to the interests of the EU or the Member States.

The criteria for determining the classification level are set out in the Commission's security provisions annexed to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (213). They fully comply with EU and international standards.

Taking into account their wording (‘ cause exceptionally grave prejudice to the essential interests ’ , ‘ seriously harm the essential interests ’ , ‘ harm the essential interests ’ , ‘ disadvantageous to the interests ’ ), it is obvious that decisions regarding the classification levels are a matter of individual case-by-case assessments, made by the author or originator under the authority of his hierarchy. In that sense, there is no incorrect way to classify a document, and hence questions 2 & 3 must remain unanswered.

In accordance with its security provisions and the framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (214), the Commission ensures that it applies appropriate levels of classification, a.o.t. by providing briefings to staff on the security rules for protecting EUCI and by reassessing the classification levels each time new developments occur which call for a downgrading or declassifying of a particular piece of EUCI.

For classified information not originating in the Commission, the Commission services have to respect the original classification, as only the originator is entitled to determine the level of classification.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008397/12

an die Kommission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: VP/HR — Kontrollmechanismen bei der Klassifizierung von Dokumenten

Antwort von Frau Catherine Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission

(20. November 2012)

Zu Frage 1: Die Einstufung von Informationen in Geheimhaltungsgrade erfolgt durch deren Urheber anhand von Standardkriterien gemäß dem Beschluss des Rates vom 31. März 2011 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von EU-Verschlusssachen (2011/292/EU), insbesondere nach den Artikeln 2 und 3.

Der Beschluss des Rates wird vom EAD gemäß dem Beschluss der Hohen Vertreterin der Europäischen Union für Außen‐ und Sicherheitspolitik vom 15. Juni 2011 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst (2011/C 304/05) angewandt.

Die Kontrolle wird durch den Vorgesetzten des Urhebers ausgeübt, dessen Genehmigung bei sämtlicher amtlicher Korrespondenz einzuholen ist.

Darüber hinaus werden von der Dienststelle des Urhebers regelmäßig Neubewertungen vorgenommen, um festzustellen, ob die Einstufung als Verschlusssache bzw. der Geheimhaltungsgrad beizubehalten ist.

Zu Frage 2: Der EAD verfügt über keine Aufzeichnungen zu Dokumenten, die seit Januar 2011, d. h. seit der Einrichtung des EAD, irrtümlich als Verschlusssache eingestuft wurden.

Zu Frage 3: Je nach Schwere des Irrtums können gegen den verantwortlichen Beamten folgende Schritte eingeleitet werden:

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008397/12

to the Commission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — control mechanisms for the classification of documents

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

(20 November 2012)

1.The classification level of information is determined by the originator who has to value the information against the standard criteria, as set out in the Council Decision of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (EUCI) (2011/292/EU), in particular Articles 2 and 3.

This decision is applied by the EEAS, pursuant to the decision of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 15 June 2011 on the security rules for the European Action Service (2011/C 304/05).

The control is exercised by the hierarchy of the originator, who needs to approve all official correspondence.

Furthermore, regular reassessments are made by the originating service, to determine whether or not the validity or the level of the classification marking is to be maintained.

2.The EEAS has no records of documents incorrectly classified since January 2011, when the EEAS was created.

3.Depending on the gravity of the action, an official may be subject to:

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008398/12

alla Commissione

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(25 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Diffusione dell'epidemia di Ebola nel nord-est della Repubblica democratica del Congo

Secondo un nuovo bilancio diffuso dall'Oms, l'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità, l'epidemia di Ebola che ha colpito negli ultimi mesi il nord-est della Repubblica democratica del Congo, ha provocato 32 morti. Rispetto a questi, un'indagine condotta da MSF parla di 17 casi confermati in laboratorio.

La situazione è allarmante, nonostante MSF sottolinei che in questo momento i casi attivi di Ebola siano solo sei. Il focolaio è scoppiato nelle città di Isiro e Viadana, nelle province del nord-est.

In collaborazione con il Ministero della salute congolese e altre organizzazioni, MSF si sta prendendo cura dei pazienti cercando di contenere l'epidemia. Sono state infatti attuate misure preventive e ricoveri nei centri di trattamento per evitare il diffondersi del virus.

La squadra di emergenza di MSF ha promosso la formazione del personale del Ministero della salute e sta dando assistenza psicosociale ai pazienti e alle famiglie.

Di fondamentale importanza in tale situazione divengono le abitudini comportamentali della comunità locali; misure igieniche valide possono, infatti, prevenire il contagio.

La febbre emorragica dell’Ebola è potenzialmente mortale e comprende una gamma di sintomi quali febbre, vomito, diarrea, dolore o malessere generalizzato e a volte emorragia interna ed esterna. Il tasso di mortalità è estremamente alto, variabile dal 50 % all’89 % secondo il ceppo virale, e un trattamento tramite vaccino non è tuttora disponibile.

Quali azioni intende dunque intraprendere la Commissione al fine di supportare le organizzazioni internazionali e il governo locale nel contenimento della diffusione del virus dell'Ebola nel nord-est della Repubblica democratica del Congo?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008480/12

alla Commissione

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(26 settembre 2012)

Oggetto: Virus Ebola nella Repubblica democratica del Congo

Il 14 settembre 2012, il quotidiano del Regno Unito The Times ha riferito che il virus mortale Ebola si sta diffondendo fuori controllo nella Repubblica democratica del Congo (RDC). Almeno 31 persone ne sono morte e l'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità ha avvertito che il virus potrebbe diffondersi in molte città. La malattia è incurabile e un certo numero di organizzazioni sanitarie internazionali asseriscono che il bilancio delle vittime è raddoppiato in una settimana. Molte delle vittime sono operatori umanitari.

L'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità e Medecin Sans Frontières sono al lavoro per individuare le zone più colpite, e creare aree dove effettuare i test e informare la popolazione su come evitare di contrarre la malattia. Il 18 settembre 2012, l'OMS ha riferito che casi della malattia sono emersi nei distretti sanitari di Isiro e Viadana nella zona di Haut Uele nella provincia orientale.

Un portavoce dell'OMS a Kinshasa ha dichiarato che «L'epidemia non è sotto controllo. Al contrario, la situazione è molto, molto grave». Ha aggiunto: «Se non si interviene ora, la malattia raggiungerà altri luoghi, e anche le città più grandi saranno minacciate».

Ci sono stati casi di Ebola anche in Uganda, dove sedici persone sono morte di questa malattia. La RDC è poco attrezzata per affrontare l'epidemia. Al momento, la malattia non ha colpito Kinshasa, che ha nove milioni di abitanti, ma se anche una sola persona infetta entra nella capitale, ciò permetterà la diffusione della malattia. Il tasso di mortalità per le vittime di Ebola è compreso tra il 25 e il 90 %.

1. Quali passi sta effettuando la Commissione per valutare l'entità dell'epidemia di Ebola nella Repubblica democratica del Congo?

2. La Commissione ha offerto di sostenere gli sforzi per combattere la diffusione della malattia?

3. Quale aiuto pratico è disposta a offrire?

Risposta congiunta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione

(14 novembre 2012)

Secondo l'ultima relazione dell'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità dell'8 ottobre scorso, nel nord-est della RDC sono stati registrati 49 casi di febbre emorragica Ebola, di cui 31 casi di laboratorio confermati e 18 considerati probabili. I casi letali sono stati 24, di cui 10 confermati e 14 considerati probabili.

È stata costituita una task force nazionale per individuare tutte le possibili catene di trasmissione e garantire l'adozione di misure appropriate per interrompere la trasmissione e arginare l'epidemia. La task force è composta dal ministero della Sanità congolese e da diversi organismi internazionali quali Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), l'OMS e lo US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Nel 2012 la Commissione europea ha versato 2 milioni di euro a Médecins Sans Frontières per sostenere il Pool d'Urgence — Congo (PUC).

Il PUC partecipa alle operazioni in corso fornendo ai pazienti e ai loro familiari cure adeguate e sostegno psicosociale. Il PUC ha inoltre istituito un programma di promozione della salute volto a sensibilizzare la popolazione alle modalità di trasmissione della malattia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008398/12

to the Commission

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Spread of the Ebola epidemic in the north-east of the Democratic Republic of Congo

According to a new report issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Ebola epidemic, which has recently struck the north-east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, has caused 32 deaths. Against this, a survey conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) talks of 17 cases confirmed in the lab.

The situation is alarming, despite MSF stressing that currently there are only six active cases of Ebola. The epidemic broke out in the cities of Isiro and Viadana in the north‐eastern provinces.

In collaboration with the Congolese Ministry of Health and other organisations, MSF is taking care of the patients and seeking to contain the epidemic. Preventative measures have been implemented as has hospitalisation in treatment centres to avoid the virus spreading.

The MSF emergency team has promoted the training of Ministry of Health staff and is providing psychosocial support to patients and their families.

In such a situation, the habits of local communities are of fundamental importance; valid hygiene measures can actually prevent the contagion.

Ebola’s haemorrhagic fever is potentially fatal and includes a range of symptoms such as fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, pain or general discomfort and sometimes internal and external haemorrhaging. The mortality rate is extremely high, varying from 50 % to 89 % depending on the viral strain, and vaccine treatment is still not available.

What will the Commission do, therefore, to support international organisations and the local government in containing the spread of the Ebola virus in the north-east of the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Question for written answer E-008480/12

to the Commission

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(26 September 2012)

Subject: Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

On 14 September 2012, the UK’s The Times newspaper reported that the fatal Ebola virus is spreading out of control in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). At least 31 people have been killed and the World Health Organisation has warned that the virus could spread to many towns. The disease is incurable and a number of international health organisations say that the death toll doubled within one week. Many of the victims are aid workers.

The World Health Organisation and Médecins Sans Frontières are trying to identify the most affected areas, and are setting up testing areas and informing people on how to avoid contracting the disease. On 18 September 2012, the WHO reported that cases of the disease have emerged in the health zones of Isiro and Viadana in the Haut-Uele district in Province Orientale.

One spokesman for the WHO in Kinshasa said: ‘The epidemic is not under control. On the contrary, the situation is very, very serious’. He added: ‘If nothing is done now, the disease will reach other places, and even major towns will be threatened’.

There have also been cases of Ebola in Uganda, where 16 people have died from the disease. The DRC is poorly equipped to deal with the outbreak. At the moment, the disease has not affected Kinshasa, which has a population of nine million, but if one infected person walks into the capital, this will allow the disease to spread. The death rate for victims of Ebola ranges from 25 % to 90 %.

1. What steps is the Commission taking in order to assess the extent of the Ebola outbreak in the DRC?

2. Has the Commission offered to support efforts to combat the spread of the disease?

3. What practical aid is it prepared to offer?

Joint answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2012)

According to the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) report of October 8th, 49 cases of Ebola haemorrhagic fever have been registered in North-eastern DRC, with 31 laboratory cases confirmed and 18 considered to be probable. There have been 24 fatal cases, 10 of which were confirmed and 14 considered probable.

A National Task Force has been set up to identify all possible chains of transmission and ensure that appropriate measures are taken to interrupt transmission and stop the outbreak. This Task Force is composed of the Congolese Ministry of Health and a number of international actors, including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the WHO, and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2012, the European Commission allocated 2 million euros in financial support to Médecins Sans Frontières for the Pool d'Urgence — Congo (PUC).

PUC participates in the ongoing operations by providing patients and their relatives with adequate care and psychosocial support. In addition, it has developed a health promotion programme aimed at raising awareness among the community about the modes of transmission of the disease.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008401/12

adresată Comisiei

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(25 septembrie 2012)

Subiect: Mecanismul Conectarea Europei — Lista proiectelor identificate în prealabil din rețeaua primară

Comisia Europeană a prezentat prin Propunerea de Regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului de instituire a mecanismului Conectarea Europei, COM(2011)0665 final, intenția de a crea un nou instrument integrat pentru investițiile în priorități de infrastructură din domeniul transporturilor, al energiei și al telecomunicațiilor: mecanismul Conectarea Europei.

În sectorul transporturilor s-a identificat o „rețea primară” la nivelul întregii Europe, utilizând o metodologie de planificare paneuropeană. Această rețea primară cu coridoare prin care pot fi transportate mărfurile și pasagerii, cu eficiență ridicată și emisii scăzute, utilizează pe scară largă infrastructura existentă.

Din păcate „rețeaua primară” nu cuprinde toate rutele de transport cu importanță deosebită pentru Uniunea Europeană, un exemplu fiind Coridorul Pan-European IX Helsinki – Vyborg – St. Petersburg – Pskov – Gomel – Kiev – Ljubashevka – Chișinău – București – Dimitrovgrad – Alexandroupolis. Deși o parte a acestui coridor străbate state non-membre ale UE, totuși porțiunea situată între Alexandroupolis și punctul de trecere al frontierei dintre România și Republica Moldova putea fi inclusă intr-unul din cele 10 coridoare ale „rețelei primare”, acesta străbătând 3 state membre și făcând legătura cu piețe externe deosebit de importante pentru UE.

Răspuns dat de domnul Kallas în numele Comisiei

(9 noiembrie 2012)

Metodologia de planificare a TEN-T menționată în întrebare cuprinde două etape:

Pe baza acestei metodologii, următoarele secțiuni s-au calificat pentru rețeaua primară:

Fostul coridor paneuropean IX, secțiunea rutieră dintre Svilengrad – Kipi și secțiunea feroviară între Svilengrad și Pythion, reprezintă numai o parte din rețeaua globală, astfel încât nu poate face parte dintr-un coridor al rețelei primare. Coridoarele rețelei primare trebuie să cuprindă în mod exclusiv secțiuni ale rețelei primare. Din acest motiv, nu este posibil să se stabilească un coridor al rețelei primare între Ungheni și Alexandroupolis.

De asemenea, deoarece coridoarele rețelei primare au fost create ca un instrument pentru a se asigura buna realizare a acestei rețele, în special a secțiunilor cu puncte de trecere a frontierei ale acestora, un astfel de coridor nu ar avea sens într-o relație în care nu există proiecte relevante pentru punctele de trecere a frontierei.

Având în vedere necesitatea unei stabilități a planificării pe termen lung pentru investițiile în infrastructură, propunerea de regulament TEN-T (215) (articolul 57) prevede o revizuire a implementării rețelei primare până la 31 decembrie 2023 cel târziu, cu ocazia căreia s-ar putea propune modificări pentru perioada de planificare 2028-2034.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008401/12

to the Commission

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Connecting Europe Facility — List of pre-identified projects from the core network

The European Commission has presented, via the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, COM(2011) 0665 final, its intention to create a new integrated instrument for priority infrastructure investments in the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors: the Connecting Europe Facility.

A ‘core network’ has been identified in the Europe-wide transport sector, using a pan-European planning methodology. This core network with corridors that can carry freight and passenger traffic with high efficiency and low emissions largely uses existing infrastructure.

Unfortunately the ‘core network’ does not include all the critical transport routes for the European Union, one example being the IX Pan-European Corridor Helsinki-Vyborg-St Petersburg-Pskov-Gomel-Kiev-Ljubashevka-Chisinau-Bucharest-Dimitrovgrad-Alexandroupolis. Although a part of this corridor crosses non-EU Member States, the section situated between Alexandroupolis and the border crossing point between Romania and the Republic of Moldova could have been included in one of the 10 corridors of the ‘core network’, as it crosses three Member States and connects with critical external markets for the EU.

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2012)

The TEN-T planning methodology, which is mentioned in the question, consists of two steps:

On the base of this methodology, the following sections have qualified for the core network: — Helsinki — border FI-RU (Vaalimaa/Vainikkala) — border MD/RO (Ungheni) — Bucuresti — Dimitrovgrad — border BG-TR (Svilengrad) — section Alexandroupolis — border GR-TR (Kipi/Pythion).

The former Pan-European Corridor IX road section between Svilengrad and Kipi, and rail section between Svilengrad and Pythion is only part of the comprehensive network, so it cannot be part of a core network corridor. Core network corridors have to consist of core network sections, exclusively. For this reason, it is not possible to establish a core network corridor between Ungheni and Alexandroupolis.

Taking furthermore into account that the core network corridors have been created as an instrument for a smooth implementation of the core network, in particular of their border crossing sections, such a corridor would not make sense in a relation which lacks relevant border crossing projects.

In view of the long-term planning stability as needed for infrastructure investments, the proposal for the TEN-T Regulation (216) (Art. 57) foresees a review of the implementation of the core network by 31 December 2023 at the latest, which could allow modifications to be proposed in the planning period 2028-2034.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008402/12

a la Comisión

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(25 de septiembre de 2012)

Asunto: Malos tratos en Marruecos

El relator de las Naciones Unidas contra la tortura y los tratos inhumanos y degradantes acaba de terminar su visita a Marruecos y en su Informe preliminar declara que todavía es frecuente el uso de la tortura y de malos tratos en los centros de detención de este país.

Ante la gravedad de esta denuncia, a este diputado le interesa saber si la Unión Europea, comprometida en la defensa de los derechos humanos, va a analizar esta situación denunciada y, en su caso, adoptar medidas concretas ante las autoridades marroquíes.

Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Sra. Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(27 de noviembre de 2012)

El respeto de los derechos humanos es el núcleo central de nuestro diálogo con Marruecos y, por lo tanto, esta cuestión se aborda con regularidad en las reuniones de los organismos mixtos pertinentes establecidos en virtud del Acuerdo de Asociación entre la UE y Marruecos. En este contexto, las conclusiones preliminares formuladas por el Relator especial de las Naciones Unidas contra la tortura se discutieron con las autoridades marroquíes durante la 7a reunión del Subcomité de derechos humanos, gobernanza y democracia UE-Marruecos celebrada en Rabat los días 16 y 17 de octubre de 2012.

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta considera que, en general, Marruecos está haciendo progresos en el cumplimiento de los principios de los derechos humanos, aunque se necesitan nuevas mejoras, especialmente esfuerzos para erradicar la tortura y los malos tratos. El fortalecimiento de las libertades fundamentales y los principios democráticos en la nueva Constitución y la creación del Consejo Nacional de Derechos Humanos son avances positivos en este sentido.

Además, el Estatuto avanzado, al que Marruecos se ha adherido en sus relaciones con la UE, implica que se están haciendo progresos en este ámbito y que la UE se compromete a garantizar un estrecho seguimiento de esta cuestión.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008402/12

to the Commission

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Ill-treatment in Morocco

The United Nations rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has just finished visiting Morocco, and states in his preliminary report that torture and ill-treatment still frequently occur in detention centres in the country.

In view of the gravity of this allegation, I would like to know whether the European Union, which is committed to defending human rights, intends to analyse the situation that has been described and, if applicable, whether it will adopt specific measures vis-à-vis the Moroccan authorities.

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

(27 November 2012)

Respect for human rights is at the heart of our dialogue with Morocco and consequently this issue is regularly addressed in the meetings of the relevant joint bodies established under the EU Morocco Association Agreement. In this framework, the preliminary conclusions drawn up by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture were discussed with the Moroccan authorities during the 7th meeting of the EU-Morocco Sub-Committee on Human Rights, Governance and Democracy which took place in Rabat on 16-17 October 2012.

The HR/VP considers that overall Morocco is making progress towards compliance with the human rights principles, although further improvements are necessary, notably efforts to eradicate torture and ill-treatment. The strengthening of fundamental freedoms and democratic principles by the new Constitution and the establishment of the National Council for Human Rights are positive developments in this regard.

Moreover, the Advanced Status, to which Morocco has acceded in its relations with the EU, implies that progress is being made in this area and the EU is committed to ensuring close follow up in this regard.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008403/12

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Energiesparlampe versus LEDs

In den Medien ist von „giftigen EU-Energiesparlampen“ die Rede, die zudem sogar kurz nach ihrer Einführung wieder veraltet seien, da die LED-Technologie bereits Verbreitung finde.

Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission

(15. November 2012)

Als Teil der Digitalen Agenda für Europa veröffentlichte die Kommission zudem im Dezember 2011 das Grünbuch „Die Zukunft der Beleuchtung“, das eine öffentliche Anhörung zu diesem Thema ergänzte.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008403/12

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Energy efficient light bulbs versus LEDs

Reports in the media refer to ‘poisonous energy-efficient light bulbs’ which, it is claimed, have already become outmoded a short time after their introduction because LED technology is already in widespread use.

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2012)

Furthermore, as part of the Digital Agenda for Europe the Commission in December 2011 published the Green Paper ‘Lighting the Future’ (217) in support of a public consultation on the matter.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008404/12

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(25. September 2012)

Betrifft: Umstrittene Energiesparlampen — Gesundheitsrisiko

Abgesehen davon, dass die Bedenken der Bevölkerung von einer Stellungnahme des Ausschusses SCHER, die besagt, dass das „freigesetzte Quecksilber mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit kein Risiko für die Gesundheit“ darstellt und „wahrscheinlich“ für keine Bevölkerungsgruppe ein Risiko ist, kaum ausgeräumt sein werden, bleibt die Tatsache bestehen, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger im Fall einer schadhaften Lampe dennoch Quecksilber ausgesetzt sind.

Zudem ist die Entsorgung für den einzelnen Bürger weitaus komplizierter.

Auf diesen Tatsachen beruht auch die breite Ablehnung der Bevölkerung.

Kann die Kommission angesichts der ohnehin anhaltenden Diskussionen in verschiedenen EU-Ländern über die Zustimmung der Bevölkerung zum System der Europäischen Union insgesamt folgende Fragen beantworten:

Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission

(20. November 2012)

Die Kommission hat die wissenschaftlichen Ausschüsse damit beauftragt, potenziellen Gesundheitsrisiken im Zusammenhang mit der Verwendung von Kompaktleuchtstofflampen nachzugehen. Die Ausschüsse fanden keine Anhaltspunkte für ein Gesundheitsrisiko (siehe Antworten auf verschiedene schriftliche Anfragen, z. B. auf die Anfrage 280/11 von Herrn Reul, 4836/2012 von Herrn D. Martin und 7245/2012 von Herrn Obermayr). Das Verbot bedeutet nicht, dass die Verbraucher verpflichtet sind, Kompaktleuchtstofflampen zu verwenden. Wenn sich die Verbraucher trotz des Fehlens wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse zu potenziellen Gesundheitsrisiken gegen die Verwendung von Kompaktleuchtstofflampen entscheiden, stehen ihnen auf dem Markt Alternativprodukte (Halogenlampen) zur Verfügung.

Die Kommission hat verschiedene Maßnahmen eingeleitet (Einrichtung einer speziellen Internet-Seite  (219), Bereitstellung mehrsprachiger Materialen an Verbraucherschutzorganisationen, Einzelhändler und die Mitgliedstaaten für deren eigenen Informationskampagnen, Beantwortung von Bürgeranfragen usw.), um die Verbraucher korrekt über das Ausphasen der Glühlampen zu informieren und ihnen die Möglichkeit zu geben, die für sie richtige Entscheidung zu treffen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-008404/12

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(25 September 2012)

Subject: Controversy surrounding energy efficient light bulbs — health threat

Apart from the fact that it is almost impossible to allay public scepticism in relation to the statement from the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks indicating that ‘released mercury is very unlikely to pose a threat to health’ and is ‘unlikely’ to pose a threat to any group in the population, the fact remains that the population will still be exposed to mercury if a light bulb is damaged.

In addition, it is much more complicated for individual members of the public to dispose of such light bulbs.

These are the reasons why the population is generally reluctant to use these light bulbs.

In view of the ongoing discussions in various EU Member States regarding public support for the European Union system as a whole, can the Commission answer the following:

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2012)