7.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 321/1


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

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

(2013/C 321 E/01)

Contents

E-011190/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Sale of tobacco at airports

English version

E-011191/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Package Travel Directive

English version

E-011193/12 by Mary Honeyball to the Commission

Subject: Parental consent for the handing over of personally identifiable information

English version

E-011195/12 by Mary Honeyball to the Commission

Subject: Age verification

English version

E-011196/12 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission

Subject: EU funding to Montenegro and Zambia

English version

E-011197/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Changes to shareholder rights in Turkey

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011198/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Company directors and discrimination in Turkey

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011199/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Capital market protectionism in Turkey

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011200/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: The powers of the Capital Markets Board of Turkey and the EU

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011201/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Turkey's new Corporate Governance Principles and accession to the EU

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011202/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Site of Community importance (SCI) in Vittorio Veneto (Treviso) crossed by road works, with no environmental implications assessment and an inconsistent EIA

Versione italiana

English version

E-011203/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: The European Food Import Safety Regime: what harmonisation for controls on imports from third countries?

Versione italiana

English version

E-011204/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: widespread prevention campaigns

Versione italiana

English version

E-011205/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Education in healthy eating — new measures to protect consumers

Versione italiana

English version

E-011206/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Right to the truth for terminally ill patients — empathetic communication techniques

Versione italiana

English version

E-011207/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Psychological well-being at risk because of unstable working and economic conditions

Versione italiana

English version

E-011208/12 by Judith Sargentini to the Commission

Subject: Amicus curiae brief from the Commission to the US Supreme Court concerning Kiobel vs Shell

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011209/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Structural policy 2014-2020

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011210/12 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: Innovative financing at European and world level

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011211/12 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: Standardisation of electric vehicles

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011212/12 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: European tourism statistics

Versiunea în limba română

English version

P-011213/12 by Edit Herczog to the Commission

Subject: Two-year wait for approval for funding for structural reform of the Hungarian coal industry

Magyar változat

English version

E-011214/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: Installation of a gas interconnection between Poland and Lithuania

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011215/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: Planned imports of electricity from the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant in the Kaliningrad region

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011216/12 by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Work under way in the Monti Simbruini Nature Park

Versione italiana

English version

E-011217/12 by Adam Bielan to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Opinion of the UN on ‘windows of life’

Wersja polska

English version

E-011218/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Export of telecommunications monitoring equipment

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011219/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Healthcare spending

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011220/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Connecting Europe Facility

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011221/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Country Strategy Paper for Mali

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011222/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Hate crimes

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011223/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Iran sanctions

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011224/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Sustainability criteria for biomass

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011225/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Chemical weapons in Syria

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011226/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Poverty

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011227/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Government services online

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011228/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Access City Award

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011229/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Monitoring the application of EC law

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011230/12 by Amelia Andersdotter, Franziska Keller and Paul Murphy to the Commission

Subject: Limited economic motivation for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Deutsche Fassung

Svensk version

English version

E-011231/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: The protection of animals during transport

Version française

English version

E-011232/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: EU's human rights strategy

Version française

English version

E-011233/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Negotiations towards a trade agreement between the EU and Russia

Version française

English version

E-011234/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Transport of horses

Version française

English version

E-011235/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Transport of poultry

Version française

English version

E-011236/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Inclusion of Roma children in the public education system

Wersja polska

English version

E-011237/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Confiscation of hazardous toys in Italy

Wersja polska

English version

P-011238/12 by Martin Callanan to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of individuals and goods in the European Union — follow-up

English version

E-011239/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Democratisation process in Myanmar

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011240/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Solar power stations on disused power plant sites

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011241/12 by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission

Subject: Death of two young workers in an industrial accident at the Egnatia motorway construction site

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011242/12 by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission

Subject: An end to layoffs by Aegean Airlines

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011243/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Unused ESF resources to address youth employment

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011244/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011245/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Unitary patent protection regime

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011246/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Additional Protocol to the Berne Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Greece and Switzerland

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011247/12 by Phil Bennion to the Commission

Subject: Access to European airports for persons with disabilities

English version

E-011248/12 by Pino Arlacchi, María Muñiz De Urquiza, Alexandra Thein, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Ivo Vajgl and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU strategy on the Iranian nuclear issue

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Versione italiana

Slovenska različica

English version

E-011249/12 by Barbara Matera to the Commission

Subject: EU action on global climate change

Versione italiana

English version

E-011250/12 by Véronique Mathieu to the Commission

Subject: Gassing geese in the Netherlands

Version française

English version

E-011251/12 by Frieda Brepoels to the Commission

Subject: Unresolved issues with serious implications for frontier workers

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011252/12 by Jan Mulder to the Commission

Subject: Spain's decision to issue residence permits to Russians

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011253/12 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkey's ban on a soap opera about the Sultan

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011254/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Statistical information on Portuguese debt

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011255/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Annual Growth Survey

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011256/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Stimulating economic growth and employment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011257/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Support for employability in 2013

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011258/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Compact for Growth and Jobs

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011259/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Youth Employment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011260/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Financial assistance programmes

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011261/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Safeguarding fishing communities, their way of life and their traditions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011262/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: European public prosecutor's office

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011263/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European public prosecutor's office

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011264/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Europeana: a future point of reference for musical traditions in Europe

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011265/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Increase in global carbon dioxide emissions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011266/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Biofuels

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011267/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: HR/VP — Cuba: migration law — practical results

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-011268/12 by Jacky Hénin to the Commission

Subject: Industrial policy in Europe

Version française

English version

E-011270/12 by Vicky Ford to the Commission

Subject: EU research funding for poverty related and neglected diseases

English version

P-011271/12 by Anna Hedh to the Commission

Subject: A new alcohol strategy for the EU

Svensk version

English version

E-011272/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Enforcement of Directive 1999/22/EC in Italy and other EU Member States

Versione italiana

English version

E-011274/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Online sale of kits for manufacturing fake wines from powder

Versione italiana

English version

E-011275/12 by Amelia Andersdotter, Franziska Keller and Paul Murphy to the Commission

Subject: Commission disregards its own experts regarding investor-to-state dispute settlement

Deutsche Fassung

Svensk version

English version

E-011276/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Preferential tax treatment for football clubs in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011277/12 by Gay Mitchell to the Commission

Subject: Competition law — 3M and a ‘vertical agreement’

English version

E-011278/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — David Ravelo's two-year imprisonment in Colombia: persecution and intimidation of human rights organisations

Versión española

English version

E-011279/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Murder of peasant leader Vidal Vega in Paraguay

Versión española

English version

E-011280/12 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: EU plans to reduce the regulatory burden on Member States

English version

E-011281/12 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up question to E-009750/2012: the role of COM(2001)0351and its regulatory role in the right to erect satellite TV dishes of the UK public

English version

E-011282/12 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Eco-labelling rules

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011283/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of railway stations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011284/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Addressing skill shortages and unemployment in the EU

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011285/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Cost of policing demonstrations near the premises of European institutions

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011286/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Chemicals in the aviation industry

English version

E-011287/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian aid in Sudan

English version

E-011288/12 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: Cost of the European Space Expo exhibition and visitor attendance

English version

E-011289/12 by Ashley Fox to the Commission

Subject: Live plucking of geese

English version

E-011290/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Is the Commission neglecting the impact of fiscal policies?

Version française

English version

E-011291/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Feedback on REACH

Version française

English version

E-011292/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Copyright reform: makeup of the focus group and work programme

Version française

English version

E-011293/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination through excise duties on beer

Version française

English version

E-011295/12 by Seán Kelly to the Commission

Subject: Grading practices on factory ships

English version

E-011570/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Amendments to Legislative Decree 31/2001 concerning drinking water requirements

Versión española

Versione italiana

English version

E-011298/12 by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati to the Commission

Subject: Addition of the substance microcystin-LR (and the relative parametric value) to Ministerial Decree 31/2001

Versione italiana

English version

P-011528/12 by Rita Borsellino to the Commission

Subject: Decree on drinking water quality standards

Versione italiana

English version

E-011299/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Strikes in the Chinese factory of Foxconn International Holdings Ltd: possible violation of the laws protecting workers

Versione italiana

English version

E-011300/12 by Debora Serracchiani to the Commission

Subject: Grimaldi vessel refused access in Tunisia

Versione italiana

English version

E-011301/12 by Edite Estrela, Vital Moreira, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Elisa Ferreira, António Fernando Correia de Campos, Luís Paulo Alves and Ana Gomes to the Council

Subject: European Financial Stability Fund

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011302/12 by Edite Estrela, Vital Moreira, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Elisa Ferreira, António Fernando Correia de Campos, Luís Paulo Alves and Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: European Financial Stability Fund

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011303/12 by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission

Subject: Regulation (EU) No 432/2012: six-month transitional period

Versione italiana

English version

E-011304/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Doha: failure to reach international agreement

Versión española

English version

E-011305/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Pending execution for Yemeni juvenile offender in Iraq

Versione italiana

English version

E-011306/12 by Roberta Angelilli, Amalia Sartori, David-Maria Sassoli, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Silvia Costa, Potito Salatto, Marco Scurria, Francesco De Angelis, Alfredo Pallone, Guido Milana and Roberto Gualtieri to the Commission

Subject: Schneider Electric S.p.A. in Rieti: possible violations of the regulations for protecting workers and employment levels in the event of closures

Versione italiana

English version

E-011307/12 by Bendt Bendtsen to the Commission

Subject: Commission's approval of tax allowance for specially energy-intensive industries

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011308/12 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Foreign and domestic investment in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011310/12 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: Reimbursement of costs resulting from air travel delays

English version

E-011311/12 by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission

Subject: Effectiveness of the ‘Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related Health Issues’

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011312/12 by Franziska Keller, Satu Hassi, Barbara Lochbihler and Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Money from Mexican drug cartels

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-011313/12 by Aldo Patriciello and Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission

Subject: Against the marketing of wine kits

Versione italiana

English version

E-011314/12 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Klebsiella pneumoniae bacterium

Versione italiana

English version

E-011315/12 by Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Kinga Göncz, Edit Herczog and Zita Gurmai to the Commission

Subject: Provisions of the new Hungarian electoral legislation which contravene fundamental rights

Magyar változat

English version

P-011316/12 by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission

Subject: Reassessment of the risks and benefits of energy drink consumption

Version française

English version

E-011318/12 by Lucas Hartong and Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Presence of Turkish-speakers at the European Parliament

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011319/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Investigations into manipulation of Euribor

Versione italiana

English version

E-011320/12 by Pavel Poc to the Commission

Subject: Ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive in Slovakia in connection with the Turany-Hubová section of the D1 motorway

České znění

English version

E-011321/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Homophobic actions by Golden Dawn

Versión española

English version

E-011322/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Tax evasion by tech giants in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011323/12 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission

Subject: Ratification of the Doha Agreement

Version française

English version

E-011324/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: 2011 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Versión española

English version

E-011325/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Impact of the NK603 crop in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011326/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Nationalist tendencies in schools in Greece

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011327/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: 10 Christians killed in an overnight machete and gun attack in Borno State in Nigeria

Versione italiana

English version

E-011328/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Grave security situation for officials and community leaders in Afghanistan

Versione italiana

English version

E-011329/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: List of tax havens

Version française

English version

E-011330/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Dumping by ZTE and Huawei

Version française

English version

E-011331/12 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: Need for a provision in the protocol of clinical trials

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011332/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Funds to provide basic necessities for poor people in the EU

Versión española

English version

E-011333/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Plight of immigrants in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011334/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Exploitation of fish stocks in the Horn of Africa

Versión española

English version

E-011335/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Farm gate prices

Versión española

English version

E-011336/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Salary cuts for researchers in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011337/12 by Willy Meyer to the Council

Subject: Imposing effective limits on financial speculation on food

Versión española

English version

E-011338/12 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Trade competition and animal welfare

English version

E-011339/12 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Common EU fire safety standards

English version

E-011340/12 by Alojz Peterle and Glenis Willmott to the Commission

Subject: Burden resulting from chronic liver disease in Europe

Slovenska različica

English version

P-011341/12 by Tadeusz Cymański to the Commission

Subject: Mass redundancies at Fiat plant in Tychy

Wersja polska

English version

E-011342/12 by Tadeusz Cymański, Zbigniew Ziobro, Jacek Olgierd Kurski and Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission

Subject: Mass redundancies at Fiat plant in Tychy

Wersja polska

English version

E-011343/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Irregularities during Mexico's last presidential elections

Versión española

English version

E-011344/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Daphne Programme funding post-2014

English version

E-011345/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Serious health concerns about the use of sandblasting in the garment industry

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-011357/12 by Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: Sandblasted denim

English version

E-011346/12 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Multi-stakeholder inclusion at the World Trade Organisation

Svensk version

English version

E-011347/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: OECD Economic Survey of Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011348/12 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission

Subject: European-level guaranteed minimum wage for trainees and interns

Versione italiana

English version

E-011350/12 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Commission's Sweep study on ‘free’ games for children that entice them to buy

Dansk udgave

English version

P-011351/12 by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission

Subject: Possible abuse of dominant position in the warehousing and supply of metals

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-011352/12 by Jutta Haug to the Commission

Subject: 2012 budget and 2013 budget

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011353/12 by Tanja Fajon to the Commission

Subject: Visa-free travel and the situation on the Serbian-Hungarian border

Slovenska različica

English version

E-011354/12 by Marc Tarabella, Emma McClarkin, Regina Bastos, Robert Rochefort and Cornelis de Jong to the Commission

Subject: Domestic fires

Version française

Nederlandse versie

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011355/12 by Tadeusz Cymański, Jacek Włosowicz, Jacek Olgierd Kurski and Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Massacre of Christians in Nigeria

Wersja polska

English version

E-011356/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Plan to install a very high voltage power line in Castellón

Versión española

English version

E-011358/12 by Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: Food Information for Consumers Regulation

English version

E-011359/12 by Karima Delli to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up to Parliament's resolution of 15 December 2011 on the mid-term review of the European strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work (2011/2147(INI))

Version française

English version

P-011360/12 by Andrew Duff to the Commission

Subject: Accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights

English version

P-011361/12 by Søren Bo Søndergaard to the Commission

Subject: Particulate pollution in airports

Dansk udgave

English version

P-011362/12 by Claudio Morganti to the Commission

Subject: Developments in the environmental situation on Lake Massaciuccoli

Versione italiana

English version

E-011363/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — New threats to Colombian trade unionists

Versión española

English version

E-011364/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Urbanisation of Ses Fontanelles (Palma de Mallorca)

Versión española

English version

E-011365/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Education reform in Spain, EU 2020 strategy, equality and non-discrimination

Versión española

English version

E-011366/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ana Miranda and Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Court fees in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-011367/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda and Joaquim Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Court fees: excessiveness criterion

Versión española

English version

E-011505/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Primacy of Community law on the issue of court fees

Versión española

English version

P-011601/12 by María Irigoyen Pérez to the Commission

Subject: Infringement in Spain of the right of all citizens to an effective remedy

Versión española

English version

E-011368/12 by Georgios Papastamkos to the Commission

Subject: Further contraction of Greek farm incomes

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011369/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Publication of the results of the consultation on the nuclear safety legislative framework

Version française

English version

E-011370/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful accession of Croatia

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011371/12 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Council

Subject: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

English version

E-011372/12 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission

Subject: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

English version

E-011373/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Smart meters for water

Version française

English version

E-011374/12 by Pino Arlacchi to the Commission

Subject: ERDF Regional Operational Programme for Campania (2007-2013) — Campania Regional Law No 12/2007

Versione italiana

English version

E-011375/12 by Rolandas Paksas to the Commission

Subject: Granting of support for the fisheries sector 2014-2020

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011376/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: Promoting active ageing

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011377/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: International EU cooperation in the field of vocational education and training

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011378/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Development aid and the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020

Wersja polska

English version

E-011379/12 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Increasing attacks on Christians in Nigeria

Wersja polska

English version

P-011380/12 by Lena Kolarska-Bobińska to the Commission

Subject: WTO — Gazprom

Wersja polska

English version

E-011381/12 by Lena Kolarska-Bobińska to the Commission

Subject: The third energy package and take-or-pay clauses

Wersja polska

English version

E-011382/12 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: The threatened demise of the honey bee in the EU and the role of neonicotinoid insecticides

English version

E-011383/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: EU asylum policy: further action

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011384/12 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: European Social Fund

English version

E-011385/12 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: Energy security

English version

E-011386/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Single European emergency call number 112 — location of calls

Version française

English version

E-011387/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Project to improve the taste of gluten-free food

Version française

English version

E-011388/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: Legislative proposal on smart borders

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011389/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: Mid-term Review of the Stockholm Programme

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011390/12 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: On the review of Directives 2004/114/EC and 2005/71/EC

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-011391/12 by Bogusław Sonik to the Commission

Subject: Shale gas — report from the Polish Geological Institute (PGI)

Wersja polska

English version

E-011392/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Tax agreement between Germany and Switzerland

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011393/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Tax agreements between Switzerland and EU Member States

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011394/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Insolvencies in the print media sector

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011395/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Possible link between shale gas exploration and earthquakes

Versione italiana

English version

E-011396/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Corruption a barrier to women's rights in Afghanistan

Versione italiana

English version

E-011397/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Tax benefits for compliant businesses: new measures for combating corruption

Versione italiana

English version

E-011398/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Changes in gut flora and related pathologies

Versione italiana

English version

E-011399/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: The ‘Choosing Wisely’ campaign: an example to follow for the EU's health strategy?

Versione italiana

English version

E-011400/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Acute leukaemia: prospect of recovery with fewer side effects

Versione italiana

English version

E-011401/12 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Detention of Kazakh political refugee in Poland

Wersja polska

English version

P-011402/12 by Kartika Tamara Liotard to the Commission

Subject: Progress of EFSA investigation into Aspartame

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011403/12 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Forced marriages of children in Turkey

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011404/12 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: So-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus citizenship’

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011405/12 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the Ankara Protocol

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011406/12 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Illegal settlement in occupied Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011407/12 by Anne Delvaux to the Commission

Subject: Means of protection for the Virunga Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Version française

English version

E-011408/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Separate budget for eurozone countries

Wersja polska

English version

E-011409/12 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: Elimination of the Portuguese National Ecological Network

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011410/12 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Compulsory study of a second language

Versione italiana

English version

P-011411/12 by Elisabeth Köstinger to the Commission

Subject: Beef imports from Brazil — atypical form of BSE

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-011412/12 by Richard Seeber to the Commission

Subject: Ban on placing on the market cosmetics produced with the aid of animal testing

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-011413/12 by Alfredo Antoniozzi to the Council

Subject: Setting up free zones in Member States hardest hit by the economic crisis

Versione italiana

English version

P-011414/12 by Romana Jordan to the Commission

Subject: Enquiry concerning the conclusion of Case C-84/11

Slovenska različica

English version

P-011415/12 by Elena Băsescu to the Commission

Subject: Package of measures for the recruitment of young people

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011416/12 by Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova to the Commission

Subject: Consequences of climate change

българска версия

English version

E-011417/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Parque de la Albufera (Valencia) a Natural Heritage Site

Versión española

English version

E-011418/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: ERDF funds to the Community of Valencia

Versión española

English version

E-011419/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Withdrawal of aid for the ‘Ciudad de la Luz’ film studios (Alicante)

Versión española

English version

E-011420/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Instituto de la Pequeña y Mediana Industria de la Generalitat Valenciana (IMPIVA) as mentor for Eurochile

Versión española

English version

E-011421/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Withdrawal of funding for the Life project on jellyfish in Denia (Alicante)

Versión española

English version

E-011422/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Interregional learning community for the promotion of educational achievement

Versión española

English version

E-011423/12 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of EAFRD programmes in the Autonomous Community of Valencia

Versión española

English version

E-011424/12 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Compensation for rightholders for private reproductions

Versión española

English version

E-011425/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Organ harvesting in China

Versión española

English version

E-011617/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Removal of organs from detainees in China

Versión española

English version

E-011426/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Falun Gong

Versión española

English version

E-011427/12 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: The Water Framework Directive

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011428/12 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Livestock manure

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011430/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: SWIFT — checks on transfers of European banking data

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011431/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Data protection in data transfers to the USA

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011432/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Development aid and child labour

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011433/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: EUR 1.4 billion from Greece to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for investments in the Balkans

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011434/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Approval of compensation for pest attack

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011435/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Problems caused by the dismantling of tax offices on Greek islands

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011436/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Declared income and the ratio of overall tax revenue from natural and legal persons in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011437/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Dramatic increase in child and adolescent depression in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011438/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Rapid and sustained contraction of employment in Greece: fewer persons in employment than the non-active population

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011439/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Increase in extent and severity of learning difficulties in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011440/12 by Cristian Silviu Buşoi to the Commission

Subject: Caller location information for 112 emergency number

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011441/12 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: REACH, EASA and chromium trioxide

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011442/12 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: REACH and the airline industry

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011443/12 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Potential shortage of drugs in Europe

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011444/12 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: EU funding of Palestinian groups

English version

E-011445/12 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: UK Communications Data Bill

English version

E-011446/12 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: Funding for proposed institute to promote good managerial practices in the Third World

English version

E-011447/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Updated information further to Written Question E-011134/2010 on the use and results of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Turkey

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011448/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Updated information further to Written Question E-011133/2010 on the use and results of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Croatia

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011449/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Updated information further to Written Question E-009861/2010 on the use and results of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Macedonia

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011661/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information on the use of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Albania, and on the results obtained

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011662/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information on the use of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the results obtained

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011663/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information on the use of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Montenegro, and on the results obtained

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011664/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information on the use of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Serbia, and on the results obtained

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011665/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information on the use of pre-accession funds in the areas of the judicial system and the fight against corruption in Kosovo (under UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)), and on the results obtained

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011450/12 by Slavi Binev to the Commission

Subject: Freedom to provide professional services in Belgium: Follow-up to Written Question E-000957/2011

българска версия

English version

E-011451/12 by Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Property tax

English version

E-011452/12 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and specified risk material (SRM)

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011453/12 by András Gyürk to the Commission

Subject: Transparency of the selection procedure for infrastructure projects of common interest (PCIs)

Magyar változat

English version

E-011454/12 by Sandrine Bélier to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of Slovakian Natura 2000 sites

Version française

English version

E-011455/12 by Sandrine Bélier to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of EU legislation at the Danube Delta Natura 2000 site in Romania

Version française

English version

E-011456/12 by Edward McMillan-Scott to the Commission

Subject: Payment of developers' debts in Cypriot property cases

English version

E-011457/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Utilisation of the CE mark

English version

E-011458/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Air traffic control en-route charges

English version

E-011460/12 by Harlem Désir to the Commission

Subject: Corporate social responsibility (CSR): clear interpretation of the concept of ‘reasonable care’

Version française

English version

E-011461/12 by Marielle de Sarnez to the Commission

Subject: Wines and spirits‐ trade talks with Canada

Version française

English version

E-011462/12 by Alain Cadec to the Commission

Subject: Date of the European Maritime Day event

Version française

English version

E-011463/12 by Paolo De Castro, Herbert Dorfmann, Iratxe García Pérez and Eric Andrieu to the Commission

Subject: Protection of geographical indications in the context of agricultural and food fairs in the EU

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

Versione italiana

English version

E-011464/12 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Protection of the cat family

Versione italiana

English version

E-011465/12 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The Sahel and the Tuareg

Versione italiana

English version

E-011466/12 by Tadeusz Cymański, Jacek Włosowicz, Jacek Olgierd Kurski and Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: Victims of Pakistan's blasphemy law

Wersja polska

English version

E-011467/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Economic crisis leads to an increase in domestic violence

Versão portuguesa

English version

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011190/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Sale of tobacco at airports

Can the Commission outline whether or not it would consider banning the sale of tobacco at EU airports?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2013)

The Commission does not envisage to propose a ban of the sale of tobacco products at EU airports.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011191/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Package Travel Directive

Can the Commission explain what the timeline for the revision of the Package Travel Directive is?

Does the Commission agree that the directive, which entered into force in 1990, is completely out of date?

Travel agents who sell ‘dynamic package holidays’ are subject to stringent conditions, which protect the consumer, but other entities, such as airlines, who also sell ‘dynamic packages’ are not subject to the same conditions. Does the Commission acknowledge that this is distorting the market?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2013)

The Commission acknowledges that the travel market and consumer behaviour in this market has developed significantly since the Package Travel Directive (1) (the directive) was adopted in 1990. The Commission is also aware that certain market players have complained about an uneven market playing field, where some players incur compliance costs stemming from the rules of the directive, while others selling competing travel products do not. The Honourable Member should be made aware that the Commission is currently assessing its response to the mentioned developments in the travel market.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011193/12

to the Commission

Mary Honeyball (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Parental consent for the handing over of personally identifiable information

What laws and regulations of each Member State affect the age at which a person no longer needs parental consent to hand over personally identifiable information to third parties? Is it the same in both the online and the offline environment?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The determination of the age when a person no longer needs parental consent for the processing of his/her personal data is usually provided by national legislation of EU Member States and is often linked — without making a distinction between the online and the offline environment — to the capacity of the subject to enter into contractual obligations.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011195/12

to the Commission

Mary Honeyball (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Age verification

What is the current situation in each Member State with regard to the laws and regulations governing the age at which young people are able to buy alcohol/tobacco, participate in gambling, or purchase materials with adult content, i.e. films, magazines and video games?

Secondly, in each Member State, are these laws the same online and offline?

Lastly, is there a requirement in every Member State to do any kind of age verification in either environment?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

Member States alone are responsible for regulating minimum age limits and its enforcement.

As regards alcohol, the ‘2012 alcohol in the European Union’ report (2) provides an overview of national minimum age legislation. The report shows, for example, that the minimum age for on-premise sale of spirits is 18 years old in all but four Member States and that nine States allow 16 years old to buy beer or wine on premises. The Commission has recently launched a study to map the enforcement of legal age limits for selling and serving alcoholic beverages in all EU Member States. The results will be available later in 2013.

As regards tobacco, age limits between 16 and 18 years for purchasing of tobacco are in place in all Member States. In all but five States the legal age is 18. Information is available in the impact assessment Report (3) on the revision of the tobacco products directive.

As regards gambling, Member States set limits to preclude underage gambling as well as the verification procedures to be followed. As announced in the communication (4) regarding online gambling, the Commission intends to adopt two recommendations with the aim of providing a high level of protection of consumers of gambling services. With regard to video games, the self-regulatory Pan European Game Information (PEGI) age rating system is now used throughout most of Europe and some Member States have made it legally enforceable.

As regards audiovisual content on-demand, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (5) states that programmes which ‘might seriously impair’ the development of minors may only be made available by using PIN codes or other age verification systems. The directive further states that audiovisual commercial communications for alcohol cannot target specifically minors.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011196/12

to the Commission

Daniel Hannan (ECR)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: EU funding to Montenegro and Zambia

Could the Commission state how much EU funding Montenegro and Zambia receive, how the money is allocated and what it is spent on?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2013)

For the period 2007-2013 the total amount of EU funding for Montenegro under the IPA (6) is EUR 235 715 039. Until 2011 the funds were used to finance programmes under the component I ‘Transition Assistance and Institution Building’, and II ‘Cross-Border Cooperation’. From June 2012, as a candidate country, Montenegro has also access to component III ‘Regional Development’, IV ‘Human Resources Development’ and V ‘Rural Development’, and will implement programmes under these components once conferral received of management powers to directly manage EU financial assistance. Montenegro also benefits from the multi-beneficiary programmes under component I. The EU assistance to Montenegro focuses on these sectors: Justice and Home Affairs, Public Administration, Environment and Climate Change, Transport, Social Development and Agriculture and Rural Development.

For the period 2007-2013 the total amount of EU funding for Zambia under the 10th EDF (7) is EUR 556 330 000. In line with the Zambian National Development Plans, the EU national assistance to Zambia focuses on the following: Regional Integration and Transport Infrastructure (roads); Health (including the EU MDG (8)-initiative); Macro-Economic, National Development and Poverty Reduction policy through general budget support; Food Security and Agricultural Diversification; Governance; Non-State Actors and EPA (9)/Trade-related support. Apart from this funding, Zambia also benefits from financial support through other EU funding sources (regional and intra-ACP (10) programmes and the Water and Energy Facilities, Thematic budget lines, Food Facility and the accompanying measures for sugar producing countries).

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011197/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7. december 2012)

Om: Ændringer i aktionærers rettigheder i Tyrkiet

Er Kommissionen enig i, at de seneste ændringer i aktionærernes rettigheder i Tyrkiet — som bl.a. betyder, at uafhængige bestyrelsesmedlemmer (i modsætning til aktionærerne) tildeles en afgørende stemme i vigtige beslutningsprocesser, og at det tyrkiske Capital Markets Board har fået magt til at afskedige en direktør, der var behørigt udpeget af aktionærerne — fortjener større opmærksomhed end den enkelte linje i 2012-statusrapporten om Tyrkiets tiltrædelse?

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011198/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7. december 2012)

Om: Selskabsdirektører og diskrimination i Tyrkiet

EU-lovgivningen forbyder diskrimination for så vidt angår tjenesteydelser baseret på nationalitet og eller opholdssted. Tyrkiet har for nylig fastsat krav om, at uafhængige direktører, der sidder i bestyrelsen for selskaber, der er opført på Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Index, skal være bosiddende i Tyrkiet. Er dette i overensstemmelse med kravene i forbindelse med EU-medlemskab?

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011199/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7. december 2012)

Om: Kapitalmarkedsprotektionisme i Tyrkiet

Har Kommissionen foretaget analyser af, om der med de nye, udvidede beføjelser, som det tyrkiske Capital Markets Board har fået over virksomheder, der er opført på Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Index, er tale om protektionisme?

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011200/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7. december 2012)

Om: Det tyrkiske Capital Markets Boards magt og EU

Er Kommissionen enig i, at det tyrkiske Capital Markets Boards nye, omfattende beføjelser i selskaber, der er noteret på Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Indeks er indgribende, og at de fremmer politisk indblanding i driften af selvstændige virksomheder i en sådan grad, at de er i modstrid med kravet til EU-medlemsstaterne om at have en velfungerende markedsøkonomi?

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011201/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7. december 2012)

Om: Tyrkiets nye principper for selskabsstyring og Tyrkiets tiltrædelse af EU

Er Kommissionen på baggrund af Tyrkiets nyligt indførte principper for selskabsstyring enig i, at beskrivelsen af Tyrkiet som et land, der har gjort gode fremskridt inden for selskabsret og er nået langt på dette område, ikke er korrekt, og at de nye principper faktisk måske vil kunne udgøre en betydelig ny hindring for et tyrkisk EU-medlemskab?

Samlet svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Štefan Füle

(8. februar 2013)

I statusrapporten 2012 for Tyrkiet (11) vurderes udviklingen inden for kapitel 6 — Selskabsret, idet der tages hensyn til alle EU-rettens bestemmelser på dette område. Tyrkiet gjorde bl.a. markante fremskridt inden for regnskabsrevision. Samtidig understreges det i rapporten, at de nye principper for virksomhedsledelse (vedtaget i december 2011 og ændret i februar 2012) øger statens indflydelse, idet kapitalmarkedskommissionen har fået øget beføjelse til at kontrollere virksomheder.

I rapporten vurderes Tyrkiets evne til at påtage sig forpligtelserne ved medlemskab, bl.a. dets evne til at tilpasse, gennemføre og håndhæve lovgivning.

Kommissionen er ved at foretage en grundig analyse af konsekvenserne af kapitalmarkedskommissionens indflydelse på børsnoterede virksomheder. Kommissionen og Tyrkiet har nedsat en arbejdsgruppe for at drøfte den tyrkiske lovgivning på det selskabsretlige område. Kapitalmarkedskommissionens indflydelse på virksomhedsledelse samt aktionærrettigheder vil blive drøftet inden for rammerne af denne arbejdsgruppe. Tyrkiet skal tilpasse sin lovgivning fuldt ud på området selskabsret, før landet kan tiltræde Unionen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011197/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Changes to shareholder rights in Turkey

Does the Commission accept that recent changes to shareholder rights in Turkey — which include granting independent directors (as opposed to shareholders) a casting vote on important decisions, and giving the Turkish Capital Markets Board the power to dismiss a director who was duly appointed by shareholders — merit more consideration than the single line they received in the 2012 progress report on Turkish accession?

Question for written answer E-011198/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Company directors and discrimination in Turkey

As EC law prohibits discrimination in the provision of services based on nationality or residence, is Turkey’s recent stipulation that independent directors sitting on the board of companies on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Index must be Turkish residents in line with the requirements for EU membership?

Question for written answer E-011199/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Capital market protectionism in Turkey

Has the Commission undertaken any analysis of whether the new, extensive powers of the Capital Markets Board of Turkey over companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Index amount to protectionism?

Question for written answer E-011200/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: The powers of the Capital Markets Board of Turkey and the EU

Would the Commission agree that the new, extensive powers of the Capital Markets Board of Turkey over companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 30 Index are intrusive, and that they encourage political interference in the running of independent businesses to the point where they conflict with the requirement for EU Member States to have a functioning market economy?

Question for written answer E-011201/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Turkey's new Corporate Governance Principles and accession to the EU

Given Turkey’s recently introduced Corporate Governance Principles, would the Commission agree that describing Turkey as having made ‘good progress […] on company law’ and as being ‘advanced in this area’ was inappropriate and that the new principles may, in fact, constitute a significant new barrier to Turkey’s accession to the EU?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

The 2012 Progress Report on Turkey (12) evaluates developments in Chapter 6 — Company law taking into account the whole acquis in this area, including the significant progress Turkey made in auditing. At the same time, the report clearly points out that the new corporate governance principles (adopted in December 2011 and amended in February 2012) increase the state involvement in the corporate governance by giving more power to the Capital Markets Board to control companies.

The report reviews Turkey's capacity to take on the obligations of membership, including legislative alignment, implementation and enforcement capacities.

The Commission is working on a thorough analysis of the influence of the powers of the Capital Markets Board over listed companies. The Commission and Turkey have established a working group to discuss the Turkish legislation in the area of company law. The corporate governance, prerogatives of the Capital Markets Board as well as shareholders' rights will be discussed in the framework of this working group. Turkey needs to fully align its legislation in the area of company law by the date of accession.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011202/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Sito di importanza comunitaria a Vittorio Veneto (TV) attraversato da un'opera stradale priva di VINCA e con una VIA incoerente

La società ANAS Spa sta per realizzare a Vittorio Veneto, in provincia di Treviso, un progetto di strada statale noto localmente come «Traforo di Sant'Augusta» (13) che interesserà direttamente l'alveo del fiume Meschio.

Il fiume Meschio fa parte della rete Natura 2000 essendo tutelato come sito di importanza comunitaria ai sensi della direttiva Habitat grazie ad una delibera della Regione Veneto dell'agosto del 2004 (14) .

Il progetto di questa strada prevede, proprio in questo SIC, la costruzione di importanti opere con evidenti ripercussioni sull'ambiente, come la realizzazione di ben due ponti e una rotatoria.

Il progetto, approvato nel maggio 2009 dall'ANAS, è stato oggetto di una VIA (valutazione di impatto ambientale) nel luglio 2004 e pertanto non ha tenuto conto dell'esistenza del SIC istituito ufficialmente solo nel mese successivo e dei conseguenti effetti su detta area naturale.

A causa della mancata presa in considerazione del SIC «IT 3240032 Fiume Meschio», il progetto «Traforo di Sant'Augusta» risulta privo di VINCA (valutazione di incidenza ambientale).

Di conseguenza non si è tenuto conto neanche delle diverse aree della rete Natura 2000 che si trovano nel raggio di circa 10 chilometri dalla zona interessata dall'opera, quali: la ZPS IT3240024 «Dorsale prealpina tra Valdobbiadene e Serravalle», il SIC IT3240005 «Perdonanze e corso del Monticano», il SIC IT3240014 «Laghi di Revine» e infine il SIC IT3230077 «Foresta del Cansiglio».

Il 4 giugno 2012 il portavoce del Comitato «No traforo ANAS, sì alternative» ha trasmesso a nome dell'associazione «Salviamo il paesaggio» — Sezione di Vittorio Veneto, una dettagliata denuncia alla Commissione europea, comprensiva di dieci documenti allegati, per violazione delle norme delle direttive Habitat ed Uccelli.

Ritiene la Commissione di essere di fronte ad un caso di violazione del diritto comunitario con particolare riferimento alle direttive Habitat (93/43/CEE), VIA (2011/92/UE) ed Uccelli (2009/147/CE)? Come intende procedere in merito ai fatti esposti?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(1o febbraio 2013)

Nel giugno 2012 la Commissione ha ricevuto una lettera contenente la stessa denuncia; protocollata con il codice CHAP(2012)01705, è attualmente all’esame. Una volta terminato l’esame, la Commissione ne comunicherà i risultati agli autori della denuncia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011202/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Site of Community importance (SCI) in Vittorio Veneto (Treviso) crossed by road works, with no environmental implications assessment and an inconsistent EIA

The company ANAS SpA is about to carry out a highway building project, known locally as the Sant'Augusta tunnel (15), in Vittorio Veneto, province of Treviso, that will directly affect the bed of the River Meschio.

The River Meschio is part of the Natura 2000 network and is protected as a site of Community importance under the Habitats Directive, following a resolution of the Veneto Region in August 2004 (16).

According to the plan for this road, precisely in this SCI, there will be major road works which will have obvious repercussions on the environment, such as the construction of two bridges and a roundabout.

The project was approved by ANAS in May 2009 and was the subject of an EIA (environmental impact assessment) in July 2004. The EIA did not, therefore, take into account the existence of the SCI, which was formally established only in the following month, and the subsequent impact on that nature area.

Because of the failure to take into account the SCI ‘IT 3240032 River Meschio’, the Sant'Augusta tunnel does not have the necessary environmental implications assessment (known in Italy as VINCA).

Accordingly, the various Natura 2000 network areas that are within about 10 km of the area of the road works have not even been taken into account. These areas include: the SPA IT3240024 ‘Pre-alpine ridge between Valdobbiadene and Serravalle’, the SCI IT3240005 Perdonanze e corso del Monticano , SCI IT3240014 ‘Revine Lakes’ and the SCI IT3230077 ‘Cansiglio Forest’.

On 4 June 2012, the spokesperson for the ‘No ANAS tunnel’ Committee sent, on behalf of the ‘Save the Landscape’ association — Vittorio Veneto branch — a detailed complaint to the Commission, including ten attached documents, regarding the infringement of the provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Does the Commission not agree that this is a case of infringement of Community law, with specific reference to the Habitats Directive (93/43/EEC), the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)? What action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2013)

In June 2012 the Commission received a letter containing the same complaint. The complaint has been registered as CHAP(2012)01705 and is under assessment. Once this has been completed, the Commission will communicate its conclusions to the complainants.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011203/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Il European Food Import Safety Regime: quale armonizzazione per i controlli delle importazioni con i Paesi terzi?

Circa 120 tonnellate di pompelmi provenienti dalla Turchia sono state distrutte in Romania dopo che le autorità hanno rilevato la presenza di residui di antiparassitari in dosi superiori a quelle consentite dalla normativa comunitaria. I rilievi effettuati su alcune partite hanno evidenziato la presenza di Imazalil, un potente fungicida utilizzato per combattere le fitopatie e i parassiti, che in quantità elevate può essere molto nocivo per la salute degli uomini e degli animali. In seguito alla vicenda le autorità rumene hanno dichiarato che d'ora in poi tutte le importazioni di agrumi e frutta dalla Turchia saranno sottoposte a un regime di controlli più scrupoloso. Questi gli obiettivi che la Commissione europea si prefiggeva nel suo Rapporto, proponendo inoltre di migliorare l'operatività del Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed (RASFF): migliorare l'uniformità dell'applicazione dei controlli tra gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea, su alimenti di origine animale, vegetale ma anche sui mangimi; adottare un sistema di controlli onnicomprensivo ed integrato, in grado di garantire una maggiore coerenza, e uniforme per gli Stati membri. L'efficacia del RASFF, di fatto, viene però messa in discussione dall'inadeguatezza dei controlli, soprattutto con i paesi extra UE, come dimostrato dai recenti fatti di cronaca. La stessa relazione evidenziava che «se da un lato tale normativa gestisce in modo efficace i rischi effettivi e potenziali, dall'altro essa risulta talvolta complessa e priva di coerenza generale. Di conseguenza può rivelarsi onerosa e la sua attuazione può risultare difficoltosa sia per gli Stati membri sia per gli operatori economici.»

Considerato che:

non è la prima volta che la Commissione europea si trova davanti al dilemma tra dispendiosità dei controlli e tutela della sicurezza alimentare;

l'Unione europea è l'area geografica più importante in termini di import alimentare e di mangimi e nello stesso tempo il settore alimentare è il primo in termini di fatturato,

può dire la Commissione se l'attuale sistema europeo di monitoraggio in realtà non debba essere considerato «fallimentare» soprattutto rispetto alle importazioni dai Paesi terzi, e se, di conseguenza, la sicurezza delle importazioni di prodotti alimentari in Europa non possa essere perseguita attraverso l'applicazione di condizioni economiche particolari e restrittive per l'importazione dei prodotti alle frontiere esterne?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(30 gennaio 2013)

La responsabilità di far rispettare la legislazione relativa alla filiera alimentare incombe agli Stati membri che sono tenuti a stabilire un sistema di controlli ufficiali per verificare l'ottemperanza, da parte degli operatori, ai requisiti regolamentari. La Commissione verifica se gli Stati membri fanno fronte ai loro obblighi di controllo, anche per il tramite di audit in loco. Nel caso menzionato dall'onorevole deputato il sistema di controlli ufficiali posto in atto dalla Romania risulta averle consentito di identificare casi di violazione delle normative applicabili. La Commissione ritiene pertanto che esso non possa essere considerato fallimentare.

Per quanto concerne le regole che si applicano agli alimenti importati nell'UE, l'articolo 11 del regolamento 178/2002 (17) richiede che essi rispettino le pertinenti disposizioni della legislazione alimentare o le condizioni riconosciute almeno equivalenti dall'UE. Gli Stati membri verificano questa conformità mediante controlli documentali, d'identità e fisici, a seconda dei casi.

Inoltre, per certi prodotti, i controlli devono essere effettuati al momento dell'ingresso nell'UE in strutture specificamente designate a tal fine e l'immissione in libera pratica avviene soltanto se i risultati sono soddisfacenti. I peperoni e pomodori provenienti dalla Turchia sono ad esempio oggetto di tali controlli a norma del regolamento 669/2009 (18).

Le regole unionali vigenti sono di ampia portata e consentono un livello elevato di protezione nell'interesse dell'UE. Pertanto, piuttosto di passare a un sistema di condizioni economiche restrittive, la Commissione sottopone a revisione il regolamento 882/2004 (19) al fine di snellire e consolidare le regole che si applicano ai controlli ufficiali degli animali e dei prodotti provenienti da paesi terzi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011203/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: The European Food Import Safety Regime: what harmonisation for controls on imports from third countries?

Approximately 120 tonnes of grapefruit from Turkey were destroyed in Romania after authorities detected the presence of pesticide residues in amounts exceeding those permitted under EC law. The tests carried out on several batches showed the presence of imazalil, a powerful fungicide used to combat plant diseases and pests, which in large amounts can be very harmful to human and animal health.

In the wake of this event, the Romanian authorities declared that from now on all imports of citrus fruits and fruit from Turkey would be subject to a more thorough system of inspections. The Commission set out the following aims in its report, proposing also to improve the operation of the Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed (RASFF): to improve the harmonised implementation of controls among EU Member States on food of animal or vegetable origin, but also on animal feed, and to adopt a comprehensive and integrated system that is standardised among the Member States and that ensures greater consistency. The effectiveness of the RASFF, however, is called into question by the inadequacy of controls, especially with non-EU countries, as has been demonstrated by recent events. The report shows that ‘while this legislation effectively manages potential and actual risks, it is at times rather complex and lacking in overall coherence. This means it can be burdensome and lead to difficulties with implementation for Member States and business operators alike’.

Given that:

this is not the first time that the Commission is faced with the dilemma between the expense of controls and the protection of food safety;

the European Union is the most important geographical region in terms of food and feed imports and, at the same time, its food sector is the largest in terms of turnover;

does the Commission not agree that the current European monitoring system could actually be deemed a ‘failure’, especially with regard to imports from non-EU countries? Could the safety of food imports in Europe not be achieved by applying specific restrictive economic conditions for the import of products at the EU's external borders?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2013)

The responsibility for enforcing food chain legislation lies with Member States, which are required to establish a system of official controls to verify compliance by operators with requirements deriving therefrom. The Commission monitors delivery by the Member States of their control duties, including through on-the-spot audits. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the official controls system established by Romania seems to have allowed it to identify violations of applicable rules. The Commission believes this cannot therefore be interpreted as a failure in the system of official controls.

As regards the rules applicable to food imported into the EU, Article 11 of Regulation 178/2002 (20) requires it to comply with EU requirements or conditions recognised by the EU to be at least equivalent thereto. Member States verify such compliance through documentary, identity and physical checks as appropriate.

Moreover, for certain goods, checks must be carried out upon entry into the EU in facilities specifically designated for this purpose and release for free circulation must only occur if the results are satisfactory. Sweet peppers and tomatoes from Turkey are, for example, subject to such checks under Regulation 669/2009 (21).

Existing Union rules are comprehensive and afford a high level of protection to the EU. Therefore, rather than moving towards a system of restrictive economic conditions, the Commission is reviewing Regulation 882/2004 (22) with a view to streamlining and consolidating the rules which apply to official controls on animals and goods from third countries.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011204/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: capillari campagne di prevenzione

La Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) è la sindrome mortale che colpisce improvvisamente nel sonno i bambini tra un mese e un anno di età. Viene diagnosticata quando, in seguito ad autopsia, si possono escludere tutte le altre cause note per spiegare il decesso di un neonato, come malformazioni o eventi dolosi. Alcuni studi stanno ricercando la presenza di predisposizioni genetiche che, in concomitanza di alcuni fattori ambientali, possono portare al decesso; infatti, sebbene le statistiche dimostrino che il trend negli ultimi anni è decrescente in modo statisticamente significativo, l'incidenza a livello internazionale è di uno per mille nati vivi; si è osservato che in Italia, nel periodo 1990-2009, i casi di mortalità per SIDS sono diminuiti di circa il 60 % e ora oscillano tra 0,04 e 0,11 per mille nati vivi. Nell'ultimo ventennio c'è stata una netta riduzione dei decessi dovuti alla sindrome, eppure questa rimane la principale causa singola di morte dopo il primo mese di vita. La diminuzione è riconducibile alla maggiore sensibilità sviluppata da medici e ostetriche nel diffondere le informazioni sulla sindrome e i consigli per evitarla, sia tra operatori del settore sia tra genitori e parenti; lo scorso anno l'American Academy of Pediatrics ha prodotto «Raccomandazioni su tutte le norme in materia di sicurezza del sonno»: un bambino apparentemente sano e normale può, in realtà, soffrire di una piccola anomalia del sistema di regolazione dei ritmi cardiaci, respiratori o generali del proprio organismo, ma è fondamentale affrontare i cambiamenti fisiologici connessi alla crescita nel primo anno di vita e soprattutto prevenire gli eventi ambientali, quali l'esposizione al fumo passivo e piccole infezioni respiratorie, ed evitare che il bambino dorma in posizione prona.

Considerato che:

un'informazione univoca e precoce è fondamentale, ed è necessario sviluppare in modo costante e capillare, a livello europeo e internazionale, campagne di formazione e informazione rivolte a medici e familiari;

la morte di un neonato provoca effetti devastanti sulle famiglie, a livello sia psichico che informativo, ed è importante per i genitori avere delle risposte riguardo a quanto è capitato;

può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Intende supportare programmi di ricerca medico-genetica per indagare la SIDS e programmi di supporto a livello psichico dei familiari colpiti dagli effetti disastrosi di questa sindrome?

Prevede di sviluppare in maniere capillare in tutti gli Stati membri campagne di informazione preventiva, sensibilizzando così i medici di base e i pediatri, nonché gli operatori del settore nei punti nascita e negli ambulatori pediatrici?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(30 gennaio 2013)

La Commissione condivide le preoccupazioni dell'onorevole deputato in relazione a questa sindrome e alle sue tragiche conseguenze per i bambini.

Questo è il motivo per cui la Commissione ha sostenuto in passato diversi progetti che interessavano tale problematica, segnatamente un'azione concertata «Co-ordinated case-control studies to determine ways of reducing sudden infant death syndrome rates in Europe» (Studi di casi coordinati per determinare le modalità di riduzione della Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Europa) (23), nell'ambito del programma BIOMED1, integrata da un progetto di follow-up (24), nel contesto del programma PECO-Copernicus.

I lavori condotti nell'ambito del Sesto programma quadro, segnatamente con il progetto Newmood (25), hanno portato a conclusioni sulla Sudden Infant Death Syndrome pubblicate sulla rivista Science per quanto concerne il comportamento di certi neuroni associati con questa sindrome (26) . Le informazioni ricavate dai progetti di ricerca sono pubblicate e accessibili alle persone interessate.

La realizzazione di programmi di sostegno psicologico per le famiglie rientra nella responsabilità esclusiva degli Stati membri che sono i soli competenti per l'organizzazione e l'erogazione dei servizi sanitari. La Commissione non prevede di predisporre una campagna di informazione su scala UE in questo ambito.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011204/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: widespread prevention campaigns

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the deadly syndrome that strikes children suddenly in their sleep between the ages of one month and one year. It is diagnosed when, after an autopsy, all other known causes to explain the death of a baby can be excluded, such as malformations or malicious events. Some studies are researching the presence of genetic predisposition which, in conjunction with environmental factors, can lead to death. Indeed, although statistics show that the trend in recent years is decreasing in a statistically significant manner, the international incidence is one per thousand live births. It has been noted that in Italy, in the period 1990-2009, the mortality rate for SIDS declined by about 60% and now ranges between 0.04 and 0.11 per thousand live births.

Over the last twenty years there has been a sharp reduction in the number of deaths due to the syndrome, and yet it remains the biggest single cause of death after the first month of life. The decline is due to the greater awareness of doctors and midwives of the need to disseminate information about the syndrome and recommendations on how to avoid it, among both operators in the sector and parents and relatives. Last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics produced the ‘Expansion of Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment’: a child that is seemingly normal and healthy may, in fact, suffer from a minor abnormality of the system which regulates the heart rate, breathing rate or general bodily functions, but it is vital to deal with the physiological changes associated with growth in the first year of life and, above all, to prevent environmental events, such as exposure to second-hand smoke and minor respiratory infections, and to prevent the child from sleeping in the prone position.

Given that:

timely and straightforward information is essential, and training and information campaigns for doctors and families need to be developed, on an ongoing, widespread basis, at the EU and international level;

the death of an infant has a devastating effect on families, from both a psychological and information-related point of view, and it is important for parents to have answers as to what happened;

can the Commission answer the following questions:

Will it support medical genetics research programmes in order to research SIDS and psychological support programmes for families affected by the disastrous impact of this syndrome?

Does it plan to develop, throughout the Member States, information campaigns for prevention, to raise awareness among general practitioners and paediatricians, as well as among those working in birth centres and paediatric clinics?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2013)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about this syndrome and its tragic consequences for infants.

This is why the Commission in the past supported several research projects on this topic notably a concerted action ‘Coordinated case-control studies to determine ways of reducing sudden infant death syndrome rates in Europe’ (27), under the BIOMED1 programme, completed by a follow up project  (28), under the PECO-Copernicus scheme.

Work undertaken under Sixth Framework Programme under project Newmood (29) led to conclusions relevant to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, published in journal Science, as regards behaviour of certain neurons associated with this syndrome (30) . Information obtained through research projects is published and accessible to interested parties.

Implementing psychological support programmes for the families falls under the exclusive responsibility of Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services. The Commission in not planning to develop an EU-wide information campaign in this area.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011205/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Educazione a una corretta alimentazione: nuove azioni e misure per la tutela dei consumatori

La prevenzione di comportamenti errati in campo alimentare si basa su un percorso formativo in grado di istruire il soggetto sin dall'età scolare su modelli e criteri di nutrizione-alimentazione sana ed equilibrata. L'informazione alimentare consente di acquisire conoscenze sull'interazione «cibo-individuo» e di maturare una crescente consapevolezza sulle conseguenze di scelte alimentari errate sulla salute: assumere alimenti sani, osservare corretti ritmi di consumazione del cibo e distribuzione dei pasti, evitare squilibri dannosi per lo sviluppo metabolico (riducendo, in caso di sovrappeso, la quota calorica totale, l'apporto di lipidi, zuccheri, proteine animali, cloruro di sodio, favorendo il consumo di alimenti ricchi di fibre vegetali, ecc.). Recenti studi condotti dall'Università del North Carolina dimostrano che l'obesità derivante dall'assunzione di cibo «spazzatura» si sta diffondendo al pari di un'epidemia a livello globale e sta mietendo sempre più vittime tra i giovanissimi. I risultati ottenuti dimostrano che un'alimentazione scorretta è in grado di alterare anche gli ormoni deputati alla regolazione delle funzioni sessuali. Si registrano, infatti, sempre più casi di bambine, non ancora adolescenti, che in media all'età di 10 anni hanno il loro primo menarca.

Considerato che:

l'educazione alla salute, investendo gli aspetti fisici, identitari e relazionali della formazione della personalità, implica un percorso motivazionale in grado di orientare le future scelte dell'individuo;

la formazione passa attraverso la rimozione-minimizzazione dei fattori responsabili dei comportamenti alimentari errati, attraverso la comunicazione, l'attenzione dei mass media e dei produttori di cibo alla salute dei consumatori piuttosto che alle logiche di mercato, la promozione di una cultura della salute intesa quale equilibrio somato-psichico,

può la Commissione far sapere se intende:

rinnovare e ridefinire le strategie per lo studio della nutrizione e dell'impatto sulla salute umana relativi ai temi del cibo, dell'alimentazione, della prevenzione;

migliorare i processi di comunicazione ai fini dell'adozione di stili di vita e comportamenti in linea con le conoscenze scientifiche disponibili;

privilegiare un approccio centrato sui vantaggi per la salute e lo sviluppo psico-motorio di una sana alimentazione, piuttosto che su dinamiche intimidatorie (la paura dell'obesità o delle malattie cardiovascolari rischia di incrementare atteggiamenti nevrotici, l'enfatizzazione della «forma» o dell'immagine può sviluppare dinamiche fobiche)?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(23 gennaio 2013)

La Commissione attribuisce la massima importanza al fatto che la politica sanitaria sia basata sulle migliori prove scientifiche tratte da dati e da ricerche validi.

La Strategia europea sugli aspetti sanitari connessi all'alimentazione, al sovrappeso e all'obesità (31) indica che un elemento chiave dell'approccio della Commissione consiste nello sviluppare la base probatoria che servirà per impostare le politiche future. Oltre alle iniziative di ricerca della Commissione, è in atto una rigorosa cooperazione con WHO Europe per monitorare le politiche in tema di alimentazione e attività fisica nell'Unione europea.

La Commissione ha avviato un processo di valutazione di questa strategia UE e la relazione valutativa finale sarà disponibile nel primo semestre del 2013. Essa costituirà la base per eventuali azioni di follow-up.

La Commissione patrocina la ricerca sulla nutrizione e sugli stili di vita sani in cui rientra la Strategia UE summenzionata per il tramite del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico: sinora 250 milioni di euro (32) ,  (33) sono stati consacrati a questo ambito. (34) La proposta della Commissione in merito alla strategia Orizzonte 2020 — il Programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione (2014-2020) (35) identifica in «Salute, cambiamento demografico e benessere» una delle sei sfide per la società che si devono affrontare e che probabilmente presenteranno anche opportunità di ricerca in materia di diabete. È ancora prematuro indicare quali potrebbero essere le tematiche specifiche di ricerca da affrontare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011205/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Education in healthy eating — new measures to protect consumers

The prevention of unhealthy eating is based on education that can teach people from school age onwards about how to eat a healthy and balanced diet. Nutritional information provides people with knowledge on the interaction between food and the individual, allowing them to gain awareness of the impact wrong food choices have on their health. This information should relate to: eating healthy foods, consuming food at the right pace and ensuring that meals are properly distributed throughout the day, and avoiding harmful metabolic imbalances (by reducing, in the case of excess weight, total calorie intake in addition to that of fat, sugar, animal protein and sodium chloride, and by promoting the consumption of foods rich in vegetable fibre, etc.).

Recent studies conducted by the University of North Carolina show that obesity due to the consumption of ‘junk’ food is spreading like an epidemic worldwide and is claiming more and more victims among the young. The results of the studies show that poor nutrition can also alter hormones which regulate sexual function. Indeed, we are seeing ever more cases of young girls, who are not yet teenagers, having their menarche at the average age of 10.

Given that:

health education, which concerns the physical, identity-related and relational aspects of personality formation, calls for a motivational pathway which is able to guide the future choices of the individual;

such education should involve the removal or minimisation of the factors responsible for bad eating habits, through communication, more interest by the mass media and food producers in consumer health rather than in the market alone, and the promotion of health culture as a somatopsychological balance;

Will the Commission renew and redefine its strategies for the study of nutrition and of the impact on human health of issues such as food, nutrition and prevention?

Will it improve its communication processes to encourage the adoption of lifestyles and behaviours that are in line with available scientific knowledge?

Will it favour an approach that focuses on the benefits of healthy eating for health reasons and for psycho-motor development, rather than on intimidation (the fear of obesity or cardiovascular diseases is likely to increase neurotic attitudes and emphasis on ‘form’ or on image can lead to the development of phobias)?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2013)

The Commission finds it of great importance that health policy is based on the best scientific evidence, derived from sound data and relevant research.

The strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity related issues (36) outlines that a key part of the Commission's approach is to develop the evidence base to help steer future policies. In addition to the Commission's research initiatives, strong cooperation with WHO Europe is in place to monitor food, nutrition and physical activity policies in the European Union.

The Commission has launched an evaluation process of this EU Strategy and the final evaluation report will be available in the first half of 2013. It will form the basis for possible follow-up action.

The Commission supports research on nutrition and healthy lifestyles encompassing the abovementioned EU Strategy through the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, with so far EUR 250 million (37)  (38) devoted to this area (39). The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (40) identifies ‘Health, demographic change and well-being’ as one of the six societal challenges to be tackled, likely to provide also opportunities for research on diabetes. It is yet premature to ascertain which could be the specific research issues to be addressed.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011206/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Diritto alla verità per i malati terminali: tecniche di comunicazione empatica

Un tumore in stadio avanzato difficilmente è curabile, il più delle volte le uniche terapie possibili sono cure palliative per prolungare la sopravvivenza e alleviare il dolore della persona malata. Spesso queste terapie prevedono anche trattamenti chemioterapici che possono far sperare il paziente in una guarigione.

Questa realtà è stata dimostrata intervistando, a quattro mesi dalla diagnosi, 1200 pazienti con carcinoma polmonare o colon-rettale metastatico, sottoposti a chemioterapia con fini palliativi, poiché la malattia era troppo diffusa. Dallo studio condotto dal Dana-Faber Cancer Institute di Boston è emerso che il 69 % delle persone affette da neoplasia al polmone e l'81 % di coloro che erano affetti da cancro al colon retto non avevano compreso che la cura chemioterapica, nel loro caso, non avrebbe potuto guarirli. I ricercatori ritengono che la speranza di guarire sia alimentata da un radicale problema di comunicazione tra medico e paziente. Infatti, se per un medico è complesso comunicare una cattiva notizia, anche per il paziente è difficile accettarla.

Negli ultimi anni sono migliorate le tecniche di comunicazione, ma i margini di progresso sono ampi, soprattutto se ci si deve confrontare con patologie oncologiche diagnosticate in stadio terminale, per le quali non c'è cura. La comunicazione deve essere incentrata sull'empatia e sulla conoscenza del paziente, essere graduale e rassicurare il paziente che non sarà solo, bensì si cercherà di controllare i sintomi e lo staff medico gli sarà accanto nel miglior modo possibile. La ricerca ha individuato che tra i pazienti curati in ospedale solamente l'11 % è a conoscenza della prognosi, mentre il 42 % non è consapevole della terapia farmacologica che sta seguendo e la metà di questi vorrebbe essere informato. Nel caso in cui il paziente non sia informato della sua reale situazione, sarà per lui molto più difficile accettare la malattia e organizzare il tempo a lui rimasto per vivere.

Considerato che:

è di primaria importanza pensare al bene del malato rispettando il suo diritto ad essere informato in modo empatico sulla propria condizione, il che implica che i medici siano adeguatamente formati per gestire i sentimenti del paziente e le situazioni che possono scaturirne;

il paziente ha bisogno di essere ascoltato e aiutato nel capire la condizione nella quale si trova, piuttosto che mantenere viva l'erronea idea che una terapia chemioterapica possa consentirgli di guarire;

può la Commissione far sapere se ha l'intenzione di promuovere corsi di aggiornamento sulle tecniche di comunicazione per gli addetti del settore oncologico e se prevede di sviluppare un programma mirato alla salute psichica non solo dei pazienti e dei loro familiari, ma soprattutto degli operatori che quotidianamente si confrontano con persone condannate a morire?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(30 gennaio 2013)

Nel quadro dell'azione congiunta Partenariato europeo per l'azione contro il cancro (41) (EPAAC), supportata dal programma Salute dell'UE, i lavori legati alle cure psicosociali del cancro comprendono l'organizzazione di un seminario pilota di formazione in abilità della comunicazione per l'assistenza ai malati di cancro in un paese dell'UE che ha estremo bisogno di una simile iniziativa. A tal fine la riunione preparatoria si è tenuta l'8 e il 9 novembre 2012 e in tale occasione si è discusso lo sviluppo di un programma di formazione in tema di abilità di comunicazione e di assistenza psicosociale per i paesi europei che dispongono di scarse risorse in questo ambito. La relazione è disponibile sul sito del EPAAC (42).

Nel 2011 la Commissione ha inoltre pubblicato una guida per la prevenzione e le buone pratiche nell'assistenza sanitaria che fornisce informazioni chiare sulle buone pratiche volte a prevenire i rischi psicosociali. Essa fornisce informazioni sulla natura dei rischi psicosociali, sui metodi di valutazione dei rischio e raccomandazioni sulle misure e sulle opzioni di formazione atte a prevenire questi effetti sanitari avversi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011206/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Right to the truth for terminally ill patients — empathetic communication techniques

Cancer at an advanced stage is rarely curable; most of the time the only possible treatments are palliative care to prolong survival and alleviate the patient's pain. Often these therapies also include chemotherapy treatments that can give hope to patients that they might recover.

This has been demonstrated by interviews with 1200 patients with metastatic lung cancer or colorectal cancer, four months after diagnosis, who had been given chemotherapy for palliative purposes, as the disease was too widespread. The study, conducted by the

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, showed that 69% of people with lung cancer and 81% of those suffering from colorectal cancer had not understood that the chemotherapy, in their case, could not heal them. The researchers believe that the hope of recovery is kindled by a radical problem of communication between doctor and patient, because while it may be difficult for a doctor to communicate bad news, it is also difficult for the patient to accept it.

In recent years communication techniques have improved, but there is a lot of room for progress, especially in the face of oncological diseases that are diagnosed at the terminal stage, for which there is no cure. Communication should be based on empathy and on knowledge of the patient; it should be gradual and should reassure the patient that he or she is not alone, but that medical staff will try to control the symptoms and will be close to the patient in the best possible way. The research found that among patients treated in hospital, only 11% were aware of their prognosis, while 42% were unaware of what medication they were receiving and half of those would have liked to have been informed. If patients are not informed of their true situation, it will be much harder for them to accept their disease and to organise the time they have left to live.

It is of the utmost importance to consider the good of patients, respecting their right to be informed about their condition in an empathetic way, which means that doctors should be appropriately trained to manage patients' feelings and any situations that might ensue.

Patients need to be listened to and helped to understand the condition they are in, rather than be kept under the illusion that chemotherapy might help them to get better.

In the light of the above, will the Commission promote refresher courses in communication techniques for those working with cancer patients? Will it also develop a specific programme to protect the mental health not only of patients and their families, but above all, of the medical operators who every day have to face those who are condemned to die?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2013)

In the framework of the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer Joint Action (43) (EPAAC), which is supported by the EU Health Programme, work related to psychosocial cancer care includes the organisation of a pilot training workshop in communication skills for cancer care in an EU country with high need. To this aim the preparatory meeting took place on 8 and 9 November 2012 that discussed the development of a training programme on communication skills and psychosocial care for European countries with low resources in this area. The report is available on EPAAC website (44).

In addition, in 2011, the Commission published a guide to prevention and good practice in healthcare which gives health clear information about good practices aimed at preventing psychosocial risks. It provides information on the nature of psychosocial risks, methods of risk assessment, and recommendations on measures and training options to prevent such adverse health effects.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011207/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Benessere psicologico a rischio a causa dell'instabilità delle condizioni di lavoro ed economiche

Un recente studio pubblicato sul CHE Research Paper ha dimostrato che il lavoro a tempo determinato riduce il benessere psicologico e la felicità di persone con un'età compresa tra i 15 e i 30 anni. L'analisi è stata condotta su un campione di 8280 individui attivi nel mercato del lavoro italiano. Attraverso test psicologici scientifici sono state indagate la salute percepita e la felicità, e attraverso misure oggettive, il benessere fisico e la salute mentale. L'ipotesi è che in due soggetti simili tra loro per caratteristiche osservabili, eventuali differenze nello stato di salute fisico e psicologico sarebbero imputabili all'effetto del lavoro a tempo determinato. I risultati hanno dimostrato la presenza di un effetto negativo del contratto di lavoro a tempo determinato sulla salute psicologica dei lavoratori: essi dichiarano di sentirsi infelici e poco interessati alla vita, un dato, questo, statisticamente significativo. A soffrire maggiormente delle condizioni flessibili di lavoro sono in particolare gli uomini, i cosiddetti «bread winner», che sono socialmente visti come i principali sostenitori del reddito familiare e sono, inoltre, maggiormente soggetti a condizioni di precarietà. Tutti i partecipanti allo studio che hanno dichiarato di avere il supporto della famiglia di origine, avevano livelli di stress lavorativo inferiori rispetto ai «bread winner».

Considerato che: la recente letteratura empirica evidenzia l'influenza delle condizioni contrattuali del lavoro temporaneo sul benessere psicologico dei lavoratori;

può la Commissione far sapere se intende promuovere campagne di approfondimento e di sensibilizzazione sia tra i lavoratori che tra i datori di lavoro ai fini del riconoscimento di tutte quelle situazioni di disagio psicologico correlate all'ambiente di lavoro e in particolare se intende effettuare una ricerca multidimensionale in diversi Paesi d'Europa per indagare in quale misura il benessere psicologico delle persone sia influenzato dall'instabilità del contesto lavorativo ed economico europeo?

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(7 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione ha pubblicato di recente un bando di gara relativo a uno studio sulla salute mentale sul posto di lavoro al fine di valutare la situazione nell'ottica della legislazione sulla salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, delineare scenari di intervento e elaborare documenti d'orientamento per i lavoratori e i datori di lavoro. Le risultanze dello studio contribuiranno a meglio valutare il problema della salute mentale nel luogo di lavoro nell'UE.

Nel 2012 il comitato degli alti responsabili dell'ispettorato del lavoro della Commissione ha condotto una serie di ispezioni aventi specificamente per oggetto i rischi psicosociali con un'attenzione particolare per tre settori (45):

salute, compresa l'assistenza sociale (privata e pubblica);

servizi (ad esempio, alberghi e ristoranti);

trasporti.

Nel 2014-15 l'Agenzia europea per la sicurezza e la salute sul lavoro condurrà una campagna su scala Europea in tema di soluzioni pratiche ai rischi psicosociali al fine di far opera di sensibilizzazione nel merito. La Commissione incoraggerà l'Agenzia, che ha già iniziato i preparativi della campagna, a fornire ai datori di lavoro e ai lavoratori strumenti pratici per affrontare tali rischi.

Nell'ambito del programma Salute dell'UE la Commissione sta organizzando con gli Stati membri un'azione congiunta sulla salute e il benessere mentale. Uno dei suoi pacchetti operativi identificherà le possibilità che il settore sanitario ha di sostenere la promozione della salute mentale sul posto di lavoro. L'implementazione dell'azione congiunta prende il via all'inizio del 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011207/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Psychological well-being at risk because of unstable working and economic conditions

A recent study published in the CHE Research Paper has shown that temporary employment reduces the psychological well-being and happiness of people between the ages of 15 and 30. The study was conducted on a sample of 8280 individuals employed in the Italian labour market. Through scientific psychological tests, self-assessed health and happiness were investigated and physical well-being and mental health were assessed by objective measures. The theory is that in two individuals with similar observable characteristics, any differences in the state of physical and psychological health can be attributed to the effect of temporary employment. The results showed that in a statistically significant number of workers, temporary contracts have a negative effect on their psychological health and they claim to feel unhappy and uninterested in life. It is men, in particular, the so-called ‘breadwinners’, who suffer the most from these flexible working conditions, since it is they who are seen by society as the main earners of household income and it is they, too who are more liable to be employed on temporary contracts. All the study participants who claimed to receive support from their family of origin had lower levels of work stress than the breadwinners.

Given that recent empirical literature has highlighted the influence of the contractual conditions of temporary work on the psychological well-being of workers, will the Commission launch in-depth awareness-raising campaigns among both workers and employers to ensure that all situations of psychological distress relating to the working environment are recognised? Will it, in particular, carry out multi-dimensional research in various European countries to see to what extent the psychological welfare of individuals is affected by the instability of the economic and working environment in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

The Commission recently published a call for tenders for a study of mental health in the workplace with a view to evaluating the situation from the viewpoint of health and safety at work legislation, outlining scenarios for action and drafting a guidance document for workers and employers. The findings will contribute to a better assessment of the problem of mental health at the workplace in the EU.

In 2012 the Commission’s Senior Labour Inspectors Committee carried out a series of joint inspections targeted specifically at psychosocial risks and focusing on three sectors (46):

health, including (private and public) social care;

services (e.g. hotels and restaurants);

transport.

In 2014-15 the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work will carry out a pan-European campaign on practical solutions to psychosocial risks to raise awareness of the issue. The Commission will encourage the Agency, which has already started preparing the campaign, to provide employers and workers with practical tools for dealing with such risks.

Under the EU-Health Programme, the Commission is setting up a Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being with Member States. One of its work packages will identify possibilities for the health sector to support the promotion of mental health at workplaces. The implementation of the Joint Action is beginning in early 2013.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011208/12

aan de Commissie

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)

(7 december 2012)

Betreft: Amicus curiae brief van de Europese Commissie aan het hogergerechtshof van de VS inzake Kiobel vs Shell

De Europese Commissie heeft in juni 2012 een „amicus curiae” brief gestuurd aan het hoger gerechtshof van de Verenigde Staten en zich daarmee gemengd in de zaak Kiobel versus Royal Dutch Petroleum Shell (47). De Commissie neemt een standpunt in over de reikwijdte van de Amerikaanse Alien Tort Statue (ATS). Ook de Nederlandse en Britse overheid stuurden een „amicus curiae” brief, gevolgd door een brief van rechtsgeleerde professor Castermans cs over het zelfde thema. (48)

1.

Waarom heeft de Commissie gemeend te moeten interveniëren in de zaak Kiobel vs Shell zoals zij deed en waar en wanneer is deze beslissing gevallen?

2.

Heeft de Commissie kennis genomen van de brief van professor Castermans cs en zo ja, wat vindt de Commissie van het argument dat de ATS wel degelijk kan worden toegepast op situaties zonder directe nexus met de Verenigde Staten, omdat vergelijkbare gevallen in Nederland en andere Europese landen ook ontvankelijk zouden worden verklaard?

3.

Is de Commissie het met vragensteller eens dat internationale bedrijven zich voor het gerecht moeten verantwoorden als zij mensenrechten schendingen begaan, en dat internationale wetgeving nog steeds onvoldoende is om zulks mogelijk te maken? Kan zij haar antwoord beargumenteren?

4.

Welke mogelijkheid ziet de Commissie om Europese bedrijven in vergelijkbare gevallen voor een gerechtshof in een Europese lidstaat te dagen?

Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie

(12 februari 2013)

1)

Toen het Hooggerechtshof van de VS zich in juni 2004 uitsprak in de zaak Sosa/Alvarez-Machain, deed het geen uitspraak over de extraterritorialiteit van het ATS maar nam het uitdrukkelijk kennis van het standpunt van de Europese Commissie. De Commissie kwam in de zaak Kiobel dan ook onpartijdig tussen om het standpunt van de EU over extraterritorialiteit te herhalen.

2)

De Europese Commissie heeft geen commentaar op de standpunten van de betrokken partijen en hun amici, zoals professor Castermans en anderen.

3)

Het amicus curiae-advies is een weergave van de ruime consensus in het internationale recht over het relatieve belang van de soevereiniteit van staten en de fundamentele rechten van de mens: (a) Om harmonieuze internationale betrekkingen te bewaren, moeten staten en internationale organisaties de materieelrechtelijke en procedurele beperkingen respecteren die door het internationale recht worden opgelegd aan de bevoegdheid van een individuele staat om zijn wetten toe te passen buiten zijn eigen grondgebied; en (b) de VS moet in zijn uitoefening van universele civiele jurisdictie worden beperkt door de procedurele beperkingen van het internationale recht, in het bijzonder door een uitputtingsvereiste, om te

„garanderen dat die jurisdictie in overeenstemming is met de internationale rechtsbeginselen van wederzijds respect en gelijkheid van soevereiniteit”.

4)

Veel EU-landen oefenen in strafprocessen universele civiele jurisdictie uit door middel van civiele vorderingen. Bovendien wordt in de nationale wetgeving van verscheidene landen universele civiele jurisdictie mogelijk gemaakt. Door de tenuitvoerlegging van de

„Brussel I”-verordening en het Verdrag van Lugano van 2007 kan van landen worden geëist dat ze een rechterlijke beslissing ten uitvoer leggen die op grond van universele civiele jurisdictie is genomen in een andere lidstaat of een derde land dat door de regeling is gebonden, ook al erkennen ze zelf universele civiele jurisdictie niet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011208/12

to the Commission

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Amicus curiae brief from the Commission to the US Supreme Court concerning Kiobel vs Shell

In June 2012, the Commission sent an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court, thereby intervening in the case of Kiobel versus Royal Dutch Petroleum Shell (49). The Commission adopts a position on the scope of the US Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The Netherlands and British Governments have likewise sent amicus curiae briefs, followed by a brief from law professor Castermans and others on the same subject (50).

1.

Why did the Commission feel that it should intervene in the case of Kiobel vs Shell as it did, and where and when was this decision taken?

2.

Is the Commission aware of the brief submitted by Professor Castermans and others and if so, what view does the Commission take of the argument that the ATS can indeed be applied to situations which have no direct link with the United States, because comparable cases are also ruled admissible in the Netherlands and other European countries?

3.

Does the Commission agree that international businesses should be held to account before the courts if they breach human rights, and that international law is still inadequate to permit this? Can it give arguments in support of its reply?

4.

How does the Commission believe that European businesses can be summonsed before a court in a European Member State in similar cases?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

1.

In June 2004, when ruling in

Sosa

v

Alvarez-Machain

, the US Supreme Court did not decide on the extraterritoriality of the ATS but took note explicitly of the position of the European Commission. The Commission thus intervened in Kiobel in support of neither party to restate the EU's views on extraterritoriality.

2.

The European Commission has no comment to offer with respect to the positions taken by the parties in the dispute and their amici, such as Professor Castermans et al.

3.

The amicus brief reflects the broad consensus under international law on the relative importance of State sovereignty and fundamental human rights: (a) to preserve harmonious international relations, States and international organisations must respect the substantive and procedural limits imposed by international law on the authority of any individual State to apply its laws beyond its own territory; and (b) that the US’s exercise of universal civil jurisdiction must be constrained by the procedural limits imposed by international law, in particular by an exhaustion requirement, in order to

‘ensure that such jurisdiction comports with the international law principles of comity and equality of sovereignty’.

4.

Many EU Member States exercise universal civil jurisdiction through

actions civiles

when brought within criminal proceedings. In addition, the national legislation of several States allows for universal civil jurisdiction. As a result of the implementation of the ‘Brussels I’ Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention, even those States that do not recognise universal civil jurisdiction on a national basis can be required to enforce a judgment on such basis by courts of another Member State or other State bound by the regime.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011209/12

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(7 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Política estrutural 2014-2020

No que respeita à política estrutural 2014-2020, a Comissão Europeia decidiu que a política de coesão, o desenvolvimento rural e a política marítima e das pescas são cruciais para a aplicação da estratégia UE 2020, tendo proposto que os fundos estruturais se centrem num número mais limitado de prioridades diretamente associadas a esta estratégia.

Numa altura em que se perspetivam cortes gravosos no orçamento da UE para o período 2014-2020, torna-se pertinente voltar a colocar algumas velhas questões:

Por que razão se insiste numa articulação exclusiva das políticas de coesão com os objetivos da neoliberal estratégia UE2020? Está a Comissão na disposição de propor que seja possível diversificar prioridades, atendendo à situação e necessidades específicas de cada Estado-Membro?

Quanto à simplificação de procedimentos, e apesar do reiterado esforço neste sentido, continuam a existir enormes e insuperáveis dificuldades em certos programas destinados a algumas regiões e populações, como é o caso da pequena agricultura de natureza familiar. Que pretende fazer em concreto a Comissão para mitigar este obstáculo?

Por que razão são cada vez mais introduzidos na política de coesão da União alguns objetivos de cooperação com países terceiros, que deveriam ser financiados com meios de outras origens e outros programas comunitários, inclusive quando esses países terceiros são nossos vizinhos (não sendo candidatos à adesão à UE)?

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(4 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

A intenção da Comissão é garantir que uma parte substancial do orçamento da UE seja utilizada para atingir os objetivos fixados na estratégia Europa 2020. Foi criado um conjunto claro de objetivos temáticos a nível da UE para o período de 2014-2020, com vista a garantir uma devida atenção à política de coesão. Todavia, os Estados-Membros dispõem de uma flexibilidade considerável na determinação da forma como devem prosseguir estes objetivos na sua situação específica e decidir quais as ações necessárias para abordar as necessidades de desenvolvimento regional específicas.

2.

Nas novas propostas legislativas apresentadas pela Comissão em 2011, verifica-se uma abordagem mais concreta, que permite aos Estados-Membros estabelecer prioridades específicas por zona do programa e definir subprogramas temáticos

2.

Nas novas propostas legislativas apresentadas pela Comissão em 2011, verifica-se uma abordagem mais concreta, que permite aos Estados-Membros estabelecer prioridades específicas por zona do programa e definir subprogramas temáticos

 (51). A Comissão introduziu igualmente uma abordagem harmonizada no que respeita à aplicação estratégica das políticas da UE no âmbito da gestão partilhada, incluindo um certo número de medidas de simplificação que reduzem a carga administrativa dos beneficiários, como pagamentos de montantes fixos, financiamentos a taxa fixa e auxílios ao arranque. Os Estados-Membros têm o direito de introduzir regras específicas, que reflitam a legislação nacional e/ou regional, bem como as prioridades políticas do Estado-Membro.

3.

A cooperação com países terceiros é um elemento incontornável do Interreg desde 1990, dado que a cooperação com países vizinhos é parte integrante do desenvolvimento regional das regiões fronteiriças. A política de coesão da UE apenas financia a participação dos Estados-Membros da UE. Em 2014-2020, o Instrumento Europeu de Vizinhança irá financiar a participação dos países vizinhos e o Instrumento de Pré-Adesão irá financiar a participação dos países candidatos e pré-candidatos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011209/12

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Structural policy 2014-2020

In its structural policy 2014‐2020, the Commission has decided that cohesion policy, rural development and maritime and fisheries policy are essential for implementing the EU 2020 strategy and has proposed that the structural funds focus on fewer priorities directly linked with this strategy.

At a time when heavy EU budget cuts are envisaged for the period 2014‐2020, it is worth readdressing some old questions:

Why does the Commission insist on exclusively linking cohesion policies to the objectives of the neoliberal EU 2020 strategy? Is it prepared to propose that there can be different priorities, adapted to the situation and specific needs of each Member State?

Despite repeated efforts to simplify procedures, there remain huge and insurmountable difficulties in certain programmes targeting some regions and populations, as in the case of small-scale family farming. What precisely will the Commission do to overcome this obstacle?

Can it explain why certain objectives of cooperation with third countries are becoming increasingly established in EU cohesion policy, when they should be financed with resources from other sources and other EU programmes, even when these countries are our neighbours (and are not candidates for EU accession)?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2013)

1.

The intention of the Commission is to ensure that a substantial share of the EU budget is used towards the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. A clear set of thematic objectives is set out at EU level for 2014-2020 to ensure an appropriate focus for cohesion policy. However, Member States have considerable flexibility in determining how they pursue these objectives in their specific context and in deciding which actions to support to best address specific regional development needs.

2.

In the new legal proposals tabled by the Commission in 2011, an improved targeting approach allows Member States to set specific priorities per programme area and define thematic sub-programmes

2.

In the new legal proposals tabled by the Commission in 2011, an improved targeting approach allows Member States to set specific priorities per programme area and define thematic sub-programmes

 (52). The Commission also introduced a harmonised approach for the strategic implementation of the EU policies under shared management, including a number of simplifications for beneficiaries that reduce the administrative burden such as lump-sum payments, flat-rate financing and start-up aid. Member States have the right to introduce specific rules, which reflect the national and/or regional legislation as well as the policy priorities of the Member State.

3.

Cooperation with third countries has been an established part of the framework of Interreg since 1990 as cooperation with neighbours is an integral part of the regional development of border regions. EU cohesion policy only finances the participation of EU Member States. In 2014-2020, the European Neighbourhood Instrument will finance the participation of neighbourhood countries and the Instrument for Pre-Accession will finance participation of candidate and pre-candidate countries.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011210/12

adresată Comisiei

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Metodele inovatoare de finanțare la nivel european și mondial

În ultimii ani, criza economică și financiară a evidențiat deficiențe majore în cadrul de reglementare și supraveghere a sistemului financiar global. Tranzacțiile financiare se caracterizează printr-o creștere substanțială a volumului și printr-o discrepanță remarcabilă între volumul tranzacțiilor financiare și necesitățile economiei reale. Investițiile pe termen scurt, care sunt predominante, au condus la o volatilitate și o asumare excesivă a riscurilor.

Sectorul financiar și-a îndreptat atenția în favoarea unor profituri pe termen scurt, prin operațiuni care au afectat grav prețurile pieței și astfel, tranzacțiile speculative pe termen scurt au fost în centrul crizei financiare, subliniind legătura clară dintre supravegherea financiară ineficientă și sustenabilitatea finanțelor publice.

Având în vedere că problemele cauzate de acest comportament al piețelor au avut un impact major asupra finanțelor publice și, în plus, se estimează că evaziunea și frauda fiscală sunt de aproximativ 250 miliarde de euro pe an la nivelul UE, aș dori să întreb Comisia ce măsuri propune pentru crearea unor instrumente menite să reducă speculațiile, să garanteze o distribuire echitabilă a poverii între actorii financiari principali și să creeze resurse suplimentare noi pentru a răspunde provocărilor majore?

Răspuns dat de dl Šemeta în numele Comisiei

(5 februarie 2013)

Comisia ar dori să atragă atenția distinsului membru asupra propunerii sale de introducere a unui sistem comun al taxei pe tranzacțiile financiare (TTF) în UE [COM(2011) 594]. Deși Consiliul nu a reușit să ajungă la un acord privind un astfel de sistem comun pentru toate cele 27 de state membre, Comisia a propus o decizie de autorizare a unei cooperări consolidate în acest domeniu [COM(2012) 631]. După aprobarea Parlamentului European la 12 decembrie 2012, în prezent, Consiliul a adoptat decizia de autorizare propusă. În momentul de față, Comisia este cea care trebuie să prezinte o propunere privind fondul unei astfel de cooperări. Legislația în acest domeniu ar completa reformele pertinente în materie de reglementare și, în afară de beneficiile sale pentru piața internă, răspunde chiar preocupărilor exprimate de distinsul membru.

În plus, Comisia va publica în săptămânile următoare o carte verde cu privire la finanțarea pe termen lung a economiei europene, în care se vor examina stimulentele și constrângerile la adresa finanțării pe termen lung, precum și idei de acțiuni și posibile noi instrumente/inițiative.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011210/12

to the Commission

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Innovative financing at European and world level

In recent years, the economic and financial crisis has brought to light major shortcomings with regard to the regulation and monitoring of the international financial system. There is a striking disparity between the volume of financial transactions, which has substantially increased, and the needs of the real economy, short-term investment having become the norm, resulting in financial market volatility and excessive risk taking.

Indeed, a central factor in the financial crisis is the fact that the financial sector has been geared towards short-term speculative transactions for immediate profit, which have seriously affected market prices. This highlights the connection between the problem of inadequate financial oversight and the sustainability of public finances.

Given the major impact of resulting market behaviour on public finances, coupled with the loss of an estimated EUR 250 billion annually to the EU from tax evasion and tax fraud, what measures are being envisaged by the Commission with a view to creating an instrument designed to reduce speculation, ensuring that the principal financial operators each bear a fair share of the burden and generating new additional resources in response to the major challenges arising?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its proposal for introducing a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) in the EU [COM(2011)594]. While the Council was unable to agree on such common system for all 27 Member States, the Commission proposed a decision authorising enhanced cooperation in this area [COM(2012)631]. Following the consent of the European Parliament on 12 December 2012, the Council has now adopted the authorisation decision proposed. It is now up to the Commission to make a proposal on the substance of such cooperation. Legislation in this area would complement relevant regulatory reforms and, quite apart notably from its benefits for the internal market, precisely addresses the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

In addition, the Commission will publish in the coming weeks a green paper on long-term financing of the European economy where the drivers and constraints to long term financing as well as ideas for action and possible new instruments/initiatives will be examined.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011211/12

adresată Comisiei

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Standardizarea vehiculelor electrice

Utilizarea vehiculelor electrice oferă o serie de avantaje majore pentru o mobilitate durabilă, printre care reducerea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon și îmbunătățirea calității aerului, scăderea dependenței de combustibilii fosili importați și eficientă crescută a mașinilor electrice în comparație cu celelalte tehnologii de transport.

Având în vedere că pe plan mondial competitorii UE investesc în cercetarea și dezvoltarea noilor tehnologii cu emisii de carbon scăzute și lansează programe pentru trecerea la transportul rutier ecologic, aș dori să întreb ce măsuri are în vedere Comisia pentru crearea unui cadru adecvat unic la nivelul UE, pentru promovarea tehnologiilor inovative, pentru încurajarea cercetării și pentru dezvoltarea infrastructurii necesare pentru sprijinirea tranziției către o economie eficientă a resurselor și emisiilor reduse de carbon?

De asemenea, aș dori să întreb Comisia care este stadiul planului care vizează înființarea la nivel european a unei rețele de stații de reîncărcare rapidă pentru mașinile electrice și stabilirea unor standarde tehnice și de siguranță comune aplicabile acesteia?

Răspuns dat de dl Tajani în numele Comisiei

(29 ianuarie 2013)

În comunicarea sa intitulată „O strategie europeană privind vehiculele ecologice și eficiente din punct de vedere energetic (53)”, Comisia a propus peste 40 de acțiuni vizând o gamă largă de domenii de politică precum cercetarea și inovarea în domeniul tehnologiilor ecologice și acțiuni specifice privind standardizarea, infrastructura de încărcare și de realimentare pentru vehiculele electrice. Pentru informații privind situația actuală a strategiei, Comisia îl invită pe domnul deputat să consulte cel mai recent raport pe această temă (54).

În plus, Comisia a adoptat Planul de acțiune CARS 2020 pentru o industrie a autovehiculelor competitivă și durabilă în Europa (55), care se sprijină pe patru piloni, dintre care unul se concentrează pe investițiile în tehnologii avansate și pe finanțarea inovării. Sunt propuse mai multe acțiuni în cadrul acestui pilon pentru a sprijini dezvoltarea vehiculelor ecologice.

În ceea ce privește infrastructurile de reîncărcare, planul de acțiune CARS 2020 anunță un pachet „Energie nepoluantă pentru transport” pentru a oferi un cadru pentru orientarea investițiilor și a dezvoltării tehnologice în acest domeniu. Propunerea legislativă privind infrastructurile adaptate combustibililor alternativi a fost adoptată la 24 ianuarie 2013 și vizează utilizarea unei infrastructuri minimale de realimentare/reîncărcare și elaborarea de norme comune pentru anumiți combustibili, inclusiv pentru vehiculele electrice. În acest context este vitală găsirea unei soluții satisfăcătoare în ceea ce privește infrastructura interfeței de reîncărcare pentru vehiculele electrice, care să fie pusă în aplicare în întreaga UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011211/12

to the Commission

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Standardisation of electric vehicles

The use of electric vehicles has a number of major advantages in terms of sustainable mobility, including reduced carbon dioxide emissions, improved air quality and lesser dependence on imported fossil fuels, not to mention the fact that such vehicles are more efficient than other transport technologies.

Given that the EU’s international competitors are investing in research and development for new low-carbon technologies and launching programmes for a move towards ecological road transport, what measures are being envisaged by the Commission for the adoption of appropriate standard EU framework provisions for promotion of the innovative technologies, research and infrastructural development necessary to underpin the transition towards a resource-efficient and low carbon economy?

Can the Commission also say what progress has been made regarding plans to create a fast recharge network for electric vehicles in Europe and the adoption of common technical and safety standards applicable in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2013)

With its communication on a European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles (56) the Commission has proposed over 40 actions on a wide range of policy fields such as research and innovation in green technologies and specific actions on standardisation, charging and refuelling infrastructure for electric vehicles. For the state of play of this strategy the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the latest report on this issue (57).

Moreover, the Commission adopted the CARS 2020 Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe (58), which is articulated around four pillars, one of which focuses on investing in advanced technologies and financing innovation. Several actions are proposed under this pillar to support the development of green vehicles.

As for the recharging infrastructure, the CARS 2020 Action Plan announces a Clean Power for Transport package to provide a framework for guiding investments and technological development in this area. The legislative proposal on alternative fuel infrastructure was adopted on 24 January 2013 and addresses the deployment of a minimum refuelling/recharging infrastructure and common standards for certain fuels, including electric vehicles. In this context a satisfactory solution for the infrastructure side of the recharging interface for electric vehicles to be implemented throughout the EU is vital.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011212/12

adresată Comisiei

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Statisticile europene privind turismul

În momentul actual se vorbește tot mai mult despre creșterea competitivității globale a UE, iar turismul reprezintă una dintre cele mai importante activități socio-economice, generând aproximativ 5% din PIB-ul Uniunii Europene.

Astfel, trebuie să depunem toate eforturile pentru a rămâne prima destinație turistică din lume, iar pentru aceasta este necesar să valorificăm la maximum toate posibilitățile de finanțare posibile. În acest sens, dezvoltarea și mobilizarea instrumentelor și programelor de susținere comunitară special croite pentru dezvoltarea turismului european capătă o importantă deosebită pentru atingerea obiectivelor Strategiei Europa 2020.

Pentru dezvoltarea unui turism durabil, responsabil și de calitate, o altă necesitate stringentă o reprezintă actualizarea și optimizarea cadrului juridic referitor la statisticile europene din acest domeniu. În acest sens, aș dori să întreb Comisia ce planuri are pentru a realiza o mai bună calitate a raportării statistice, bazate pe date comparative și fiabile, pentru a dezvolta o bază solidă în procesul decizional de elaborare a politicilor și instrumentelor financiare comunitare.

Răspuns dat de dl Šemeta în numele Comisiei

(31 ianuarie 2013)

Comisia îi mulțumește Distinsului Membru al Parlamentului European pentru recunoașterea importanței unor statistici de mare calitate pentru asigurarea unui proces eficient de elaborare a politicilor.

În ultimul deceniu, Sistemul Statistic European și-a asumat responsabilitatea de a actualiza și de a ameliora cadrul juridic existent la acea dată pentru statisticile în domeniul turismului, și anume Directiva 95/57/CE. Ca urmare a acestui proces, în martie 2010, Comisia a prezentat legiuitorului o propunere legislativă în acest sens. În iulie 2011, Parlamentul European și Consiliul au adoptat Regulamentul (UE) 692/2011 privind statisticile europene referitoare la turism. Acest nou cadru juridic are un dublu obiectiv: creșterea atât a relevanței pentru utilizatori, cât și a calității datelor (comparabilitate, exhaustivitate și actualitate). Prin urmare, principalele schimbări includ:

noi date referitoare la ocuparea camerelor, la vizitele de o zi și la motivele neparticipării la turism;

noi clasificări pentru a face distincție între zonele costiere și cele necostiere și o mai bună respectare a clasificărilor existente pentru ca statisticile referitoare la turism să devină mai comparabile cu statisticile economice conexe;

noi termene de transmitere pentru autoritățile statistice naționale (de exemplu, cifrele privind cazarea lunară sunt acum disponibile după 8 săptămâni).

Anul 2012 fiind primul an de referință pentru noul regulament, Comisia (Eurostat) și statele membre implementează în prezent noile cerințe.

Pe lângă statisticile oficiale publicate de Eurostat, Comisia are în lucru și alte inițiative, al căror scop este consolidarea bazei de cunoștințe socioeconomice pentru sectorul turismului, în conformitate cu Comunicarea 352(COM)2010.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011212/12

to the Commission

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: European tourism statistics

One of the main topics of current discussion is the need to boost the EU's global competitiveness, and tourism is a key socioeconomic activity, generating around 5% of the European Union's GDP.

We must therefore do our utmost to remain the number one tourist destination in the world. To achieve this, we need to make maximum use of every possible funding option and develop and mobilise instruments and programmes providing Community support which are specially tailored to the development of tourism in Europe, in keeping with objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

To ensure the development of a sustainable, responsible, high-quality tourism sector, it is vital to update and improve the legal framework for European statistics in this area. How does the Commission plan to improve the quality of statistical reporting, based on reliable, comparative data, in order to provide a solid foundation for decisions on Community financial policies and instruments?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2013)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member of the EP for acknowledging the importance of high quality statistics in ensuring efficient policy making.

Over the past decade, the European Statistical System took the responsibility to update and improve the then existing legal framework for tourism statistics, Directive 95/57. As a result of this process, the Commission submitted a legislative proposal to the legislator in March 2010. In July 2011, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 692/2011 concerning European statistics on tourism. The goal of this new legal framework is twofold: increased user relevance and increased data quality (comparability, completeness and timeliness). Consequently, the main changes include:

new data on bedroom occupancy, on same-day visits and on reasons for not taking part in tourism,

new classifications to distinguish coastal from non-coastal areas and better adherence to existing classifications in order to make tourism statistics more comparable with related business statistics,

new transmission deadlines for the national statistical authorities (e.g. monthly accommodation figures are now available after 8 weeks).

The first reference year for the new Regulation being 2012, the Commission (Eurostat) and the Member States are currently implementing the new requirements.

Besides the official statistics published by Eurostat, the Commission is working on other initiatives aiming at consolidating the socioeconomic knowledge base for the tourism sector as set out in Communication 352(COM)2010.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés P-011213/12

a Bizottság számára

Herczog Edit (S&D)

(2012. december 7.)

Tárgy: A magyarországi szénipari szerkezetátalakítási támogatás két éve húzódó jóváhagyása

Az elmúlt két évben, a Tanács 1407/2002/EK rendelete hatályának kibővítése óta, a magyar hatóságok és a Bizottság számos egyeztetést folytattak a szénipari szerkezetátalakítási támogatási kérelem vonatkozásában, amelybe a Vértesi Erőmű Zrt-t és az MVM Zrt-t is folyamatosan bevonták, ám a végleges döntés és a támogatások jóváhagyása még nem történt meg. A Bizottság és a magyar hatóságok vitája a bányabevétel-számítási módszertan átalakításáról túlságosan elhúzódott.

Mivel a márkushegyi bánya Magyarország egyetlen mélyművelésű szénbányája, a tét nagy. A szénipari szerkezetátalakítással kapcsolatos rendkívüli költségek fedezésére fordítható több mint 40 milliárd forintnyi támogatás jóváhagyásáról van szó.

Lát-e arra lehetőséget a Bizottság, hogy gyorsított eljárással jóváhagyja ezen összegek felhasználását, amennyiben a környezetvédelmi követelmények, a számítási módszertan és a költségelemek tisztázása tekintetében a magyar hatóságok is eredményeket mutatnak fel? Megismerhetőek-e azok az okok, amelyek a folyamat elhúzódásához vezettek? Biztosak lehetünk-e abban, hogy a magyar kormány mindent megtett a szénipari szerkezetátalakítási támogatás jóváhagyásával kapcsolatban?

Joaquín Almunia válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. január 31.)

2012.

november 20-án a bejelentést megelőző kapcsolatfelvételt követően, amely 2011. november 4-én kezdődött, a magyar hatóságok bejelentették, hogy működési termelési támogatást (

„üzembezárási támogatás”) és „rendkívüli költségek” (környezeti, társadalmi) fedezésére nyújtott támogatást is adnak, a rendkívüli költségek a Vértes Erőmű Zrt. márkushegyi bányájának 2014 végén lezáruló bezárásából erednek.

A bejelentés a versenyképtelen szénbányák bezárását elősegítő állami támogatásokról szóló 2010/787/EU tanácsi határozaton alapul (a továbbiakban: a tanácsi határozat (59)), amely értelmében a működési támogatás összege nem haladhatja meg a termelési költségek és a bányának a bejelentésben szereplő, szénévenkénti (60) bevétele közötti különbséget.

A Bizottság felismeri a magyarországi szénipar strukturális reformjának jelentőségét.

A Bizottságnak ugyanakkor biztosítania kell, hogy a bejelentett támogatás eleget tesz a tanácsi határozatban megállapított feltételeknek. Különösen annak a ténynek köszönhetően, hogy a bányát együtt működtetik egy erőművel, a Bizottság további információkat kért a magyar hatóságoktól annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy csak a bányából származó bevételeket (az erőműből származó bevétel nélkül) veszik figyelembe a támogatás összegének kiszámításakor.

A magyar hatóságok szorosan együttműködnek a Bizottsággal az előzetes értesítés óta, és kellő időben hasznos és releváns pontosításokat, valamint további információkat biztosítanak.

2012.

január 23-án

2012.

január 23-án

 (61) a Bizottság elfogadott egy határozatot, amely értelmében nem emel kifogást a jelzett támogatással szemben, és ez alapján a magyar hatóságok ki tudják fizetni a támogatást.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011213/12

to the Commission

Edit Herczog (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Two-year wait for approval for funding for structural reform of the Hungarian coal industry

In the past two years — since the scope of Council Regulation 1407/2002/EC was broadened — the Hungarian authorities and the Commission have held discussions, in which the Vértesi Erőmű Zrt and MVM Zrt companies have been constantly involved, on the issue of the structural reform of the coal industry on a number of occasions, yet there has not yet been a final decision or approval of funding. The discussion on reforming the calculating methodology for mining revenue has gone on for too long.

Since the Márkushegy mine is Hungary’s only underground coal mine, the stakes are high. Funding to the tune of over HUF 40 billion needs to be approved in order to cover the exceptional cost of structural reform of the coal industry.

Is there a chance, in the Commission’s view, of this amount being approved in an accelerated procedure if the Hungarian authorities can deliver results in terms of the environmental requirements, calculation methodology and clarification of cost components? Is it possible to identify the reasons why the procedure has been prolonged? Can we be certain that the Hungarian government has done all in its power to ensure that approval is obtained for funding for structural reform of the coal industry?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2013)

On 20 November 2012, following pre-notification contacts which had taken place since

4 November 2011, the Hungarian authorities notified aid covering both operating production aid (‘closure aid’) and aid for ‘exceptional costs’ (environment, social) arising from the closure of the Márkushegy Mine of Vértes Plant Ltd by the end of 2014.

The notification is based on Council Decision 2010/787/EU on state aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (‘the Council decision’) (62), according to which the operating aid must not exceed the difference between the production costs and the revenues of the mine to be paid each coal year (63) covered in the notification.

The Commission understands the importance of the structural reform of the coal industry in Hungary.

However, the Commission must ensure that the notified aid fulfills the conditions set out in the Council decision. In particular, due to the fact that the mine is operated together with a power plant, the Commission has requested additional information from the Hungarian authorities in order to ensure that only the revenues of the mine (excluding the revenues of the power plant) are taken into account for the calculation of the aid.

The Hungarian authorities have closely cooperated with the Commission since the pre-notification took place and have provided useful and pertinent clarification and additional information in due time.

On 23 January 2012 (64), the Commission has adopted a decision not to raise objections to the notified aid, on the basis of which the Hungarian authorities will be able to pay out the aid.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-011214/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. gruodžio 7 d.)

Tema: Dujų jungties tarp Lenkijos ir Lietuvos įrengimas

Europos Komisijos patvirtintu Baltijos šalių energijos rinkos jungčių planu siekiama sukurti reikalingą dujų ir elektros infrastruktūrą, kuri padėtų išspręsti trijų Baltijos valstybių ir Suomijos atskyrimo ir jų priklausomumo nuo vieno tiekėjo klausimą ir įvairinti tiekimo šaltinius Baltijos jūros regione. Komisija yra įsipareigojusi užtikrinti, jog po 2015 m. ES neliktų energetiškai izoliuotų valstybių narių ir regionų.

Lietuvos energetiniam nepriklausomumui didinti numatyti svarbūs elektros jungčių projektai su Lenkija ir Švedija, taip pat numatyta regioninio suskystintų dujų terminalo statyba. Tačiau vienas svarbiausių Lietuvos energetinės izoliacijos klausimų lieka dujų tiekimas, o Lietuva išlieka visiškai priklausoma nuo monopolinio išorės dujų tiekėjo. Lenkija šių metų pabaigoje pasirašė susitarimą su Vokietija dėl reversinio dujų tiekimo iš Vokietijos teritorijos į Lenkijos teritoriją dujotiekiu Jamalas‐Europa. Šis susitarimas suteiks galimybę Lenkijai importuoti pigesnes dujas, kurias Rusija eksportuoja į Vokietijos teritoriją dujotekiu „Nordstream“, kuris buvo pastatytas apeinant energetiškai nuo išorės tiekėjų priklausančias ES valstybes nares. Todėl Lenkija nėra suinteresuota dujotiekio tarp Lietuvos ir Lenkijos tiesimu, nes tai sumažintų jos turimą konkurencinį pranašumą.

Nors minėtame Baltijos šalių energijos rinkos jungčių plane numatoma galimybė nutiesti dujotiekį tarp Lietuvos ir Lenkijos (tai suteiktų Lietuvai reikalingą infrastruktūrą importuoti dujas iš kitų šaltinių ir sumažintų jos priklausomybę nuo vienintelio išorės tiekėjo), tačiau, atsižvelgiant į šių valstybių narių didelę energetinę priklausomybę nuo monopolinio išorės tiekėjo, dujotiekio statybos yra vilkinamos dėl politinių priežasčių.

Ar Komisija, atsižvelgdama į tai, jog be šios dujų jungties bus neįmanoma sumažinti ne tik Lietuvos ir viso Baltijos regiono, bet ir visos ES energetinės priklausomybės ir sukurti bendros vidaus energijos rinkos, nemano, kad šios jungties tiesimo klausimas neturi būti paliktas kiekvienos iš šių valstybių narių politinei valiai?

Tik ES lygmeniu koordinuojant ir prižiūrint numatytų energetikos srities projektų įgyvendinimą gali būti sukurta bendroji energijos rinka ir užtikrintas tiekimo saugumas.

Ar, turint minty šios dujų jungties svarbą visos ES energetinio saugumo didinimui, Komisija nemano, kad būtent ji turi imtis veiksmų ir užtikrinti, kad šis projektas būtų kuo skubiau įgyvendintas?

G. Oettingerio atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. vasario 1 d.)

Komisija sutinka, kad svarbu neatidėliojant nutraukti Baltijos valstybių izoliaciją ir sudaryti sąlygas sukurti dujų vidaus rinką. Baltijos energijos rinkos jungčių plano (BEMIP) (65) įgyvendinimas jau atnešė apčiuopiamų rezultatų, nes buvo paspartintas kai kurių svarbių infrastruktūros projektų įgyvendinimas. Tikimasi, kad BEMIP aukšto lygio darbo grupė netrukus susitars dėl regioninio suskystintų dujų terminalo ir papildomų dujotiekių. Jungtis tarp Lenkijos ir Lietuvos taip pat yra tarp svarstomų projektų.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011214/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Installation of a gas interconnection between Poland and Lithuania

The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan approved by the European Commission is aimed at establishing the necessary gas and electricity infrastructure to help address the issue of the separation of the three Baltic States and Finland and their dependence on one supplier, and also at varying sources of supply in the Baltic Sea region. The Commission is committed to ensuring that by 2015 no Member States and regions in the EU are isolated in terms of energy.

Important electricity interconnection projects with Poland and Sweden are being envisaged to increase Lithuania’s energy independence, as is the construction of a regional liquefied gas terminal. However, the supply of gas remains one of the most important issues of Lithuania’s energy isolation, with Lithuania remaining completely dependent on an external monopoly supplier of gas. At the end of this year, Poland signed an agreement with Germany on the reverse flow of gas from Germany to Poland through the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline. This agreement will enable Poland to import cheaper gas, which Russia exports to Germany via the Nordstream gas pipeline (which was built bypassing EU Member States that are dependent on external suppliers). The construction of a gas pipeline between Lithuania and Poland is therefore not in Poland’s interest because it would reduce its existing competitive advantage.

Although the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan mentioned provides for the opportunity to build a gas pipeline between Lithuania and Poland (this would give Lithuania the required infrastructure to import gas from other sources and would reduce its dependence on a single external supplier), given these Member States’ great energy dependence on an external monopoly suppler, the construction of the gas pipeline is being delayed on political grounds.

Given the fact that without this gas interconnection it will be impossible to reduce the energy dependence of not just Lithuania and the whole of the Baltic region, but of the entire EU — and also be impossible to establish a single internal energy market — does the Commission not feel that the issue of the building of this interconnection should not be left to the political will of each of these Member States?

Only by coordinating and monitoring the implementation of energy projects at the EU level can we establish a single energy market and guarantee energy security.

Bearing in mind the importance of this gas interconnection for increasing the energy security of the entire EU, does the Commission not feel that it must take action and ensure that this project is implemented as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2013)

The Commission agrees on the importance and urgency of ending the isolation of the Baltic States and of allowing for a functioning internal gas market. The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP (66)) has already delivered tangible results by speeding up the implementation of a number of important infrastructure projects. The BEMIP high level group is expected to agree shortly on the location of the regional LNG terminal and complementary gas pipelines. The interconnection between Poland and Lithuania is also among the projects being considered.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-011215/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. gruodžio 7 d.)

Tema: Planuojamas elektros energijos importas iš Kaliningrado srityje statomos Baltijos atominės elektrinės

Komisija yra pateikusi nemažai pasiūlymų, kaip iki 2020 m. sukurti veiksmingą, nepriklausomą ir saugią vidaus energijos rinką. Esminis vidaus energetikos rinkos tikslas – sumažinti energetinę priklausomybę nuo trečiųjų šalių monopolinių energijos tiekėjų. Tačiau ES vidaus energetikos rinkos vystymasis priklausys ir nuo ES kaimyninių šalių energetikos politikos.

Rusija Kaliningrado srityje stato Baltijos atominę elektrinę, o Rusijos bendrovė „Inter RAO JES“ jau paskelbė planus nuo 2017 m. pradėti tiekti elektros energiją į Lenkiją ir kitas Baltijos valstybes. Kad būtų užtikrintas Rusijoje pagamintos elektros energijos tiekimas į Europą iš Lietuvos ir (ar) Lenkijos, turi būti nutiestos galingos elektros tiekimo linijos. Lietuva, būdama energetiškai izoliuota nuo likusios Europos dalies ir visiškai priklausoma nuo Rusijos tiekiamų dujų, iki šiol neplanavo tiesti galingų elektros tiltų į Kaliningradą ir taip dar labiau didinti energetinės priklausomybės nuo Rusijos. Tačiau, Lietuvai nesutikus tiesti elektros energijos tiltų, Rusija gali apeiti Lietuvą nutiesdama tiesiogines jungtis su Lenkija.

Ar Komisija nemano, jog susiklosčiusi situacija ir Rusijos planai pasinaudoti Lietuva ir Lenkija kaip tranzito šalimis tiekiant į ES elektros energiją gali iškreipti ES vidaus energijos rinką ir padidinti ES energetinę priklausomybę nuo esamo išorės tiekėjo?

Gerbiamasis Komisijos nary, praėjusią savaitę ITRE komitete pristatydamas Komisijos komunikatą dėl ES energijos vidaus rinkos Jūs paminėjote, kad kuriant bendrąją energetikos rinką labai svarbu teisingai išspręsti energetinių išteklių importo į ES klausimą – tai nuimtų didžiulę politinę įtampą, kurią jaučia labiausiai energetiškai izoliuotos ES valstybės narės ir regionai. ES skiria finansavimą regioninių suskystintų gamtinių dujų terminalų, kurie prisideda prie energetinės priklausomybės mažinimo visoje ES, statyboms.

Ar nemanote, kad Komisija turi vadovautis šiuo požiūriu ir dar kartą išnagrinėti ir įvertinti Baltijos šalių energetinę situaciją politiniu požiūriu ir taip prisidėti prie Lietuvoje planuojamos statyti branduolinės jėgainės finansavimo? Tai leistų užtikrinti šio svarbaus objekto komercinį patrauklumą investuotojams ir jo atsiperkamumą ir užtikrintų Baltijos regiono, o kartu ir visos ES energetinės priklausomybės sumažininimą nuo išorės energijos tiekėjo.

G. Oettingerio atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. vasario 5 d.)

1.

2011 m. ES iš Rusijos importavo maždaug 15 teravatvalandžių (TWh) elektros energijos. Tais pačiais metais Europos Sąjungoje iš viso pagaminta 3 224,5 TWh elektros energijos, taigi importas iš Rusijos sudaro 0,5 % ES pagaminamos elektros energijos. Todėl importą iš Rusijos galima padidinti be apčiuopiamo poveikio ES priklausomybei nuo išorės energijos tiekėjų. Tokia prekyba turi atitikti taikomas PPO ir ES taisykles, visų pirma susijusias su energijos vidaus rinka.

2.

Atsižvelgdama į Baltijos energijos rinkos jungčių planą (BEMIP) ir kitus veiksmus, Komisija atidžiai vertina Baltijos šalių energetinę situaciją. Dujų ir elektros energijos tinklų plėtrai Baltijos regione ES jau skyrė daugiau nei 260 mln. EUR. Šiuo metu svarstomi kiti regiono projektai, kurie būtų naudingi ir Lietuvai, kaip antai regioninio suskystintų gamtinių dujų terminalo finansavimas ES lėšomis. O naujų branduolinių elektrinių statybai Baltijos šalyse ES finansavimas neskiriamas, potencialiai galėtų būti teikiamos nebent ribotos Euratomo ir (arba) EIB paskolos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011215/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Planned imports of electricity from the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant in the Kaliningrad region

The Commission has presented numerous proposals on how to establish an effective, independent and secure internal energy market by 2020. The basic aim of the internal energy market is to reduce energy dependence on monopoly suppliers of energy in third countries. However, the development of the EU’s internal energy market will also depend on the energy policies of the EU’s neighbouring countries.

Russia is building the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant in the Kaliningrad region and the Russian company Inter RAO UES has already announced plans to begin supplying Poland and the other Baltic States with electricity from 2017. A powerful electricity supply line needs to be built in order to ensure the supply of electricity produced in Russia to Europe via Lithuania and/or Poland. As it is isolated from the rest of Europe in terms of energy and completely dependent on gas supplied by Russia, until now Lithuania did not have plans to build powerful electricity bridges to Kaliningrad, thereby increasing energy dependence on Russia even more. However, if Lithuania does not agree to build electricity bridges, Russia may bypass Lithuania by building direct interconnections with Poland.

Does the Commission believe that the situation and Russia’s plans to use Lithuania and Poland as transit countries when supplying the EU with electricity may distort the EU’s internal energy market and increase the EU’s energy dependence on its existing external supplier?

Commissioner, when you presented the Commission Communication on the EU’s internal energy market in the ITRE Committee last week you mentioned that when establishing a single energy market it is very important to find an equitable solution to the issue of importing energy resources to the EU — this would remove huge political tension felt by the EU Member States and regions that are most isolated in terms of energy. The EU is providing funding for the construction of regional liquefied natural gas terminals, which would contribute to reducing energy dependence throughout the EU.

Do you believe that the Commission should follow this approach and once again examine and assess the energy situation of the Baltic countries from a political point of view and thus contribute to the funding of the nuclear power plant that is due to be constructed in Lithuania? This would help guarantee the commercial attractiveness of this important object for investors and its recoverability, and would also ensure a reduction in the energy dependence of the Baltic region as well as the whole of the EU on an external energy supplier.

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

1.

In 2011 imports of electricity from Russia into the EU amounted to around 15 terawatt hours (TWh) whereas the total generation of electricity in the EU in 2011 reached 3224.5 TWh, i.e. Russian imports represent 0.5% of electricity generation in the EU. Imports from Russia could thus be increased further without having tangible impact upon the dependency of the EU on external energy suppliers. Such trade needs to comply with the applicable WTO and EU rules, in particular those on the Internal Energy Market.

2.

Within the context of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) and beyond, the Commission is carefully assessing the energy situation of the Baltic countries. The EU has already contributed more than EUR 260 million to the development of gas and electricity grids in the Baltic region. Further projects in the region, also benefitting Lithuania, such as financing a regional LNG terminal with EU Funds, are currently under discussion. The construction of new nuclear power plants in the Baltics are however not subject to EU funding and only limited Euratom/EIB loans would potentially be available.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011216/12

alla Commissione

Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)

(7 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Lavori in corso nel parco naturale dei monti Simbruini

Nel 2004 fu aperto un cantiere nel parco naturale dei monti Simbruini (zona di protezione speciale, ZPS, cod. IT6050008) per costruire una pista per lo sci di fondo agonistico larga sei metri e lunga oltre 15 chilometri. Le denunce di irregolarità e danni ambientali da parte dei comitati cittadini e delle associazioni ambientali portarono al sequestro dei lavori.

Le denunce riguardavano:

l'assenza della valutazione di incidenza ambientale, che deve essere effettuata per garantire la tutela dei più rilevanti biotopi europei, in conformità con le direttive 92/43/CEE e 74/409/CEE (poi sostituita con la direttiva 147/2009/CE);

il mancato visto della Soprintendenza regionale ai Beni ambientali al nullaosta ai lavori dato dall'Ente parco dei monti Simbruini;

il danno ambientale (interramento di doline e taglio di faggi) non in conformità con il piano di assetto del parco.

Il termine di sequestro dell'area era di 5 anni. Ora che tale termine è scaduto, i lavori sono ripresi.

Considerato che finora non risulta evidente che le irregolarità sopra citate rilevate nel 2004 siano state risolte e che secondo la direttiva 92/43/CEE, gli interventi o le opere da realizzare che ricadono all'interno dei confini dell'area protetta e della ZPS devono essere sottoposti a preventiva valutazione d'incidenza, può la Commissione far sapere se può accertarsi che i lavori in corso nel parco naturale dei monti Simbruini siano in conformità con le norme europee per la tutela dell'ambiente nelle zone protette?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(22 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione invita l’onorevole parlamentare a prendere visione della risposta data all’interrogazione scritta E-011582/2012 (67) sottoposta dall’onorevole Raul Romeva I Rueda sul medesimo argomento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011216/12

to the Commission

Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Work under way in the Monti Simbruini Nature Park

In 2004 a building site was opened in the Monti Simbruini Nature Park (Special Protection Area, SPA, code IT6050008) to build a track for cross-country ski racing, measuring six metres wide and over 15 kilometres long. However, complaints from committees of citizens and environmental groups regarding irregularities and environmental damage led to the seizure of the building site.

The complaints concerned:

the absence of an environmental impact assessment, which has to be carried out to ensure that the most important biotopes in Europe are protected, in accordance with Directives 92/43/EEC and 74/409/EEC (superseded by Directive 147/2009/EC);

the failure of the regional environmental heritage board to stamp the authorisation for the work given by the Monti Simbruini park authority;

environmental damage (burial of sinkholes and cutting down of beech trees), which did not comply with the park's planning programme.

The site was seized for five years. Now that this term has elapsed, the work has resumed.

Given that, so far, it is not clear whether the abovementioned irregularities, reported in 2004, have been resolved and given that, under Directive 92/43/EEC, any building work that falls within the boundaries of an SPA must be subject to prior impact assessment, can the Commission check that the work being done in the Monti Simbruini nature park is in compliance with EU legislation on environmental protection in protected areas?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question

E-011582/2012 (68) by Raul Romeva I Rueda on the same issue.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011217/12

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(7 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Stanowisko ONZ w sprawie „okien życia”

Oenzetowski Komitet Praw Dziecka forsuje objęcie krajów UE zakazem działalności tzw. okien życia – prowadzonych przez instytucje kościelne i charytatywne placówek ratujących życie niechcianych noworodków. Są to miejsca, w których matka może anonimowo i bez konsekwencji pozostawić swoje nowo narodzone dziecko, jeżeli – z różnych przyczyn – nie jest w stanie wziąć na siebie ciężaru opieki i wychowania. Okna życia działają w wielu krajach Europy, a poza Unią Europejską m.in. w Rosji i Szwajcarii. W Polsce uratowano dzięki nim już kilkadziesiąt noworodków i niemowląt.

Wyrażając stanowisko zdecydowanie sprzeczne z inicjatywą Komitetu Praw Dziecka ONZ, pragnę zwrócić się do Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel Unii do spraw polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa Catherine Ashton z prośbą o interwencję dyplomatyczną w tej budzącej kontrowersje i problematycznej kwestii. Liczę, że, mając na względzie przede wszystkim interesy obywateli państw członkowskich, instytucje europejskie podejmą działania zmierzające do przeciwstawienia się i zablokowania ww. inicjatywy Narodów Zjednoczonych w Europie.

W oparciu o powyższe proszę o informacje dotyczące stanowiska i aktywności ESDZ w zakresie omawianego problemu.

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

(12 marca 2013 r.)

Kwestia funkcjonowania okien życia, w których rodzice mogą zostawić niechcianego noworodka, pozostaje w gestii państw członkowskich i Komisja nie przewiduje stanowienia prawa w tej dziedzinie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011217/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Adam Bielan (ECR)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Opinion of the UN on ‘windows of life’

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is forcing EU Member States to submit to a ban on the use of so‐called ‘windows of life’, which are facilities run by church and charity organisations in order to save the lives of unwanted newborns. They are places where mothers may, anonymously and without fear of consequences, leave their newborn child in the event that, for whatever reason, they are unable to bear the burden of caring for and raising a child. Windows of life exist in many Member States, as well as outside the EU in countries such as Russia and Switzerland. In Poland, they have saved the lives of several dozen newborns and babies.

I should like to make it clear that I hold a completely different position to that set out in the initiative of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and I ask the Vice‐President/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, to make diplomatic representations with regard to this controversial and difficult issue. I trust that the European institutions, being guided primarily by the interests of the Member States’ citizens, will take steps to oppose and block the aforementioned UN initiative in Europe.

In this connection, I should be grateful if information could be provided concerning the EEAS's position and the steps that it is taking with regard to this matter.

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

(12 March 2013)

The question of the use of baby boxes or baby hatches, where parents can leave an unwanted baby, is a matter of individual Member State competence and Commission has no plans to legislate in this area.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011218/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Esportazzjoni ta' tagħmir għall-monitoraġġ tat-telekomunikazzjonijiet

F'Jannar 2012, l-UE adottat ir-Regolament Nru 36/2012 li pprojbixxa “l-esportazzjoni ta' tagħmir għall-monitoraġġ tat-telekomunikazzjonijiet” lis-Sirja. Dan l-aħħar, però, tkattru l-appelli biex jiżdiedu l-projbizzjonijiet fuq l-esportazzjoni tat-teknoloġija tal-informazzjoni lir-reġimi awtoritarji li jiċċensuraw l-informazzjoni u jwettqu sorveljanza tal-massa.

Sa liema punt kellu effett dan ir-Regolament reċenti kontra s-Sirja, u bisħsiebha l-Kummissjoni tittratta t-tħassib rigward il-Bjelorussja f'mod analogu?

Tweġiba mogħtija mingħand ir-Rappreżentant Għoli/Viċi President Ashton f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(22 ta' Frar 2013)

Il-projbizzjoni ta' bejgħ, forniment, trasferiment jew esportazzjoni ta' tagħmir jew softwer primarjament użati fil-monitoraġġ jew l-interċettazzjoni ta’ komunikazzjonijiet bl-internet u dawk telefoniċi hija parti mill-miżuri restrittivi tal-UE kontra s-Sirja fil-kuntest tat-tħassib kbir tal-UE dwar ir-ripressjoni vjolenti kontinwa mir-reġim Sirjan. Għal dan il-għan ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill Nru 36/2012 tat-18 ta' Jannar 2012 jistabbilixxi sistema ta’ awtorizzazzjoni fejn l-awtoritajiet kompetenti tal-Istati Membri ma jagħtu l-ebda awtorizzazzjoni jekk huma jkollhom raġunijiet raġonevoli biex jiddeterminaw li t-tagħmir, it-teknoloġija jew is-softwer identifikati fl-Anness V tar-Regolament imsemmi jkunu użati għall-monitoraġġ jew l-interċettazzjoni komunikazzjonijiet bl-internet u dawk telefoniċi fis-Sirja mir-reġim Sirjan jew għan-nom tiegħu.

Peress illi l-projbizzjoni hija direttament immirata biex taffettwa l-mezzi tar-reġim Sirjan biex iwettaq din ir-ripressjoni, l-effettività tiegħu trid tkun ivvalutata f’dak il-kuntest. L-intenzjoni primarja ta’ din il-miżura mhijiex li tindirizza kwistjonijiet aktar ġenerali ta' ċensura, kif jista’ jkun li qed iseħħ f'pajjiżi oħra.

L-adozzjoni ta’ Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill tal-PESK li tintroduċi miżuri simili fil-konfront tal-Belarus tkun teħtieġ li tkun deċiża b’mod unanimu mill-Istati Membri u r-Regolament tal-UE li jippromulgaha jkun jeħtieġ maġġoranza kwalifikata.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011218/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Export of telecommunications monitoring equipment

In January 2012, the EU passed Regulation No 36/2012, which prohibited ‘the export of telecommunications monitoring equipment’ to Syria. Recently, however, there have been more calls to increase bans on exporting information technology to authoritarian regimes that censor information and conduct mass surveillance.

To what extent has the most recent regulation against Syria been effective, and does the Commission intend to address concerns regarding Belarus in a similar manner?

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

(22 February 2013)

The prohibition of sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment or software primarily used in the monitoring or interception of the Internet and telephone communications is part of the EU’s restrictive measures against Syria in the context of the EU’s great concerns over the ongoing violent repression by the Syrian regime. To this end the Council Regulation No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 establishes an authorisation regime whereby the competent authorities of Member States shall not grant any authorisation if they have reasonable grounds to determine that the equipment, technology or software identified in Annex V of the said Regulation would be used for monitoring or interception by the Syrian regime or on its behalf, of the Internet or telephone communications in Syria.

Given that the prohibition is directly targeted at affecting the means of the Syrian regime to conduct this repression, its effectiveness must be assessed in that context. The primary intention of this measure is not to address more general issues of censorship, as may be taking place in other countries.

The adoption of a Council CFSP Decision introducing similar measures in relation to Belarus would need to be decided at unanimity by the Member States and the enacting EU Regulation by qualified majority.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011219/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Nefqa għall-assistenza sanitarja

F'din l-aħħar sena, in-nefqa għas-saħħa fl-Unjoni Ewropea għall-ewwel darba f'40 sena naqset. B'aktar minn nofs iċ-ċittadini Ewropej f'piż żejjed jew bi problemi ta' obeżità, bil-għan li l-esiġenzi mediċi taċ-ċittadini jiġu sodisfatti, kien hemm tensjoni addizzjonali fuq il-baġits għall-assistenza sanitarja li kulma jmur qegħdin jitnaqqsu. Attwalment 3 % biss tal-baġits għas-saħħa huwa allokat għall-programmi ta' prevenzjoni tal-obeżità u għaldaqstant il-kost reali ta' din is-sitwazzjoni huwa ġġenerat mit-trattament tagħha.

Uħud affermaw li jeħtieġ li jkun hemm żieda fin-nefqa għall-assistenza sanitarja favur il-programmi ta' prevenzjoni tal-obeżità, billi l-prevenzjoni titqies bħala iktar effiċjenti f'termini ta' kostijiet milli t-trattament. Fid-dawl tat-tnaqqis fin-nefqa globali għall-assistenza sanitarja fl-UE, il-Kummissjoni biħsiebha tagħmel enfasi aktar b'saħħitha fuq il-programmi ta' prevenzjoni b'potenzjal li jiġu evitati kostijiet tat-trattament futuri?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Borg f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(31 ta' Jannar 2013)

Il-Kummissjoni tirrikonoxxi l-importanza tal-programmi preventivi dwar l-obeżità, u għal din ir-raġuni, sa mill-2007, ippromwoviet azzjoni hekk kif stabbilita fl-Istrateġija għall-Ewropa dwar in-Nutrizzjoni, Piż żejjed u problemi tas-saħħa relatati mal-Obeżità (69). Dan ifisser li għandha ssir ħidma mal-Istati Membri dwar kwistjonijiet bħar-riformulazzjoni tal-ikel u sabiex il-partijiet interessati jiġu mħeġġa jikkommettu lilhom infushom biex jieħdu azzjonijiet konkreti dwar id-dieta u l-attività fiżika.

L-Istrateġija qiegħda tiġi evalwata u r-riżultati mistennija għall-ewwel nofs tal-2013.

L-UE qiegħda wkoll tiffinanzja proġetti bil-għan li jiġu indirizzati l-piż żejjed u l-obeżità, u jinkludu inizjattivi ta' riċerka li espliċitament iqisu l-implikazzjonijiet ekonomiċi fuq żmien twil tal-programmi ta' prevenzjoni. Għotja ta' flus ġiet mgħoddija għal proġett tal-OECD (70) dwar “L-Obeżità u l-Ekonomija tal-Prevenzjoni” li pprovda informazzjoni dwar liema strateġiji ta' prevenzjoni huma l-iktar effettivi u kosteffettivi.

Barra minn hekk, il-Kummissjoni għandha ppjanat (71) li fl-2013 tagħmel sejħa għall-offerti għal “Analiżi tat-Tabella tal-Ħajja (Life-table): valutazzjoni tal-kosteffettività tas-sistema tas-saħħa fl-Istati Membri”, hekk kif imbassar fil-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni tat-28 ta' Novembru 2012 dwar il-pjan ta' ħidma tal-Programm tas-Saħħa għall-2013. Din l-analiżi għandha tgħin biex jiġi mtejjeb l-għarfien dwar l-ispejjeż u l-benefiċċji tal-investimenti fil-promozzjoni tas-saħħa u l-prevenzjoni tal-mard, li jinkludu azzjoni meħuda biex tiġi evitata l-obeżità.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011219/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Healthcare spending

This past year, health spending in the European Union was down for the first time in 40 years. With more than half of European citizens overweight or obese, there has been additional strain on the shrinking healthcare budgets to meet the medical needs of citizens. Currently only 3% of health budgets are allocated to prevention programmes for obesity and therefore the true cost of this condition is generated by its treatment.

Some have said that there needs to be an increase in healthcare spending on prevention programmes for obesity, as prevention is considered to be more cost-effective than treatment. In light of the decrease in overall healthcare spending in the EU, does the Commission intend to put a stronger focus on preventative programmes that have the potential to avert future treatment costs?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2013)

The Commission recognises the importance of the preventative programmes on obesity, which is why, since 2007, it has promoted action as set out in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues (72). This implies to work with the Member States on issues such as food reformulation and to encourage stakeholders to commit themselves to taking concrete actions on diet and physical activity.

The strategy is currently being evaluated and the results are expected in the first half of 2013.

The EU is also financing projects on tackling overweight and obesity, including research initiatives that explicitly take account of the long-term economic implications of prevention programmes. A research grant was attributed to an OECD project (73) on ‘Obesity and the Economics of Prevention’ which has provided information on which prevention strategies are most effective and cost-effective.

Further, the Commission plans (74) to launch a call for tender in 2013 for a ‘Life-table analysis: health system cost-effectiveness assessment across Member States’ as foreseen in the Commission Communication of 28 November 2012 on the 2013 work plan of the Health Programme. This analysis will help improve the understanding of long-term costs and benefits of investments in health promotion and disease prevention, including action to prevent obesity.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011220/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Faċilità Nikkollegaw l-Ewropa

F’Ottubru 2012, ġew diskussi l-pjanijiet għall-baġit tal-Faċilità Nikkollegaw l-Ewropa (CEF) għall-qafas finanzjarju li jmiss 2014-2020. Ġie stmat li EUR 50 biljun se jiġu allokati għat-trasport, l-enerġija u servizzi tal-broadband u diġitali. It-tama hi li dan l-investiment fl-infrastruttura se jagħmel l-Ewropa aktar kompetittiva u se jikkontribwixxi għall-ħolqien tal-impjiegi.

Fid-dawl tal-istaġnar tan-negozjati fis-samit baġitarju riċenti u t-theddid ta’ tnaqqis serju fil-baġit, il-Kummissjoni kif qed tistenna li s-CEF se tkun affettwata?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Lewandowskion f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(22 ta' Jannar 2013)

Il-Kunsill Ewropew tat-22-23 ta’ Novembru 2012 temm mingħajr ftehim dwar il-Qafas Finanzjarju Multiannwali 2014-2020 u d-diskussjonijiet huma mistennija jerġgħu jibdew fil-bidu tal-2013.

Il-Kummissjoni se tkompli tiddefendi d-daqs u l-bilanċ ġenerali tal-proposti tagħha matul dawn in-negozjati. Iż-żamma ta’ livell suffiċjenti ta’ finanzjament għal Faċilità Nikkollegaw l-Ewropa tibqa’ għan politiku importanti għall-Kummissjoni u toqgħod ħafna fuq l-għajnuna tal-Parlament Ewropew biex jintlaħaq dan l-għan.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011220/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Connecting Europe Facility

In October 2012, plans were discussed for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget for the upcoming 2014-2020 financial framework. It was estimated that EUR 50 billion would be allocated to transport, energy and broadband and digital services. The hope is that this investment in infrastructure will make Europe more competitive and will contribute towards job creation.

In light of the stalemate at the recent budget summit and threats of serious budget cuts, how does the Commission expect the CEF to be affected?

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2013)

The European Council of 22-23 November 2012 ended without an agreement on the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework and the discussions are expected to resume early 2013.

The Commission will continue to defend the overall size and balance of its proposals throughout these negotiations. Maintaining a sufficient level of funding for the Connecting Europe Facility remains an important political objective for the Commission and it very much counts on the help of the European Parliament to achieve this aim.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011221/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Dokument ta' strateġija għall-pajjiż għall-Mali

Fid-19 ta' Novembru 2012, l-Unjoni Ewropea approvat, fil-prinċipju, l-iskjerament ta' missjoni fl-2013 biex tħarreġ lit-truppi tal-Mali fi sforz li titrażżan il-ġlieda għall-poter fit-Tramuntana tal-Mali. L-UE tinkoraġġixxi sostenn reġjonali u internazzjonali għall-Mali, u tirrikonoxxi l-importanza tal-istabilità fir-reġjun.

Id-Dokument ta' strateġija għall-pajjiż għall-Mali 2008‐2013 jirrappreżenta element importanti fir-relazzjonijiet Mali-UE. Hekk kif deħlin fl-aħħar sena ta' din l-inizjattiva, x'bidliet biħsiebha tagħmel il-Kummissjoni fil-konfront ta' kwalunkwe strateġija ta' segwitu fid-dawl tal-kunflitt u tal-iżvilupp matul dawn l-aħħar snin?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Piebalgs f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(28 ta' Frar 2013)

L-UE ħadet miżuri prekawzjonarji immedjatament wara l-kolp ta' Stat tat-22 ta' Marzu 2012 u waqqfet temporanjament il-programmi ta' kooperazzjoni għall-iżvilupp tagħha. L-għajnuna umanitarja u l-programmi ta’ żvilupp b’appoġġ għall-popolazzjoni u għat-tranżizzjoni demokratika għadhom għaddejjin.

Skont il-Konklużjonijiet tal-Kunsill Affarijiet Barranin (KAB) tas-17 ta' Jannar 2013, l-UE se tkompli l-kooperazzjoni għall-iżvilupp tagħha gradwalment. Il-Kummissjoni se tipprepara d-deċiżjonijiet rilevanti sabiex il-fondi għall-iżvilupp jistgħu jintużaw minnufih hekk kif il-kundizzjonijiet jiġu ssodisfati.

F'dik il-perspettiva, il-portafoll tal-għajnuna tal-UE lejn Mali bħalissa qed jiġi rivedut fil-qafas tar-Reviżjoni ta' tmiem il-perjodu tal-10 Fond Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp (FEŻ) biex jiġu kkunsidrati żviluppi ġodda u li qed jevolvu fuq il-linji politiċi u tas-sigurtà. L-UE hija lesta li tappoġġja lill-Gvern ta’ Mali fl-isforzi tiegħu sabiex jimplimenta pjan ta’ direzzjoni għal tranżizzjoni politika u ritorn għall-ordni kostituzzjonali.

Id-daqs u l-modalità ta' twassil tal-pakkett tal-iżvilupp se jkollhom kompletament iqisu l-ħtiġijiet ta' Mali fiċ-ċirkostanzi il-ġodda maħluqa mill-kunflitt u b’mod partikolari l-bżonn urġenti li jassistu lill-Gvern tiegħu fiż-żamma tas-servizzi bażiċi għall-popolazzjoni f’kuntest ta’ tbatija baġitarja estrema.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011221/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Country Strategy Paper for Mali

On 19 November 2012, the EU approved in principle the deployment of a mission in 2013 to train Malian troops in an effort to quell the intense power struggle in northern Mali. The EU encourages regional and international support for Mali, and it recognises the importance of stability in the region.

The Country Strategy Paper for Mali 2008-2013 is an important element in Mali-EU relations. As we enter the final year of this initiative, what changes does the Commission intend to make to any follow-up strategies in light of the conflict and the developments over the past five years?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The EU took precautionary measures immediately after the coup of 22 March 2012 and has put on hold its development cooperation programmes. Humanitarian assistance, development programmes in support to population and to democratic transition are continuing.

In line with the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) Conclusions of 17 January 2013, the EU will resume gradually its development cooperation. The Commission will prepare the relevant decisions so that the development funds can be rapidly disbursed as soon as the conditions are met.

In that perspective, the EU aid portfolio to Mali is currently being reviewed in the framework of the end of term Review of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) to take into consideration the new and evolving developments on the political and security tracks. The EU is willing to support the Government of Mali in its efforts to implement a road-map for the political transition and return to constitutional order.

The size and mode of delivery of the development package will have to fully take into consideration the needs of Mali in the new circumstances created by the conflict and in particular the urgent necessity to assist its Government in maintaining basic services to the population in a context of extreme budgetary hardship.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011222/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Reati ta' mibegħda

Rapport reċenti tal-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali (FRA) afferma li r-reati ta' mibegħda huma episodji komuni, iżda li dawn ir-reati spiss jispiċċaw ma jiġux irrapportati. Ġie suġġerit li għandha tkun adottata leġiżlazzjoni li teħtieġ lill-Istati Membri jiġbru u jippubblikaw id-data dwar l-inċidenza tar-reati ta' mibegħda.

Fid-dawl ta' dan is-suġġeriment, kif biħsiebha l-Kummissjoni tittratta l-problema tar-reati ta' mibegħda, u tipprevedi li tibda leġiżlazzjoni konformi ma' tali suġġeriment?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Redingon f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(8 ta' Frar 2013)

It-Trattati ma jagħtux setgħa lill-Kummissjoni biex tagħti bidu għal leġiżlazzjoni li tobbliga lill-Istati Membri biex jiġbru u jippubblikaw dejta dwar l-inċidenza ta’ delitti ta’ mibegħda. Il-Kummissjoni tissorvelja l-implimentazzjoni tal-leġiżlazzjoni tal-UE, tipprovdi appoġġ għal attivitajiet tal-partijiet interessati u tappoġġja l-ġbir tad-dejta mill-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali (75).

Id-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2008/913/ĠAI (76) tobbliga lill-Istati Membri biex jippenalizzaw it-tixwix pubbliku intenzjonali għal vjolenza jew mibegħda kontra gruppi jew individwi definiti b’referenza għar-razza, il-kulur, ir-reliġjon, id-dixxendenza jew l-oriġini nazzjonali jew etnika tagħhom. Il-Kummissjoni se tippreżenta rapport dwar dan sal-aħħar tal-2013.

Id-Direttiva 2012/29/UE tal-25 ta’ Ottubru 2012 (77) li tistabbilixxi standards minimi dwar id-drittijiet, l-appoġġ u l-protezzjoni tal-vittmi tal-kriminalità tindirizza l-kwalità ta’ trattament li jirċievu l-vittmi wara d-delitt u matul il-proċedimenti kriminali li jiġu wara. L-Artikolu 22 tagħha jsemmi speċifikament vittmi ta’ delitti ta’ mibegħda u jobbliga lill-Istati Membri li jiżguraw li l-vittmi ssirilhom valutazzjoni individwali u f’waqtha bl-għan li tiddentifika l-ħtiġijiet ta’ protezzjoni speċifiċi u tiddetermina jekk u sa liema punt għandhom jibbenefikaw minn miżuri speċjali minħabba l-vulnerabbiltà partikolari tagħhom għall-vittimizzazzjoni sekondarja u ripetuta, għall-intimidazzjoni u għar-ritaljazzjoni.

Fit-18 ta’ Jannar 2013, il-Ministri tal-Ġustizzja tal-UE ddiskutew il-ħtieġa li jieħdu “azzjoni biex jiġġieldu kontra delitti ta’ mibegħda u intolleranza, inklużi ir-razziżmu u l-anti-semitiżmu” fil-Kunsill ĠAI informali. Il-Presidenza Irlandiża kkonkludiet li tistieden lill-Kummissjoni biex tniedi dibattitu pubbliku wiesa’ li jikkunsidra r-Rapport Annwali tal-Kummissjoni dwar il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-UE mal-gvernijiet u l-istituzzjonijiet pubbliċi fl-Istati Membri.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011222/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Hate crimes

A recent report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) stated that hate crimes are a common occurrence, but that these crimes often go unreported. It has been suggested that legislation should be passed to require Member States to collect and publish data on the incidence of hate crimes.

In light of this suggestion, how does the Commission intend to address the issue of hate crimes, and does it anticipate initiating legislation in line with this suggestion?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

The Treaties do not empower the Commission to initiate legislation obliging Member States to collect and publish data on the incidence of hate crimes. The Commission monitors the implementation of EU legislation provides support to stakeholders' activities and supports the data collection by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (78).

Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (79) obliges Member States to penalise the intentional public incitement to violence or hatred against groups or individuals defined by reference to their race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The Commission will present a report on it by the end of 2013.

Directive 2012/29/EU of 25 October 2012 (80) establishing minimum standards on the rights support and protection of victims of crime addresses the quality of treatment that victims receive in the aftermath of crime and during the criminal proceedings that follow. Its Article 22 specifically mentions victims of hate crimes and obliges Member States to ensure that victims receive a timely and individual assessment with the aim to identify specific protection needs and determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures due to their particular vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and to retaliation.

On 18 January 2013 the EU Justice Ministers discussed the need to take ‘action to counter hate crime and intolerance, including racism and anti-semitism’ at the informal JHA Council. The Irish Presidency concluded inviting the Commission to initiate a broad public debate taking account of the Commission's Annual Report on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with governments and public institutions in the Member States.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011223/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Sanzjonijiet kontra l-Iran

Id-Dr Shirin Ebadi, rebbieħa Iranjana tal-Premju Nobel għall-Paċi, dan l-aħħar issemmiet minħabba li argumentat li l-UE jmissha timponi “sanzjonijiet intelliġenti” kontra l-Iran li ma jippenalizzawx liċ-ċittadini Iranjani. L-UE ilha timponi, minn Lulju 2012, sanzjonijiet fuq iż-żejt, il-gass naturali u t-tranżazzjonijiet finanzjarji kontra l-Iran fi sforz biex jiġu intensifikati u aċċelerati n-negozjati.

Tista' l-Kummissjoni tirrapporta dwar il-progress li sar minn dak iż-żmien “l hawn, u tista” l-Kummissjoni tirrapporta dwar kwalunkwe riperkussjoni negattiva li tali sanzjonijiet ħallew fuq iċ-ċittadini? Fil-każ affermattiv, x'possibilitajiet tipprevedi l-Kummissjoni fir-rigward tas-sanzjonijiet “aktar intelliġenti” kontra l-Iran?

Tweġiba mogħtija mir-Rappreżentant Għoli/il-Viċi President Ashton f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(13 ta' Frar 2013)

Is-sanzjonijiet tal-UE huma mmirati lejn il-programm nukleari tal-Iran u lejn dawk li qed jappoġġjaw dan il-programm, kif ukoll lejn id-dħul użat mill-Iran biex jiffinanzja dan il-programm. Fl-istess waqt, qed isir kull sforz possibbli biex jiġi kemm jista’ jkun minimizzat kwalunkwe effett mhux intenzjonat tas-sanzjonijiet . Is-sanzjonijiet mhumiex immirati lejn il-poplu Iranjan.

Sabiex jiġi żgurat li jkunu minimizzati l-effetti fuq iċ-ċittadini, is-sanzjonijiet tal-UE kontra l-Iran jinkludu, pereżempju, dispożizzjonijiet biex jiggarantixxu li t-tranżazzjonijiet għal raġunijiet umanitarji jibqgħu bl-inqas ammont ta' restrizzjonijiet possibbli. Għal dak il-għan, il-miżuri finanzjarji li jikkonċernaw it-trasferimenti ta’ fondi lejn u mill-Iran, inklużi dawk permezz ta’ banek Iranjani, jinkludu dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi fir-rigward tar-raġunijiet umanitarji f’termini ta’ limiti, proċeduri u skambju ta’ informazzjoni, li jneħħu ostakli li nkella kienu jkunu applikabbli. Minbarra dan, ir-raġunijiet umanitarji huma eżentati mill-projbizzjoni fuq l-għoti ta’ appoġġ finanzjarju pubbliku għall-kummerċ mal-Iran (kreditu għall-esportazzjoni). Filwaqt li t-trasferiment ta’ flus lejn u mill-Iran sar tassew aktar diffiċli billi ġew deżinjati banek Iranjani importanti, xorta għad fadal għadd ta' kanali għat-tranżazzjonijiet finanzjarji li għadhom miftuħa u li jiżguraw li jistgħu jkomplu jsiru tranżazzjonijiet leġittimi mal-Iran.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011223/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Iran sanctions

Dr Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has been cited lately for arguing that the EU should impose ‘smart sanctions’ against Iran that do not punish Iranian citizens. Since July 2012, the EU has imposed oil, natural gas and financial transaction sanctions against Iran in an effort to intensify and speed up negotiations.

Can the Commission report on the progress made since then, and can the Commission report on any negative repercussions that these sanctions have had for citizens? If so, what possibilities does the Commission see for ‘smarter’ sanctions against Iran?

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

(13 February 2013)

The EU’s sanctions are targeted at Iran’s nuclear programme and at those supporting this programme, and at revenues Iran is using to fund this programme. At the same time, every effort possible is made to ensure that any unintended effects of the sanctions are minimised as much as possible. The sanctions do not target the Iranian people.

To ensure that the effects on citizens are minimised, the EU’s sanctions against Iran include for instance provisions to guarantee that transactions for humanitarian purposes remain possible with as few restrictions as possible. For that purpose, the financial measures concerning the transfer of funds to and from Iran, including through Iranian banks, include specific provisions with regard to humanitarian purposes in terms of thresholds, procedures and exchange of information, removing obstacles that would otherwise be applicable. In addition, humanitarian purposes are exempted from the prohibition on the provision of public financial support for trade with Iran (export credit). And while transfer of money to and from Iran has indeed become more difficult as important Iranian banks have been designated, there are still a number of channels for financial transactions which remain open and which ensure that legitimate transactions with Iran can continue.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011224/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Kriterji ta' sostenibbiltà għall-bijomassa

Ġie rappurtat li fl-2010, 49 % tal-enerġija rinovabbli tal-UE ġiet mill-injam u l-iskart tal-injam. Madankollu, xi wħud jargumentaw li dan jista’ jżid l-emissjonijiet tas-CO2. Din is-sena l-Kummissjoni suppost kellha tistabbilixxi kriterji tas-sostenibbiltà ġodda għall-użu tal-bijomassa għall-enerġija, bħall-injam u l-iskart tal-injam; madankollu, dan fl-aħħar nett ma sarx.

Fid-dawl ta’ din is-sitwazzjoni, il-Kummissjoni għandha xi pjan biex tistabbilixxi kriterji ta’ sostenibbiltà ġodda għall-użu tal-bijomassa fil-futur qrib?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Oettinger f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(31 ta' Jannar 2013)

Il-Kummissjoni tirreferi lill-Onorevoli Membru għat-tweġiba tagħha għall-mistoqsija bil-miktub E-011113/2012 minn Ivo Belet dwar l-istess kwistjoni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011224/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Sustainability criteria for biomass

It has been reported that 49% of EU renewable energy came from wood and wood waste in 2010. However, some argue that this may actually drive up CO2 emissions. This year the Commission was supposed to establish new sustainability criteria for the use of biomass — such as wood and wood waste — for energy, however, this ultimately failed to happen.

In light of this situation, does the Commission have any plans to establish new sustainability criteria for the use of biomass in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-011113/2012 by Ivo Belet on the same issue.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011225/12

lill-Kummissjoni (Viċi President / Rappreżentant Għoli)

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: VP/HR — Armi kimiċi fis-Sirja

Reċentement tqajjem tħassib dwar l-użu potenzjali tal-armi kimiċi mill-Gvern Sirjan kontra ċ-ċittadini tiegħu.

X’possibbiltajiet tipprevedi l-Viċi President / Rappreżentant Għoli għall-Unjoni Ewropea biex tipprevjeni lill-Gvern Sirjan milli jirrikorri għall-armi kimiċi, u x'tip ta’ miżuri punittivi jistgħu jiġu previsti fil-każ ta’ attakk li jinvolvi armi kimiċi?

Tweġiba mogħtija mir-Rappreżentant Għoli/il-Viċi President Ashton f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(28 ta' Frar 2013)

L-UE tinsab imħassba serjament dwar l-użu potenzjali tal-armi kimiċi tas-Sirja, sew mir-reġim u sew fil-każ li jaqgħu f’idejn ir-ribelli jew il-gruppi terroristiċi, kif ukoll dwar il-possibbiltà ta’ tixrid inċidentali ta’ armi kimiċi.

Kwalunkwe użu ta' armi kimiċi huwa għal kollox inaċċettabbli u r-reġim Sirjan u atturi oħra ma għandhom qatt jirrikorru għal dik l-għażla. L-UE ilha konsistentement tenfasizza dan il-messaġġ permezz tal-mezzi ta' diplomazija kemm pubblika kif ukoll privata.

L-UE tissorvelja mill-qrib l-iżviluppi relatati f'kooperazzjoni ma' sħab internazzjonali. Saru wkoll kuntatti ma' xi pajjiżi ġirien tas-Sirja bl-iskop li jiġu vvalutati l-possibilitajiet li l-UE tgħin fl-oqsma tal-ippjanar ta' kontinġenza u miżuri ta' reazzjoni għall-użu ta’ armi kimiċi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011225/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Chemical weapons in Syria

Concerns have recently been raised over the possible use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government against its citizens.

What possibilities does the Vice-President/High Representative see for the European Union to prevent the Syrian Government from resorting to chemical weapons, and what kind of punitive measures could be envisaged in the event of an attack involving chemical weapons?

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

(28 February 2013)

The EU is gravely concerned about the potential use of Syria's chemical weapons, whether by the regime or in case they fall into the hands of the rebels or terrorist groups, as well as about the possibility of incidental dissemination of chemical weapons.

Any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and the Syrian regime and other actors must never resort to that option. The EU has been consistently emphasising this message through the channels of public and private diplomacy.

The EU monitors closely the related developments in cooperation with international partners. Contacts have also been made with some of Syria's neighbouring countries with a view to assess the EU's possibilities to assist in the areas of chemical contingency planning and response measures.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011226/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Il-faqar

Skont rapport riċenti mill-Eurostat, fl-2011, 24.2 % taċ-ċittadini tal-UE kienu fir-riskju tal-faqar. Hekk kif il-kriżi ekonomika qed tkompli tħalli l-effetti tagħha fuq l-Istati Membri tal-UE, in-numru dejjem jiżdied ta’ ċittadini li jinsabu fir-riskju tal-faqar jista’ jkun marbut mal-problemi ekonomiċi attwali fir-reġjun.

Peress li l-istrateġija Ewropa 2020 għandha l-għan li tnaqqas in-numru ta’ persuni fir-riskju tal-faqar, il-Kummissjoni b’liema mod tista’ tiżgura li t-taqlib ekonomiku attwali ma jipperikolax l-ambizzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-ambitu ta’din l-istrateġija, u hija beħsiebħa tieħu xi miżuri bħala reazzjoni għaċ-ċifri ppubblikati mill-Eurostat?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Andoron f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(7 ta' Frar 2013)

Il-kriżi ekonomika qiegħda tassew tpoġġi sfidi addizzjonali għall-UE u l-Istati Membri tagħha biex jilħqu l-miri tal-istrateġija Ewropa 2020 u b’mod partikulari dawk relatati mat-tnaqqis tal-faqar. Madanakollu, il-Kummissjoni u l-Istati Membri rreaġixxew b’modi differenti: L-Inizjattiva għall-Impjiegi fost iż-Żgħażagħ biex jitnaqqas il-qgħad fost iż-żgħażagħ, il-Pakkett għall-Impjiegi, sett ta' miżuri konkreti biex jiżdiedu l-impjiegi kif ukoll ir-Rakkomandazzjoni dwar il-faqar fost it-tfal li għandha tiġi adottata bħala parti mill-Pakkett għall-Investiment Soċjali (81). Is-SIP se jifformula aġenda ġdida għall-politiki soċjali, b’hekk jgħin lill-Istati Membri jagħmlu r-riformi strutturali meħtieġa biex jinvestu f'politiki soċjali li jagħtu l-poter lin-nies minn età żgħira, isaħħu l-kapaċitajiet tagħhom biex ikampaw mar-riskji u jtejbu l-opportunitajiet tagħhom biex jipparteċipaw fis-soċjetà tul il-ħajja. Fondi tal-UE bħall-FSE (82) u l-PSCI (83) jistgħu jwettqu rwol importanti biex isostnu dawn l-isforzi. Huwa għaldaqstant kritiku li l-Parlament Ewropew jagħti s-sostenn tiegħu għal FSE b’saħħtu.

Ir-Rakkomandazzjonijiet Speċifiċi skont il-Pajjiż tal-2012 bħala parti mis-“Semestru Ewropew” iffukaw fost l-oħrajn lejn il-bżonn li tissaħħaħ il-ġlieda kontra l-qgħad u l-faqar u sejħet għal riformi fis-swieq tax-xogħol u fis-sistemi tal-pensjonijiet. L-Istħarriġ Annwali dwar it-Tkabbir għall-2013 saħaq dwar il-bżonn li l-Istati Membri jindirizzaw il-konsegwenzi soċjali tal-kriżi.

Barra minn hekk, il-Kummissjoni qed issegwi mill-qrib l-iżviluppi soċjali fl-Istati Membri permezz ta' konsultazzjoni kontinwa mal-partijiet interessati fil-Konvenzjoni Annwali tal-Pjattaforma Ewropea Kontra l-Faqar u l-Esklużjoni Soċjali tal-2012 u rapporti bħat-Tieni (2) Rapport dwar l-Impjieg u l-Iżviluppi Soċjali fl-Ewropa  (84) u r-Rapport Soċjali Annwali ppreżentat mill-Kumitat tal-Protezzjoni Soċjali.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011226/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Poverty

A recent report by Eurostat found that 24.2% of EU citizens were at risk of poverty in 2011. As the economic crisis continues to take its toll on EU Member States, the increasing number of citizens who are at risk of poverty could be linked to the current economic woes in the region.

Given that Europe’s 2020 strategy is aimed at reducing the number of those at risk of poverty, in what way can the Commission ensure that the current economic turmoil does not jeopardise the ambitions set out under this strategy, and does the Commission intend to take any measures in reaction to the figures published by Eurostat?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

The economic crisis is indeed putting additional challenges for the EU and its Member States in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy's targets and particularly those related to the reduction of poverty. However, the Commission and the Member States have reacted via various means: The Youth Employment Initiative to drive down youth unemployment, the Employment Package, a set of concrete measures to boost jobs as well as the recommendation on child poverty to be adopted as part of the Social Investment Package (85) . The SIP will set out a new agenda for social policies, helping Member States make the structural reforms needed to invest in social policies that empower people from an early age, strengthen their capabilities to cope with risks and enhance their opportunities to participate in society across the life course. EU Funds such as the ESF  (86) and the PSCI (87) can play an important role in supporting these efforts. It is therefore critical that the European Parliament gives its support to a strong ESF.

The 2012 Country Specific Recommendations as part of the ‘European Semester’ pointed among others to the need to enhance the fight against unemployment and poverty and called for reforms in the labour markets and pension systems. The 2013 Annual Growth Survey reiterated the need for Member States to address the social consequences of the crisis.

Furthermore, the Commission closely follows social developments in Member States through ongoing consultation with stakeholders in the 2012 Annual Convention of the Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion and reports such as the 2nd Employment and Social Developments in Europe Review (88) and the Annual Social Report presented by the social protection committee.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011227/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Servizzi tal-Gvern online

Il-Kummissjoni reċentement ipproponiet regoli biex is-siti tal-Gvern isiru aktar aċċessibbli għaċ-ċittadini. Dan mistenni jkollu benefiċċji partikolari għal 80 miljun ċittadin tal-UE b’diżabilitajiet u 87 miljun ċittadin tal-UE li għandhom “il fuq minn 65 sena.

1.

Bl-għan li jkun żgurat aċċess aktar ugwali għaċ-ċittadini kollha, il-Kummissjoni tista

” tipprovdi xi dejta dwar x'persentaġġ ta' ċittadini b'diżabilitajiet jew li għandhom “il fuq minn 65 jużaw l-internet ta” spiss, u x’persentaġġ minn dawn iċ-ċittadini jagħżlu l-internet biex jiksbu aċċess għas-servizzi tal-gvern?

2.

Il-Kummissjoni qed tippjana li tieħu xi inizjattivi biex tindirizza l-ostakoli potenzjali għall-użu tal-internet fost dawn iċ-ċittadini, bħal kompetenza insuffiċjenti fl-użu tal-kompjuter fost il-popolazzjoni aktar anzjana?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Kroes f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(28 ta' Jannar 2013)

Abbażi tad-dejta disponibbli, in-nies aktar anzjani u dawk b'diżabbiltajiet jużaw l-internet inqas ta' spiss minn gruppi ta' utenti oħra (89). Fl-2011, 28% biss tal-persuni bejn il-65 u l-74 sena użaw l-internet mill-inqas darba fil-ġimgħa mqabbel ma' 76% tal-persuni bejn il-25 u l-54 sena. 16% biss min-nies ta' bejn l-etajiet ta' 65 u 74 użaw l-internet biex jaċċessaw is-servizzi tal-gvern, imqabbel mad-49% min-nies ta' bejn il-25 u l-54 sena (90). Fl-2011, fost il-persuni li kienu użaw l-internet u ma ressqu ebda formola elettronika, 17% minn dawk li għandhom bejn il-65 u l-74 sena jaħsbu li l-proċeduri elettroniċi huma wisq ikkumplikati, jew iqisu li ma jafux jużaw l-internet biżżejjed, b' kuntrast maċ-ċifra ta' 8% biss minn dawk ta' bejn il-25 u l-54 sena li jaħsbuha l-istess. Hemm id-dejta disponibbli għall-2012 dwar dawk li għandhom bejn il-55 u l-74 . Turi li l-użu regolari tal-internet (mill-inqas darba fis-sena) żdied fl-2012 b'mod kostanti minn 28% għal 42%. Ġie nnutat li hemm żieda fil-persentaġġ ta' dawk li għandhom bejn il-55 u l-74 sena li jużaw l-internet b'mod regolari u jidħlu onlajn kuljum (91).

Ma hemmx statistika disponibbli dwar in-nies b'diżabbiltajiet u l-użu tagħhom tal-internet. L-uniku indikatur disponibbli (92) jirreferi għall-unitajiet domestiċi li m'għandhomx aċċess għall-internet fid-dar. 2% tal-każi ta' familji li m'għandhomx internet fid-dar huma marbuta mal-preżenza ta' diżabbiltà fiżika (93).

L-ADE għandha l-mira li ġġib lil “kull Ewropew Diġitali”, billi tneħħi kull tfixkil għall-aċċess għal kulħadd. Il-Kummissjoni pproponiet Direttiva dwar l-Aċċessibbiltà għall-Web li bħalissa qiegħda tiġi diskussa fil-Kunsill u fil-Parlament Ewropew.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011227/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Government services online

The Commission recently proposed rules to make government websites more accessible to citizens. This is expected to have particular benefits for the 80 million EU citizens with disabilities and the 87 million EU citizens over 65.

1.

With the aim of ensuring more equal access for all citizens, can the Commission provide any data as to what percentage of citizens with disabilities or aged over 65 use the Internet frequently, and what percentage of these citizens would choose the Internet to access government services?

2.

Does the Commission plan to take any initiatives to address potential obstacles to Internet use among these citizens, such as insufficient computer literacy amongst the older population?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2013)

Based on available data, older people and those with disabilities use the Internet less frequently than other groups of users (94). In 2011 only 28% of persons aged 65-74 went online at least once a week compared to 76% of persons aged 25-54. Only 16% of 65-74 year olds used the Internet to access government services, compared to 49% of 25-54 year olds (95). In 2011, among persons who had used the Internet and did not submit any electronic forms 17% of those aged 65 to 74 years considered electronic procedures as being too complicated or not having enough knowledge as opposed to only 8% of person aged 25 to 54 years. For 2012, data is available concerning the age group 55-74. The data shows that the regular use of Internet (at least once a week) has constantly progressed from 28% in 2008 up to 42% in 2012. A constant increase has been observed in the percentage of these regular Internet users aged 55-74 going online on a daily basis (96).

There are no statistics available on people with disabilities and their Internet use. The only available indicator (97) refers to the households without access to Internet at home. 2% of cases out of all households without Internet connection at home are related to the existence of a physical disability (98).

The DAE aims at getting ‘every European Digital’, removing barriers to access for all. The Commission proposed a directive on Web Accessibililty which is now being discussed in the Council and European Parliament.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011228/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Il-Premju Access City

Il-Premju Access City huwa parti mill-isforzi tal-UE taħt l-Istrateġija Ewropea tad-Diżabilità biex iqajjem l-għarfien dwar l-isfidi li jikkonfrontaw in-nies b'diżabilitajiet u jħeġġeġ il-miżuri li ttieħdu f'ambjenti urbani biex itejbu l-aċċessibbiltà tal-bliet. Intqal li l-bliet Ewropej jistgħu jibbenefikaw minn dan il-premju hekk kif ir-rebbieħa u l-finalisti jaqsmu l-esperjenzi u l-ideat tagħhom dwar it-titjib fl-aċċessibbiltà għal persuni b'diżabilitajiet.

Il-Kummissjoni tista’ tipprovdi xi eżempji fejn il-bliet li rebħu dan il-premju ispiraw titjib fl-aċċessibbiltà permezz ta’ skambju tal-aħjar prattiki ma’ bliet oħrajn fl-Unjoni Ewropea?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Reding f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(5 ta' Frar 2013)

L-Access City Award inbeda fl-2010 u sal-lum diġà kien hemm tliet edizzjonijiet ta’ din il-kompetizzjoni. Wieħed mill-għanijiet ewlenin huwa li tinġabar prassi tajba li tista’ sservi ta' eżempju għal bliet oħrajn. Minn kull edizzjoni tal-Award, il-Kummissjoni ġabret eżempji ta’ attivitajiet bħal dawn li saru fl-ibliet magħżula biex tittejjeb l-aċċessibbiltà (99). Din il-prassi tajba ġiet imqassma fost l-ibliet kollha fl-UE li huma potenzjalment interessati. Dan iffaċilita l-istabbiliment ta’ kuntatti bejn l-ibliet li jixtiequ jitgħallmu minn xulxin biex l-ambjent urban jagħmluh aċċessibbli u għaldaqstant verament inklużiv. Minkejja li l-ibliet rebbieħa ċertament mhumiex l-uniku sors ta’ eżempji tajbin, bis-saħħa ta’ dan l-Award, dawn ibbenefikaw minn aktar viżibbiltà tal-inizjattivi tagħhom tal-aċċessibbiltà.

Avila, il-belt rebbieħa tal-ewwel edizzjoni fl-2010, qed tieħu sehem fil-Lega tal-Ibliet Storiċi u Aċċessibbli, proġett li ġie stabbilit fl-2010 fi ħdan il-Konsorzju Ewropew tal-Fondazzjonijiet dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u d-Diżabbiltà mmexxi miċ-Ċentru Ewropew tal-Fondazzjonijiet, u li għandu l-għan li jirrikonċilja l-aċċessibbiltà mal-wirt kulturali (100). Salzburg, il-belt rebbieħa tat-tieni edizzjoni, irċeviet żjarat speċifiċi minn amministraturi ta’ bliet barranin inkarigati mill-aċċessibbiltà.

Berlin, l-aktar belt rebbieħa reċenti, tippresiedi l-Grupp ta’ Ħidma tal-Eurocities għall-ibliet mingħajr ostakoli għal kulħadd, fejn bliet kbar Ewropej jippromwovu l-iskambju ta’ esperjenzi fl-iżvilupp u fit-tfassil ta’ bliet mingħajr ostakoli (101).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011228/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Access City Award

The Access City Award forms part of EU efforts under the European Disability Strategy to raise awareness about the challenges that people with disabilities face and encourage measures taken in urban settings to improve accessibility in cities. It has been said that European cities can benefit from this award as winners and finalists share their experiences and ideas in improving accessibility for people with disabilities.

Can the Commission provide any examples where cities that won this award have inspired improvements in accessibility through best practice exchange with other cities in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Access City Award was started in 2010 and there have been now three editions of this competition. One of the main goals is to collect good practices that can serve as an example for other cities. From each Award's edition, the Commission has collected such examples of activities carried out by the shortlisted cities to improve accessibility (102). These good practices have been distributed among all potentially interested cities in the EU. This has facilitated the establishment of contacts between cities that want to learn from one another to make the urban environment accessible and thus truly inclusive. Although they are certainly not the only source of good examples, the winning cities have benefited from increased visibility of their accessibility initiatives thanks to the Award.

Avila, the winner of the first edition in 2010, participates in the League of Historical and Accessible Cities, a project established in 2010 within the European Consortium of Foundations on Human Rights and Disability led by the European Foundation Centre, and aiming to reconcile accessibility with cultural heritage (103). Salzburg, the winner of the second edition, received specific visits from foreign cities' administrators in charge of accessibility.

Berlin, the most recent winner, chairs the Eurocities' Barrier-free cities for all Working Group in which large European cities promote the exchange of experiences of developing and designing cities without barriers (104).

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011229/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(7 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Il-monitoraġġ tal-applikazzjoni tal-liġi tal-UE

Id-29 Rapport Annwali dwar il-Monitoraġġ tal-Applikazzjoni tal-Liġi tal-UE (2011), li ġie ppubblikat reċentement mill-Kummissjoni, jindika l-għadd kbir ta' każijiet ta' ksur. Filwaqt li ħafna mill-każijiet ta' dewmien fl-implimentazzjoni ġie indirizzat permezz tal-proġett EU Pilot tal-Kummissjoni, disa’ każijiet tressqu quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-UE b'talbiet għal pieni finanzjarji.

Hemm differenzi sinifikanti bejn l-Istati Membri fir-rigward tal-ksur b’rabta mal-implimentazzjoni. Il-Kummissjoni tista' tipprovdi raġunijiet konkreti għal ksur min-naħa ta' dawk l-Istati Membri b'riżultati partikolarment baxxi?

Peress li xi Stati Membri jiksbu riżultati pjuttost aħjar minn oħrajn, hemm xi eżempji tal-aħjar prattiki li jistgħu jiġu replikati sabiex titjieb l-implimentazzjoni fi Stati Membri oħrajn?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Barroso f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(7 ta' Frar 2013)

Hemm differenzi sinifikanti bejn l-Istati Membri dwar il-ksur. Hemm diversi raġunijiet għal dan, inkluża l-istruttura amministrattiva tal-Istat Membru u l-organizzazzjoni.

Il-Kummissjoni taħdem b'kooperazzjoni mill-qrib mal-Istati Membri dwar kwistjonijiet relatati mal-applikazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni tal-leġiżlazzjoni tal-UE. Dan jinkludi l-iskambju tal-aħjar prassi bejn l-Istati Membri. Pereżempju, fil-qafas tad-Direttiva dwar is-Servizzi u d-Direttiva dwar ir-Rikonoxximent tal-Kwalifiki Professjonali, il-Kummissjoni stabbiliet applikazzjoni multilingwa bbażata fuq il-web, is-Sistema ta' Informazzjoni tas-Suq Intern (IMI), li tiffaċilita l-iskambju ta' informazzjoni bejn l-amministrazzjonijiet pubbliċi li huma involuti fl-implimentazzjoni prattika tal-liġi tal-UE. Eżempji oħra tal--aħjar prassi tal-organizzazzjoni interna tal-Istati Membri li għandhom impatt fuq l-implimentazzjoni jistgħu jinstabu regolarment fit-Tabelli ta’ Valutazzjoni Biannwali tas-Suq Intern.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011229/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Monitoring the application of EC law

The 29th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EC law (2011), recently published by the Commission, points out the high number of infringement cases. Whilst many of the cases of late implementation have been addressed using the Commission’s EU Pilot project, nine cases have been referred to the EU’s Court of Justice with requests for financial penalties.

There are significant differences between Member States when it comes to implementation infringements. Can the Commission provide concrete reasons for infringements on the part of those Member States with particularly poor results?

Given that some Member States score significantly better than others, are there any examples of best practice that could be replicated in order to improve implementation in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

There are significant differences between Member States concerning infringements. There are various reasons for this, including the Member State's administrative structure and organisation.

The Commission works in close cooperation with Member States on issues related to the application and implementation of EU legislation. This includes the exchange of best practice between Member States. For example, in the framework of the Services Directive and the Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive, the Commission has set up a multi-lingual web based application, Internal Market Information System (IMI), facilitating the exchange of information between public administrations that are involved in the practical implementation of EC law. Other examples of best practices in the Member States' internal organisation having an impact on implementation can be found regularly in the biannual Internal Market Scoreboards.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011230/12

an die Kommission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) und Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(7. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Begrenzte wirtschaftliche Begründung für Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten im umfassenden Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen EU-Kanada

Bei der Unterrichtung des Ausschusses für internationalen Handel über das Kapitel zum Investitionsschutz im umfassenden Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen EU-Kanada (CETA) erklärte ein Vertreter der Kommission, dass die Aufnahme eines Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten (ISDS) in das CETA nur „begrenzten wirtschaftlichen Wert“ hat. Stattdessen besteht dem Vertreter der Kommission zufolge der tatsächliche Grund für die Aufnahme eines ISDS-Mechanismus in den Vertrag in seinem „politischen Wert“. Könnte die Kommission dies durch Beantwortung der folgenden Fragen näher erläutern:

Warum werden Kapitel mit begrenztem wirtschaftlichem Wert in Handelsabkommen aufgenommen?

Was bedeutet „politischer Wert“ in diesem Zusammenhang?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(29. Januar 2013)

Aus mehreren Gründen hat sich die Europäische Union entschieden, ein Kapitel zur Beilegung von Streitigkeiten zwischen Investor und Staat (Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS) in das umfassende Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen EU-Kanada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA) aufzunehmen. Zunächst gab es in der Vergangenheit einige Fälle, in denen ausländische Investoren in Kanada enteignet wurden, keine Entschädigung erhielten und ihnen der Weg vor die kanadischen Gerichte versperrt blieb. Durch ein ISDS-Kapitel im Rahmen des CETA könnten europäische Investoren ein internationales Gericht anrufen und wären so besser geschützt. Die Aufnahme des Investitionsschutzes und der Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten sind daher von großer Wichtigkeit, um mehr Rechtssicherheit für Investoren zu schaffen, was wiederum zur Stabilisierung der (beidseitigen) Handels‐ und Investitionsströme zwischen der Union und Kanada beitragen würde. Folglich ist diese Frage von beträchtlichem wirtschaftlichem Wert und Interesse.

Darüber hinaus kommt dem Investitionsschutz und dem ISDS-Kapitel aus Sicht der Europäischen Kommission ein hoher politischer Wert zu. Den Investitionsschutz in einer internationalen Vereinbarung festzuschreiben, ohne sich auch auf ein Verfahren zur Beilegung von Streitigkeiten zwischen Investor und Staat zu einigen, wäre wenig effektiv. Um den Investoren einen angemessenen Schutz bieten zu können, sollte in dem Abkommen auch ein Mechanismus zur Durchsetzung der gemachten Zusagen vorgesehen sein, der die effektive Umsetzung der Bestimmungen gewährleistet. Dies ist der Zweck des ISDS-Kapitels.

Die CETA-Verhandlungen sind die ersten in einer Serie von Verhandlungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Drittstaaten, in denen Investitionsfragen aufgegriffen werden. Gemeinsam mit dem Abkommen EU-Singapur wird das CETA eine der ersten internationalen Übereinkünfte der Union seit Inkrafttreten des Vertrags von Lissabon sein, die ein Kapitel zu Investitionsschutz und ISDS enthalten. Für die EU ist es politisch gesehen wichtig, die ihr übertragenen Zuständigkeiten aktiv wahrzunehmen und diese Politik künftig auch mit anderen wichtigen Partnern fortzusetzen. Die ersten Abkommen haben hier natürlich einen politisch richtungsweisenden Charakter.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011230/12

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) och Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(7 december 2012)

Angående: Begränsad ekonomisk grund för en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat i det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel mellan EU och Kanada

Vid utfrågningen inför utskottet för internationell handel om kapitlet om skydd för investeringar i det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel mellan EU och Kanada uppgav en företrädare för kommissionen att införandet av en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat i det övergripande avtalet bara var av ”visst ekonomiskt värde” (105). Enligt kommissionens företrädare var den faktiska orsaken till att en sådan mekanism skulle tas med i avtalet i stället dess ”politiska värde”. Kommissionen uppmanas att klargöra detta genom att besvara följande frågor:

Varför ingår kapitel med begränsat ekonomiskt värde i handelsavtal?

Vad menas med ”politiskt värde” i detta sammanhang?

Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar

(29 januari 2013)

Europeiska unionen har flera motiv för att innefatta ett kapitel om regler för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stater i det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel mellan EU och Kanada. Vid flera tillfällen har utländska investerare drabbats av expropriation i Kanada och nekats kompensation och tillgång till kanadensiska domstolar. Kapitlet om regler för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stater i det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel skulle skydda europeiska investerare i Kanada genom att ge dem tillträde till en internationell domstol. Att innefatta investeringsskydd och regler för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stater är en viktig fråga eftersom det skulle tillgodose investerarnas behov av rättssäkerhet, vilket i sin tur skulle säkra handel och investeringar mellan EU och Kanada. Följaktligen är det av avsevärt ekonomiskt värde och betydelse.

Dessutom anser Europeiska kommissionen att investeringsskydd och kapitlet om tvistlösning mellan investerare och stater i avtalet har ett politiskt värde. Att ha ett investeringsskydd i ett avtal utan förfaranden för tvistlösning skulle vara av begränsat värde. För att ge tillräckligt skydd för investerare ska avtalet också erbjuda en mekanism för att garantera att åtagandena genomförs och bestämmelserna implementeras effektivt, vilket är syftet med kapitlet i fråga.

Förhandlingarna om det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel är de första i en rad förhandlingar som kommer att ske mellan Europeiska unionen och tredjeländer angående investeringsfrågor. Med Singapore är det troligt att det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel blir det första EU-avtalet som innehåller investeringsskydd och tvistlösning mellan investerare och stater sedan Lissabonfördragets ikraftträdande. Det är politiskt viktigt för unionen att utöva den befogenheten och att i framtiden fortsätta med denna politik med andra viktiga samarbetspartner. Självklart kommer de första avtalen att vara viktiga genom att bana väg för den politiken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011230/12

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) and Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Limited economic motivation for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

When informing the INTA Committee on the investment protection chapter in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a Commission representative stated that including an investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the CETA was only of ‘some economic value’ (106). Instead, according to the Commission representative, the actual reason for including an ISDS mechanism in the treaty is its ‘political value’. Could the Commission please clarify this by answering the following:

Why are chapters with limited economic value included in trade agreements?

What is the meaning of ‘political value’ in this context?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2013)

The European Union has several motives for including an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). There have been several instances in the past of foreign investors being expropriated in Canada and who have been denied compensation and access to the Canadian courts. The ISDS chapter in CETA would protect European investors in Canada by granting them access to an international tribunal. Including investment protection and ISDS is key as it would provide more legal certainty to investors, which in turn helps secure trade and investment flows between the Union and Canada and vice-versa. Consequently, it is of significant economic value and importance.

In addition, the European Commission believes that an investment protection and ISDS chapter in CETA has a political value. Having investment protection in an agreement without an investor state dispute settlement procedure, would be of little value. To provide adequate protection to investors, the agreement should also provide for a mechanism for enforcement of the commitments ensuring effective implementation of the provisions, which is the purpose of the ISDS chapter.

The CETA negotiations are the first in a series of negotiations that will take place between the European Union and third countries addressing investment issues. With Singapore, CETA is likely to be the first EU agreement including investment protection and ISDS since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It is politically important for the Union to exercise this competence, and in the future to pursue this policy with other key partners. Evidently, the first agreements will be important in setting the path for this policy.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011231/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 décembre 2012)

Objet: Protection des animaux pendant le transport

La Commission a rédigé un rapport sur l'état de mise en œuvre du règlement (CE) no 1/2005 du Conseil. Dans sa conclusion, la Commission estime que ce règlement a eu une incidence positive sur le bien-être des animaux pendant le transport, mais constate qu'il subsiste de graves problèmes au cours des transports d'animaux, en raison principalement de déficiences de conformité et de mise en œuvre par les États membres.

1.

La Commission compte-t-elle engager des actions visant à assurer un contrôle complet et homogène du respect des conditions de transport, et ce plus encore compte tenu du fait que le degré d'exécution des dispositions légales relatives au transport d'animaux est très variable dans les divers États membres?

2.

Quelles sont les mesures que compte prendre la Commission afin de renforcer la coopération et la communication entre les autorités compétentes de différents États membres?

3.

La Commission suit-elle le Parlement dans sa volonté de lancer une vaste campagne de communication vers le consommateur sur le thème de la législation européenne relative au bien-être animal, en apportant en permanence des informations sur les changements qu'elle exige des producteurs européens, afin d'améliorer la visibilité de leurs efforts et d'augmenter la valeur ajoutée de leurs produits?

4.

Quand la Commission compte-t-elle actualiser les règles en matière de transport d'animaux en ce qui concerne les écarts entre la législation et les plus récentes données scientifiques relevées par l'EFSA?

Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(13 février 2013)

1.

Il appartient aux États membres de veiller au respect du règlement (CE) n

1.

Il appartient aux États membres de veiller au respect du règlement (CE) n

o 1/2005 relatif à la protection des animaux pendant le transport (107). Cependant, comme l'application de la législation est insuffisante, la Commission prend des mesures pour améliorer la situation et prévoit ainsi un certain nombre d'actions, décrites dans le rapport de la Commission sur le bien‐être des animaux pendant le transport (108). Certaines de ces actions ont déjà été lancées, comme la structure de compte rendu harmonisée pour les contrôles des États membres relatifs aux règles régissant le transport des animaux, pour laquelle la Commission finalise une décision d'exécution, dont l'adoption est prévue début 2013.

2.

La Commission organise régulièrement des réunions avec les États membres afin de renforcer la coopération entre les autorités compétentes. En 2013, parallèlement à ses audits habituels, la Commission organisera une série de visites d'étude, lors desquelles des experts des États membres examineront les meilleures pratiques en matière de contrôles du bien-être animal.

3.

Dans le cadre de la stratégie de l'UE pour la protection et le bien-être des animaux (2012-2015)

3.

Dans le cadre de la stratégie de l'UE pour la protection et le bien-être des animaux (2012-2015)

 (109), une étude sur la sensibilisation au bien-être des animaux et sur les activités d'information à l'intention du grand public et des consommateurs devrait être lancée. À la lumière de ses résultats, la Commission examinera si d'autres actions devraient être menées au niveau de l'UE.

4.

Comme la Commission l'a conclu dans son rapport sur le transport des animaux, le meilleur moyen de combler l'écart entre les exigences de la législation et les preuves scientifiques disponibles est actuellement d'adopter des guides de bonnes pratiques plutôt que de modifier le règlement (CE) n

o

 1/2005.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011231/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: The protection of animals during transport

The Commission has drawn up a report on the state of play with regard to the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. In its conclusion, the Commission expresses the view that the regulation has had a positive impact on the welfare of animals during transport, but notes that there are still serious problems when it comes to animal transport, principally as a result of compliance and implementation failures by the Member States.

1.

Is the Commission intending to take steps to ensure that compliance with transport rules is monitored fully and uniformly, bearing in mind in particular the fact that the extent to which the legislation on animal transport is implemented varies significantly from one Member State to another?

2.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to step up cooperation and communication between the authorities in the various Member States?

3.

Does the Commission share Parliament’s wish to mount an extensive consumer information campaign on the subject of European animal welfare legislation, providing continuous information on the changes required of European producers for the purposes of raising the profile of their work and improving the added value of their products?

4.

When does the Commission intend to update the rules on animal transport in relation to the gaps between the legislation and the latest scientific evidence presented by the European Food Safety Authority?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

1.

It is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport

1.

It is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport

 (110) is enforced. However, as enforcement of the legislation is poor, the Commission is taking steps to improve the situation. This is done through a number of actions as described in the Commission Report on animal welfare during transport (111). Some of these actions are already initiated. One example is the harmonised reportingstructure of the Member States' controls of the rules on animal transport for which the Commission is currently finalising an implementing decision, planned for adoption in the beginning of 2013.

2.

The Commission organises regular meetings with the Member States to increase cooperation between competent authorities. In 2013, and in parallel with its normal audits, the Commission will organise a series of study visits, where experts from Member States would study best practices in relation to controls on animal welfare.

3.

In the framework of the EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals (2012-2015)

3.

In the framework of the EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals (2012-2015)

 (112), a study on animal welfare education and on information activities directed at the general public and consumers should be launched. In the light of the outcomes of the study, the Commission will consider whether further action at EU level is appropriate.

4.

As concluded in the Commission report on animal transport, the gap between the requirements of the legislation and available scientific evidence is for the time being best addressed by the adoption of guides to good practices, and not by amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011232/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 décembre 2012)

Objet: Stratégie de l'Union européenne en matière de Droits de l'homme

L'Union repose sur le principe du respect des Droits de l'homme. Elle a l'obligation légale, énoncée dans ses traités, de placer les Droits de l'homme au centre de toutes les politiques de l'Union et des États membres sans exception, ainsi qu'au centre de tous les accords internationaux.

1.

Dès lors, la Commission compte-t-elle publier une communication sur le plan d'action en matière de Droits de l'homme afin de promouvoir les valeurs de l'Union dans la dimension extérieure de la justice et des affaires intérieures, comme l'annonçait le plan d'action mettant en œuvre le programme de Stockholm en 2010 et conformément au plan d'action de l'Union en faveur des Droits de l'homme et de la démocratie?

2.

Quelle est la position de la Commission sur la création d'une législation imposant aux entreprises de l'Union de veiller à ce que leurs achats ne soutiennent pas les responsables de conflits et de graves violations des Droits de l'homme, notamment en effectuant des contrôles et des audits de leurs chaînes d'approvisionnement en ressources minérales et en publiant leurs conclusions?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(18 février 2013)

La Commission a adopté en 2010 une stratégie pour la mise en œuvre effective de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne (113). Cette stratégie préconise une approche garantissant la prise en compte systématique des droits fondamentaux dans l'ensemble des politiques extérieures et intérieures de l'UE, y compris dans le domaine de la justice et des affaires intérieures. Plus particulièrement, l'approche globale de la question des migrations et de la mobilité, qui constitue le cadre d'ensemble de la politique migratoire extérieure de l'UE, souligne que le respect de la Charte des droits fondamentaux et des Droits de l'homme est à la base de la politique de l'UE en matière de migrations et de ses relations avec les pays tiers.

En outre, le Conseil a reconnu qu'il avait un rôle essentiel à jouer dans le respect de la mise en œuvre effective de la Charte dans le cadre de ses travaux législatifs (114). En juin 2012, il a adopté un cadre stratégique et un plan d'action en faveur des Droits de l'homme dans les relations avec les pays tiers, qui prévoient des actions veillant à ce que les Droits de l'homme sous-tendent la dimension extérieure des travaux accomplis dans le domaine de la justice et des affaires intérieures (115). La Commission estime par conséquent que le plan d'action en matière de Droits de l'homme dans l'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, tel qu'envisagé dans le programme de Stockholm, n'est plus nécessaire.

Le cadre stratégique et le plan d'action en faveur des Droits de l'homme dans les relations avec les pays tiers contiennent également un engagement pris en faveur de la mise en œuvre de la Communication de la Commission sur la responsabilité sociale des entreprises et de la promotion des principes directeurs des Nations unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux Droits de l'homme. À cet égard, la Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire aux questions 9735/2012 et 11460/2012 (116).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011232/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: EU's human rights strategy

Respect for human rights is a founding principle of the European Union. The EU has a legal obligation, stated in the Treaties, to place human rights at the heart of all its policies and those of the Member States, without exception, and at the heart of all international agreements.

1.

This being so, is the Commission planning to issue a communication on the human rights action plan in order to promote the EU’s values in the external dimension of justice and home affairs policy, as announced in the action plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme in 2010 and in line with the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy?

2.

What is the Commission’s position on the creation of legislation requiring EU companies to ensure that their purchases do not support perpetrators of conflicts and grave human rights violations, namely by carrying out checks and audits on their mineral supply chains and publishing the findings?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

The Commission has adopted in 2010 a strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (117). The Charter strategy provides for an approach to ensure that fundamental rights are systematically taken into account in all external as well as internal EU policies, including in the area of justice and home affairs policies. In particular, the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, the EU overarching framework of the EU external migration policy, emphasises that respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights and human rights lie at the basis of the EU migration policy and its relations with third countries.

Furthermore, the Council has recognised that it has a key role in ensuring the effective implementation of the Charter in its legislative work (118). In June 2012, the Council has adopted a strategy and action plan for human rights in relations with third countries, which provides for actions to ensure that human rights underpin the external dimension of work in the area of justice and home affairs (119). As a result, the Commission is of the view that the action plan on human rights in the area of freedom, security and justice, as envisaged in the Stockholm programme, is not any more needed.

The strategy and action plan for human rights in relations with third countries contains also a commitment to implement the Commission Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility and promote UN Guiding Principles on Business and human rights. In this regard, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to replies to questions 9735/2012 and 11460/2012 (120).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011233/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 décembre 2012)

Objet: Négociation de l'accord Russie-Union européenne

La Commission est sur le point de négocier un nouvel accord approfondi et ambitieux avec la Russie. Pour rappel, l'Union européenne est le premier partenaire commercial de la Russie et à l'origine de 75 % des investissements étrangers directs en Russie.

1.

Quels outils de contrôle la Commission compte-t-elle mettre en place concernant les transferts de haute technologie et de savoir-faire de l'Union afin de prévenir le piratage, la contrefaçon et la concurrence déloyale?

2.

La Commission compte-t-elle demander à la Russie de ratifier l'accord commercial anti-contrefaçon, ce qui contribuerait largement à la coordination de la lutte internationale contre le piratage et la contrefaçon?

3.

La Commission, dans le cadre de ses négociations avec la Russie, compte-t-elle l'influencer vers une réforme de son régime douanier très lourd et onéreux, afin notamment de garantir aux petites et moyennes entreprises un meilleur accès au marché?

4.

La Commission s'engage-t-elle à obtenir un accord juridiquement contraignant sur le commerce et l'investissement, qui soit signé par la Russie dès qu'elle s'engagera à respecter les règles du commerce international en adhérant à l'OMC, et qui établira les bases d'un mécanisme de règlement des différends?

Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission

(5 février 2013)

La Commission a l'intention d'introduire dans le nouvel accord avec la Russie des dispositions détaillées concernant l'application des droits de propriété intellectuelle afin d'éviter le détournement de connaissances et de technologies de détenteurs de droits européens, ce qui est conforme avec l'engagement historique de la Russie d'adopter un niveau de protection de la propriété intellectuelle similaire à celui de l'UE.

Pour les raisons indiquées dans la réponse à la question écrite antérieure de l'Honorable Parlementaire (P-006906/2012 (121)), la Commission n'a pas l'intention de demander à la Russie de ratifier l'accord commercial anti-contrefaçon.

La Commission a proposé aux négociateurs russes d'inclure dans le nouvel accord des dispositions portant entre autres sur la coopération douanière, y compris la possibilité d'échanges d'informations entre les services douaniers, sur la législation et les procédures douanières, y compris la suppression du recours obligatoire aux représentants en douane et aux inspections avant expédition, sur le transit douanier ainsi que sur la détermination de la valeur en douane et l'élimination des droits de douane.

La Russie a déjà signé un engagement contraignant de respecter les règles du commerce international. Cet engagement est entré en vigueur le 22 août 2012, soit dès l'adhésion de la Russie à l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Toutefois, la Russie n'a pas rempli un certain nombre d'obligations importantes qui lui incombent dans le cadre de l'OMC et qui ont fait l'objet de discussions bilatérales à tous les niveaux, y compris à l'occasion du sommet UE-Russie qui a eu lieu à Bruxelles le 21 décembre 2012. La solution privilégiée pour résoudre ces problèmes est une négociation bilatérale, mais faute de résultats dans un délai raisonnable, la Commission n'hésitera pas à faire usage de tous les autres instruments à sa disposition, y compris le mécanisme multilatéral de règlement des différends.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011233/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Negotiations towards a trade agreement between the EU and Russia

The Commission is about to agree a comprehensive and ambitious new trade agreement with Russia. The EU is Russia’s largest trading partner, and provides 75% of foreign direct investment into the country.

1.

What instruments does the Commission intend to introduce to monitor transfers of high technology and expertise from the EU with a view to combating piracy, counterfeiting and unfair competition?

2.

Will the Commission ask Russia to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which would greatly help coordinate efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting worldwide?

3.

In its negotiations with Russia, will the Commission urge it to reform its unwieldy and punitive customs system with a view to making it easier for SMEs to access the Russian market?

4.

Will the Commission make Russia sign a binding commitment to abide by the rules of international trade by joining the WTO, which would pave the way for a mechanism for the resolution of trade disputes?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission intends to introduce in the New Agreement with Russia detailed provisions concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights to avoid the misappropriation of European rightholders’ knowledge and technologies which is in line with Russia’s historic commitment to introduce a similar level of intellectual property (IP) protection in Russia as in the EU.

For the reasons stated in the reply to the Honourable Member’s previous Written Question P-006906/2012 (122), the Commission has no intention of asking Russia to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The Commission has proposed to the Russian negotiators to include in the New Agreement provisions inter alia on customs cooperation including possible exchanges of information between the customs services, on customs legislation and procedures, including the abolition of mandatory use of customs representatives and pre-shipment inspections, customs transit, as well as on customs valuation and on the elimination of customs fees.

Russia has already signed a binding commitment to abide by the rules of international trade. This binding commitment entered into force on 22 August 2012, i.e. upon Russia`s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, Russia failed to fulfil a number of its important WTO obligations which have been subject to bilateral discussions at all levels including at the EU-Russia Summit held in Brussels on 21 December 2012. Although the preferred way to solve such issues is a bilateral negotiation, if no result can be achieved within a reasonable time period, the Commission will not refrain from using all other means at its disposal including the multilateral dispute settlement mechanism.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011234/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 décembre 2012)

Objet: Transport de chevaux

La Commission a émis un rapport sur l'état de la mise en œuvre du règlement (CE) n° 1/2005 du Conseil. Cependant, concernant le transfert des chevaux, et en dépit des nouveaux éléments de preuve scientifiques soumis par l'AESA (Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments), aucune recommandation de modification législative n'a été intégrée à ce rapport.

1.

La Commission compte-t-elle se rallier à l'avis du Parlement et proposer une réduction considérable de la durée maximale de tous les transports de chevaux destinés à l'abattage, en accord avec la directive 2009/156/CE du Conseil?

2.

Dans l'affirmative, quelles sont les pistes de réflexion de la Commission sur ce sujet?

3.

Quand et comment la Commission compte-t-elle procéder à un réexamen approfondi et scientifique des normes de bien-être pour les chevaux, y compris un nouvel examen des normes relatives à la conception des véhicules, à l'espace disponible et à l'approvisionnement en eau?

Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(22 janvier 2013)

Dans son rapport sur le bien-être des animaux pendant le transport (123), la Commission conclut que le contrôle de l'application du règlement demeure un défi important et que le maintien de la situation juridique actuelle permettra aux États membres et aux parties prenantes de se concentrer sur le contrôle de l'application des dispositions dans un cadre juridique stable. La Commission n'envisage par conséquent aucune modification du règlement (CE) no 1/2005 du Conseil relatif à la protection des animaux pendant le transport (124), et donc aucune modification de la durée maximale des trajets pour les chevaux destinés à l'abattage.

La Commission n'entend pas procéder à un réexamen scientifique des normes pour le transport des chevaux. À la demande de la Commission, l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) a adopté, le 2 décembre 2010, un avis scientifique concernant le bien-être des animaux lors du transport («Scientific Opinion Concerning the Welfare of Animals during Transport») (125). Cet avis comprend les données scientifiques les plus récentes sur le transport des chevaux et il appartient aux États membres de garantir la bonne application des exigences prévues par la législation.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011234/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Transport of horses

The Commission has published a progress report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. However, despite the fact that the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) has provided new scientific evidence, the report contained no recommendations on the transport of horses.

1.

Does the Commission intend to heed Parliament’s advice and propose, in accordance with Council Directive 95/29/EC, a substantial reduction to maximum journey times for all movements of horses for slaughter?

2.

If so, what avenues is the Commission exploring?

3.

When will the Commission conduct a thoroughgoing scientific review of standards for horse welfare, including a reassessment of standards for vehicle design and space and water requirements? What form would such a review take?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2013)

The Commission Report on animal welfare during transport (126) concluded that enforcement remains a major challenge and a steady legal situation will allow Member States and stakeholders to focus on enforcement within a stable legal framework. The Commission is therefore not considering any amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport (127), including the maximum journey time for horses for slaughter.

The Commission will not be conducting a scientific review of standards for the transport of horses. At the request of the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 2 December 2010 adopted the ‘Scientific Opinion Concerning the Welfare of Animals during Transport’ (128). The opinion included updated scientific data on the transport of horses and it is up to Member States to ensure the proper enforcement of the requirements provided for in the legislation.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011235/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 décembre 2012)

Objet: Transport de volailles

La Commission a émis un rapport sur l'état de la mise en œuvre du règlement (CE) no 1/2005 du Conseil.

Il est demandé, au considérant 9 du règlement (CE) no 1/2005 du Conseil, que des dispositions adaptées soient proposées pour les volailles dès que les évaluations de l'AESA (Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments) seront disponibles.

1.

Pourquoi le rapport de la Commission ne prend-il nullement en compte le transport des volailles, en dépit du fait qu'il s'agit de la principale catégorie animale transportée en Europe?

2.

La Commission compte-t-elle réexaminer, sur la base scientifique la plus récente, la législation européenne en vigueur en matière de transport de volailles?

Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(25 janvier 2013)

1.

Le rapport de la Commission sur le bien-être des animaux durant leur transport (129) fait suite à l'obligation énoncée à l'article 32 du règlement (CE) no 1/2005 du Conseil relatif à la protection des animaux pendant le transport (130). Comme ce rapport l'explique, le règlement s'applique au transport d'animaux vertébrés transportés dans le cadre d'une activité économique. Cependant, du fait que les modalités du règlement concernent surtout les bovins, les porcins et les équidés, le rapport se concentre principalement sur le transport de ces animaux. Il ne prend pas en considération le transport d'autres espèces, telles que les chiens et les chats, les volailles, les animaux détenus à des fins scientifiques ou les espèces exotiques.

2.

La Commission n'envisage pas de réexaminer le règlement (CE) no 1/2005 pour le moment, y compris en ce qui concerne le transport de volailles.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011235/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Transport of poultry

The Commission has published a progress report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005.

Recital 9 of that regulation requests that specific provisions for poultry be set out when the relevant evaluations have been conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

1.

Why does the Commission’s report not take the transport of poultry into account, despite the fact that poultry constitute the main category of animals transported in Europe?

2.

Will the Commission review existing EU legislation on the transport of poultry on the basis of the latest scientific evidence?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2013)

1.

The Commission Report on animal welfare during transport

1.

The Commission Report on animal welfare during transport

 (131) was a response to the request of Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport (132). As is explained in the report, the regulation applies to the transport of vertebrate animals transported in connection with an economic activity. However, since the details of the regulation mainly concern cattle, pigs and horses, the content of this report mainly focuses on the transport of these animals. It does not take the transport of other species, such as dogs and cats, poultry, animals kept for scientific purposes, and exotic species, into account.

2.

The Commission does not consider reviewing Regulation 1/2005 for the time being, including for the transport of poultry.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011236/12

do Komisji

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(7 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Włączanie dzieci romskich do systemu szkół publicznych

Do opinii publicznej coraz częściej trafiają informacje o problemach w aktywnym włączaniu dzieci romskich do systemu szkół publicznych. Obowiązujące systemy edukacji nie są wystarczająco przygotowane na odmienność kulturową Romów.

Coraz częstszym zjawiskiem jest wydawanie orzeczeń o niepełnosprawności intelektualnej dzieci romskich. Jak podają źródła statystyczne w Polsce 52 % z nich wykazuje się pełną sprawnością intelektualną, a ewentualne problemy wynikają z mniejszego zasobu słów lub odmienności kulturalnej. O takie orzeczenia zabiegają czasem sami rodzice, ponieważ umożliwia im to otrzymywanie renty na dziecko niepełnosprawne. Dzieci z orzeczeniem o niepełnosprawności intelektualnej są wysyłane najczęściej do szkół specjalnych.

Zwracam się z zapytaniem:

czy Komisja przewiduje wprowadzenie programów przedszkolnych, które umożliwiłyby dzieciom romskim płynne włączanie w system nauczania szkolnego?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Androullę Vassiliou w imieniu Komisji

(8 lutego 2013 r.)

Komisja jest świadoma problemu wykluczenia dzieci romskich z ogólnego programu nauczania, a w szczególności niewłaściwego klasyfikowania w pewnych państwach członkowskich niektórych dzieci romskich jako niepełnosprawnych intelektualnie.

Należy podkreślić, że art. 165 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej stanowi, że państwa członkowskie ponoszą pełną odpowiedzialność za treść nauczania i organizację systemów edukacyjnych. Komisja Europejska nie jest zatem uprawniona do wprowadzania programów przedszkolnych adresowanych do dzieci romskich; państwa członkowskie, których to dotyczy, muszą same podjąć niezbędne działania.

W komunikacie „Unijne ramy dotyczące krajowych strategii integracji Romów do 2020 r.” z dnia 5 kwietnia 2011 r. Komisja wezwała wszystkie państwa członkowskie do opracowania krajowych strategii integracji Romów. Komunikat propaguje edukację przedszkolną i wczesną edukację jako istotny pierwszy krok na drodze do lepszego wykształcenia i integracji ze społeczeństwem.

W 2012 r. Komisja dokonała oceny krajowych strategii państw członkowskich. Oczekuje się, że Polska wraz z innymi państwami członkowskimi weźmie pod uwagę wyniki tej oceny. Komisja podsumuje postępy w tym zakresie wiosną 2013 r.

Ponadto razem z Radą Europy Komisja współfinansuje program ROMED. Celem tego programu jest zniesienie barier językowych oraz odbudowanie zaufania i nawiązanie dialogu między rodzinami romskimi a miejscowymi szkołami. Służyć ma temu szkolenie mediatorów, z których większość jest romskiego pochodzenia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011236/12

to the Commission

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Inclusion of Roma children in the public education system

Problems in the active inclusion of Roma children in the public education system are becoming a topic of increasing public debate. Compulsory education systems are not sufficiently prepared for the cultural differences that Roma display.

An increasingly common occurrence is for Roma children to be classified as mentally handicapped. According to statistics, 52% of Roma children in Poland are fully mentally capable, but problems can arise as a result of their limited vocabulary or cultural differences. Sometimes the parents themselves try to have their children classified as handicapped, as it enables them to obtain benefits for their disabled child. Children who are classified in such a way are most often sent to special schools.

Does the Commission plan to introduce pre‐school programmes in order to enable Roma children to be fully included in the school system?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the problem of exclusion of Roma children from mainstream education and in particular the inappropriate classification of some Roma children as mentally handicapped in some Member States.

It must be underlined that Article 165 of the Treaty states that Member States are solely responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. Therefore, the European Commission does not have the competence to introduce pre-school programmes aimed at Roma children; the Member States concerned have to take the necessary steps.

In the communication ‘An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’dated 5 April 2011, the Commission invited all Member States to elaborate National Roma Integration Strategies. The communication promotes pre-school and early childhood education as a vital first step towards a more successful educational path and better integration into society.

In 2012 the Commission assessed the National Strategies of Member States. Poland, amongst other Member States, is expected to take the results of this assessment into account. The Commission will report on progress made in spring 2013.

In addition, together with the Council of Europe, the Commission is co-funding the ROMED Programme. This programme aims at alleviating linguistic barriers and restoring trust and dialogue between Roma families and local schools by training mediators, most of whom have a Roma background themselves.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011237/12

do Komisji

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(7 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Konfiskata niebezpiecznych zabawek we Włoszech

Według doniesień medialnych Gwardia Finansowa w środkowych Włoszech skonfiskowała blisko 300 tys. chińskich zabawek, które zawierają bardzo szkodliwe dla zdrowia substancje. Zabawki mogą powodować wady rozwojowe i wybuchać w rękach w razie podniesienia temperatury. Ponadto chemikalia zawarte w zabawkach mogą odpowiadać za zakłócanie rozwoju narządów płciowych u chłopców oraz powodować hamowanie wzrostu u niemowląt.

Istnieją obawy, że tego typu produkty będą szerzej dystrybuowane na rynku europejskim. Przed taką możliwością powinien chronić system RAPEX, który utworzono dla zapewnienia wysokiego poziomu ochrony zdrowia i bezpieczeństwa konsumentów na obszarze jednolitego rynku Unii Europejskiej.

Głównym i bezpośrednim celem funkcjonowania systemu jest zapewnienie szybkiej wymiany informacji między państwami członkowskimi i Komisją Europejską na temat produktów stwarzających zagrożenie oraz środków podjętych w danym kraju, by wykluczyć lub ograniczyć ich wprowadzanie na rynek, a także ewentualnie użytkowanie. Informacje o znalezionych we Włoszech szkodliwych zabawkach nie trafiły jednak do systemu RAPEX zaraz po przeprowadzonych kontrolach w sklepach w rejonie miasta Macerata w środkowych Włoszech, ani po ich skonfiskowaniu w ramach ogólnokrajowej akcji w Włoszech.

Zwracam się z zapytaniem: czy rynek europejski jest odpowiednio zabezpieczony przed importem szkodliwych zabawek?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącego Antonia Tajaniego w imieniu Komisji

(25 stycznia 2013 r.)

Bezpieczeństwo zabawek jest zapewniane dyrektywą 2009/48/WE (133). Wszystkie zabawki wprowadzane do obrotu w UE muszą spełniać wymogi powyższej dyrektywy, której przepisy w zakresie bezpieczeństwa należą do najbardziej restrykcyjnych, w szczególności odnośnie do substancji chemicznych.

Komisja zdaje sobie sprawę z zagrożeń dla zdrowia, które stwarzają niektóre zabawki produkowane w Chinach. Zgodnie z informacjami zawartymi w najnowszym corocznym sprawozdaniu dotyczącym funkcjonowania systemu RAPEX (134) 54 % produktów niebezpiecznych zgłoszonych w 2011 r. pochodzi z Chin. Jest to liczba nieco niższa niż dane za lata 2009 i 2010 – odpowiednio 60 % i 58 %.

Współpraca w zakresie bezpieczeństwa zabawek, którą w ostatnich latach Komisja prowadzi z władzami Chin, obejmuje regularną wymianę informacji pomiędzy europejskimi i chińskimi ekspertami ds. bezpieczeństwa produktów na temat obowiązujących wymogów w zakresie bezpieczeństwa, niebezpiecznych zabawek pochodzących z Chin zidentyfikowanych na unijnym rynku, a także ukierunkowane działania zewnętrzne na rzecz producentów w Chinach oraz szkolenia dla urzędników władz Chin prowadzących aktywne działania zapobiegawcze w ramach obowiązkowej kontroli wywozu ze strony władz Chin.

W celu ułatwienia unijnych granicznych kontroli celnych przywożonych produktów w ostatnim okresie opracowano wytyczne dotyczące bezpieczeństwa produktów, w tym zabawek. Ma również miejsce ścisła współpraca pomiędzy unijnymi organami ds. nadzoru rynku i organami celnymi.

Komisja kontaktuje się z władzami Włoch w sprawie wzmiankowanej w przedmiotowym pytaniu wymagającym pisemnej odpowiedzi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011237/12

to the Commission

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Confiscation of hazardous toys in Italy

According to media reports, the Guardia di Finanza in central Italy confiscated almost 300 000 Chinese toys containing extremely harmful substances. These toys could cause developmental defects or explode in a child’s hands at increased temperatures. Furthermore, the chemicals contained in the toys could be responsible for disrupting male sexual development and stunting growth in babies.

There are concerns that such products will be distributed more widely on the European market. The RAPEX system, which was established to provide a high level of protection of consumers’ health and safety on the EU single market, should act to prevent this from occurring.

The primary objective of the system is to assure the rapid exchange of information between the Member States and the European Commission with regard to products posing a risk and measures taken by a Member State to exclude or limit their placing on the market or use. However, information on the hazardous toys found in Italy did not make its way to the RAPEX system after checks were carried out in shops in the Macerata city area in central Italy, nor after the toys were confiscated as part of a national operation.

Is the European market sufficiently well protected against imports of hazardous toys?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2013)

The safety of toys is assured by Directive 2009/48/EC (135). All toys placed on the EU market have to comply with this directive, whose safety rules are amongst the strictest worldwide, in particular for chemicals.

The Commission is aware of the health risks posed by some toys manufactured in China. According to the last annual report on the functioning of RAPEX (136), 54% of the dangerous products notified in 2011 originate from China. This number is slightly lower than the 60% recorded in 2009 and the 58% recorded in 2010.

The Commission's cooperation in recent years with the Chinese authorities on the safety of toys involves regular exchanges of information between European and Chinese product safety experts about applicable safety requirements, about unsafe toys of Chinese origin found on the EU market, and targeted outreach activities for manufacturers in China as well as training of Chinese government officials active in preventive enforcement as part of China's mandatory export controls.

To facilitate EU customs' border controls on imported products, guidelines on product safety, including for toys, have recently been developed. Furthermore, close cooperation between EU market surveillance and customs authorities is taking place.

The Commission is in contact with the Italian authorities regarding the case referred to in the Written Question.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011238/12

to the Commission

Martin Callanan (ECR)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Free movement of individuals and goods in the European Union — follow-up

Thank you for your response to my Written Question P-009796/2012. I asked you to confirm that the stated policy of the Belgian police to treat travelling British citizens visiting Bruges in a manner different to travelling EU citizens of other nationalities constituted systematic discrimination on the grounds of nationality and, as such, was in breach of EC law.

In your answer, you stated that the right to move and reside freely may be restricted on grounds of public policy, but that

a) ‘restrictive measures must comply with the principle of proportionality and be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned which must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’,

and that

b) ‘territorial restrictions must not discriminate on the grounds of nationality’.

1.

Can you confirm unequivocally and without qualification that systematic discrimination and territorial restrictions imposed upon a particular group of EU citizens — in this case, EU citizens of a certain nationality — without any consideration of

‘the personal conduct of the individual concerned’ (your phrase) constitute a breach of EC law?

2.

As regards my question concerning the intended policy of the Belgian police to confiscate at the border alcoholic drinks in the possession of visiting British citizens, you referred me to Article 36 TFEU which permits prohibitions or restrictions on the import of goods on the grounds of public morality, public policy or public security. Article 36 TFEU also states, however, that

‘such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination’. Since the Belgian police stated that they intended to confiscate at the border alcohol in the possession of British tourists but made no such threats against French tourists bringing in wine, German tourists bringing in beer or Dutch tourists bringing in spirits, such intentions were without doubt arbitrary discrimination against a certain group of EU citizens. Can you confirm that treating one group of EU citizens transporting a certain good across an internal border in a different manner to other EU citizens transporting the same good constitutes arbitrary discrimination?

3.

I submitted Written Question P-009796/2012 as a priority question on 25 October 2012. Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Procedure,

‘questions which require an immediate answer but not detailed research (priority questions) shall be answered within three weeks of being forwarded to the addressees’. I received a response on 4 December 2012. Since this question did not require detailed research but was a simple clarification of EC law, I would like you to explain why you took five weeks to respond to the question.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2013)

As regard the first question, the Commission would like to reiterate that measures which restrict the right of EU citizens to enter an EU country and to reside there and which are not based on the personal conduct of the individual concerned are contrary to EC law on free movement of EU citizens. Territorial restrictions may be allowed provided they are not based on the grounds of nationality but on public policy or public security considerations.

According to the information available to the Commission, the statement by the Belgian Police to which the Honourable Member referred in his Written Question P-009796/2012 was given by Mr Rudy Saron of Bruges Police. The statement was given to provide advice to travelling supporters and is related to the measures the Belgian Police was envisaging taking to maintain law and order in the vicinity of the Jan Breydel stadium before, during and after the match between Club Brugge and Newcastle United FC. It does not seem to affect the right of travelling supporters under EC law on free movement of EU citizens to enter Belgium and to reside there.

Concerning the delay in answering the previous question by the Honourable Member, the Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member could accept its apologies for the delay which was due to the legal complexity of the question.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011239/12

an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin / Hohe Vertreterin)

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(7. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: VP/HR — Demokratisierungsprozess in Myanmar

Seit 2010 wurden im Zuge einer vorsichtigen Öffnung des Landes politische Reformen in Myanmar eingeleitet. Ende April 2012 besuchte die Hohe Vertreterin der EU für Außen‐ und Sicherheitspolitik Myanmar.

Wie die Hohe Vertreterin in ihrer Antwort auf die Anfrage E-003463/2012 von Hans-Peter Martin angibt, sei es das Ziel der Reise gewesen, „die bisherigen politischen Reformen anzuerkennen und die Regierung Myanmars aufzufordern, die Reformen fortzusetzen“. In Gesprächen sei erörtert worden, „wie die positiven Veränderungen im Land vorangetrieben werden können und wie die EU diesen Prozess unterstützen kann“.

1.

Zu welchen Ergebnissen kam die Hohe Vertreterin in den Unterredungen mit ihren Gesprächspartnern in Myanmar, betreffend der Art und Weise, wie die positiven Veränderungen im Rahmen des Reformprozesses effizient vorangetrieben werden können?

2.

Baten die myanmarischen Gesprächspartner bei dem Besuch der Hohen Vertreterin um konkrete Unterstützung bei politischen Reformen?

3.

In welcher Form hat die EU seit dem Besuch der Hohen Vertreterin den Demokratisierungsprozess in Myanmar weiter unterstützt? Welche Vorschläge der myanmarischen Gesprächspartner wurden im Rahmen der Unterstützung berücksichtigt beziehungsweise umgesetzt?

4.

Wie beurteilt die Hohe Vertreterin die Entwicklungen in Myanmar seit April 2012?

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

(13. Februar 2013)

Während ihres Myanmar-Besuchs im April traf die Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin mit dem Präsidenten, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, dem Sprecher des Unterhauses des Parlaments, einer Reihe von Ministern sowie mit ehemaligen politischen Gefangenen zusammen.

Die HV/VP forderte Myanmar auf, die politischen Reformen fortzusetzen, unter anderem durch die Freilassung der noch inhaftierten politischen Gefangenen, und auf den Frieden in den ethnischen Gebieten hinzuarbeiten. Bei dem Besuch des Kommissionspräsidenten im November 2012 wurden diese Aufforderungen bekräftigt.

Seit April 2011 wurden eine Reihe begrüßenswerter Schritte unternommen. Die große Mehrzahl der politischen Gefangenen wurde mittlerweile freigelassen. Das Parlament ist dabei, seine Rolle aktiv auszubauen und Daw Aung San Suu Kyi ist Vorsitzende des Unterausschusses für Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Die Kontrolle der Medien wurde erheblich gelockert. Mittlerweile wurden neue Vorschriften im Arbeitsrecht erlassen und mehr als 120 Gewerkschaften genehmigt und eingerichtet. Zudem wurde ein neues Investitionsgesetz verabschiedet. Dies sind nur einige Beispiele für den Wandel, der sich derzeit in dem Land vollzieht.

Allerdings gibt es weiterhin eine Reihe von Herausforderungen, insbesondere bei der Suche nach einer dauerhaften Lösung für die Rohingya im Rakhine-Staat und dem Konflikt in Kachin, der in jüngster Zeit eskaliert ist.

Die EU sollte ihre Politik des Engagements, der Fürsprache und der Unterstützung für den Reformprozess fortsetzen. Daher leistet die EU auf Ersuchen der Regierung von Myanmar derzeit Unterstützung bei deren Bemühungen, die Friedensverhandlungen mit bewaffneten ethnischen Gruppen voranzubringen. Der Kapazitätsaufbau wurde als ein Bereich ermittelt, in dem die EU zusätzlich zu einer verstärkten Hilfe in den Bereichen Bildung, Gesundheitsversorgung und Existenzgrundlagen, in denen sie bereits tätig ist, einen sinnvollen Beitrag leisten kann. Darüber hinaus wird weitere Unterstützung für die nationale Menschenrechtskommission, den Wahlausschuss und die Zivilgesellschaft in die Wege geleitet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011239/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Democratisation process in Myanmar

Political reforms have been introduced in Myanmar since 2010 as part of a cautious opening‐ up of the country. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy visited Myanmar at the end of April 2012.

As the High Representative explains in her answer to Question E-003463/2012 from Hans-Peter Martin, the purpose of the trip was ‘to acknowledge political reform so far and to encourage the Government of Myanmar to continue’. The answer to the written question states that discussions included ‘how to bring forward the positive changes in the country and how the EU could support that process’.

1.

What were the results of the High Representative’s meetings with her interlocutors in Myanmar concerning the way in which the positive changes can be promoted efficiently as part of the reform process?

2.

Did the interlocutors from Myanmar ask for specific support with political reforms during the High Representative’s visit?

3.

How has the EU further supported the democratisation process in Myanmar since the High Representative’s visit? What proposals made by the interlocutors from Myanmar have been taken into account or implemented as part of support?

4.

How does the High Representative assess developments in Myanmar since April 2012?

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

(13 February 2013)

During her April visit to Myanmar, the HR/VP met the President, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament, a number of ministers and former political prisoners.

The HR/VP urged Myanmar to continue political reforms, including by freeing remaining political prisoners, and to work towards peace in the ethnic areas. The visit of the President of the Commission in November 2012 reinforced these messages.

Since April 2011, a number of encouraging steps have been taken. The great majority of political prisoners are now freed. Parliament is developing its role actively and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi chairs the Rule of Law subcommittee. Control of the media has been substantially relaxed. New labour laws have been introduced and more than 120 trade unions are approved and established. A new investment law has been issued. These are only some examples of the country’s ongoing transformation.

Challenges though remain, particularly with regards to finding durable solutions for the Rohingyas in Rakhine State and with regards to the conflict in Kachin, which has recently escalated.

The EU should continue its policy of engagement, advocacy and support to the reform process. Thus, at the request of the Government of Myanmar, the EU is assisting its efforts to advance peace negotiations with the ethnic armed groups. Capacity-building has been identified as one area where the EU could usefully contribute, in addition to an increased assistance effort in education, health and livelihoods where it is already engaged. Further support to the National Human Rights Commission, the Electoral Commission and to civil society is also underway.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011240/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(7. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Sonnenkraftwerke auf ungenutzten Kraftwerks-Geländen

Im November 2012 wurde ein Sonnenkraftwerk wurde ein auf dem Gelände des nie ans Netz gegangenen Atomkraftwerks Zwentendorf in Österreich installiertes Solarkraftwerk in Betrieb genommen. Die 2 300 installierten Solarpaneele wurden über ein Bürgerbeteiligungsmodell, bei dem Bürger über Anteilsscheine das Projekt unterstützen konnten, finanziert.

1.

Sieht die Kommission die Installation eines Sonnenkraftwerks auf dem Gelände eines nicht in Betrieb befindlichen Atomkraftwerkes als vorbildliches Modell für die Nutzung von weiteren nicht oder nicht mehr in Betrieb befindlichen Kraftwerken?

2.

Sind der Kommission weitere Beispiele von Installationen zur Gewinnung erneuerbarer Energien auf nicht oder nicht mehr genutzten Kraftwerksgeländen bekannt?

3.

Wird die Kommission sich für die Förderung der Installation von Sonnenkraftwerken auf nicht in Betrieb befindlichen Kraftwerksgeländen einsetzen?

Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission

(24. Januar 2013)

1.Strategien zur Förderung erneuerbarer Energien müssen viele Faktoren berücksichtigen, u. a. Klimabedingungen, Umweltanliegen, den Netzzugang, die Kostenwirksamkeit und natürlich die Nachfrage nach Energie. Gemäß dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip liegt die Entscheidung über konkrete Maßnahmen zur Förderung erneuerbarer Energien bei den Mitgliedstaaten.

2.Zurzeit liegen keine spezifischen statistischen Informationen über die Produktion von Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen am Standort von nicht mehr genutzten Kraftwerken vor.

3.Ob nicht mehr genutzte Kraftwerke in allen Fällen geeignete Standorte für die Errichtung von Solarkraftwerken sind, lässt sich schwer beurteilen. Eine Beurteilung müsste in jedem einzelnen Fall erfolgen. Wenngleich einiges für die Nutzung solcher Standorte für die Energiegewinnung aus erneuerbaren Energiequellen spricht, ist eine detaillierte Analyse erforderlich, um jeweils für einen bestimmten Standort zu einer endgültigen Schlussfolgerung zu gelangen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011240/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Solar power stations on disused power plant sites

In November 2012, a solar power plant went into operation on the site of Austria’s Zwentendorf nuclear power plant, which never went online. The 2 300 installed solar panels were financed through a civic partnership, which allowed members of the public to support the project by buying share certificates.

1.

Does the Commission consider the installation of a solar power plant on the site of a disused nuclear power plant as an exemplary model for the use of other disused power plants?

2.

Is the Commission aware of any other examples of installations for producing renewable energy on disused power plant sites?

3.

Will the Commission promote the installation of solar power plants on disused power station sites?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2013)

1.

Strategies to promote renewable energy must take many factors into account, including climatic conditions, environmental concerns, grid access, cost effectiveness and of course energy demand. In conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, the choice on concrete measures to support renewables is left to Member States.

2.

Currently, no specific statistical information is available on the production of renewable energy on disused power plant sites.

3.

It is difficult to assess whether disused power plants are in all cases suitable locations for installing solar power plants; assessment is case-specific. Although some elements speak in favour of using such areas for the production of renewable energy, a detailed analysis is necessary to come to a definite conclusion for a specific site.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011241/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)

(7 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Δύο νεκροί νέοι σε εργατικό ατύχημα στο εργοτάξιο της Εγνατίας Οδού

Ακόμα δύο εργαζόμενοι ηλικίας 32 και 33 ετών, που δούλευαν για την κατασκευαστική «ΙΟΝΙΟΣ ΑΕ» που κατασκευάζει τον κάθετο άξονα της «ΕΓΝΑΤΙΑΣ ΟΔΟΥ» από την Κομοτηνή μέχρι τα σύνορα με την Βουλγαρία, σκοτώθηκαν το Σάββατο 17/11, κατά την διάρκεια μετακίνησης τους με φορτηγό, το οποίο κουβαλούσε οικοδομικά υλικά στο χώρο εργασίας τους, και το οποίο ξέφυγε από την πορεία του.

Οι απλήρωτοι μήνες εργασίας, η αύξηση των ωρών εργασίας, η εντατικοποίηση της εργασίας, η πίεση για την ολοκλήρωση των έργων ή της παραγωγής, η ελλιπής συντήρηση των μηχανημάτων και των εργαλείων, καθώς και τα μηδαμινά μέτρα προστασίας και πρόληψης, αποτελούν τους πραγματικούς λόγους που προκαλούνται τα εργατικά ατυχήματα.

Στην περίπτωση της κατασκευαστικής «ΙΟΝΙΟΣ ΑΕ», η εταιρία έχει αναλάβει με χρηματοδότηση του ΕΣΠΑ το έργο «Ανισόπεδος κόμβος Βιομηχανικής περιοχής Κομοτηνής (ΒΙΠΕ)» στην κατηγορία πράξεων «Κατασκευή/ολοκλήρωση/συμπλήρωση οδικών αξόνων ΤΕΝ/Τ» με κωδικό: 03.21.02.03 παίρνοντας μόνο για αυτό το κομμάτι 4 εκατ. ευρώ. Ωστόσο οι εργάτες βρίσκονται 6-7 μήνες απλήρωτοι, ενώ από την άλλη τα χρονοδιαγράμματα πιέζουν για άμεση ολοκλήρωση του έργου, γεγονός που οδηγεί σε εκπτώσεις στην ασφάλεια των εργατών και σε εργατικά ατυχήματα.

Αυτό είναι αποτέλεσμα της καπιταλιστικής ανάπτυξης στην Ελλάδα, της έλλειψης ουσιαστικών μέτρων προστασίας των εργαζομένων και των πολιτικών των ελληνικών κυβερνήσεων στο όνομα της ανταγωνιστικότητας και της διασφάλισης της κερδοφορίας του κεφαλαίου.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Καταδικάζει τις πρακτικές της εταιρίας ΙΟΝΙΟΣ ΑΕ που άφηνε για μήνες απλήρωτους τους εργαζόμενους και τους εκθέτει σε σοβαρούς κινδύνους για την ζωή τους;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(1 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή εκφράζει τη βαθύτατη λύπη της για τις απώλειες ανθρώπινων ζωών σε τέτοιες τραγικές περιπτώσεις.

Η Επιτροπή αποδίδει εξαιρετική σημασία στην τήρηση των συνθηκών εργασίας από τους εργοδότες, ιδιαίτερα όσον αφορά την υγεία και την ασφάλεια στο χώρο εργασίας.

Τα έργα που διεξάγονται με την υποστήριξη των κονδυλίων της ΕΕ πρέπει να συμμορφώνονται με την ευρωπαϊκή και την εθνική νομοθεσία. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να αξιολογήσει τα γεγονότα ή να εκφράσει την άποψή της σχετικά με το εάν μια ιδιωτική εταιρεία έχει ή δεν έχει συμμορφωθεί με την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία. Τα κράτη μέλη είναι αρμόδια να διασφαλίσουν την ορθή και αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή της εθνικής νομοθεσίας από τον ενδιαφερόμενο εργοδότη, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις συγκεκριμένες συνθήκες για κάθε περίπτωση.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011241/12

to the Commission

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)

(7 December 2012)

Subject: Death of two young workers in an industrial accident at the Egnatia motorway construction site

Two more workers employed by the ‘IONIOS Ltd’ construction company that is building the vertical axis of the Egnatia motorway from Komotini to the Bulgarian border were killed on Saturday 17 November, when their lorry which was transporting building materials to their workplace left the road. They were, respectively, only 32 and 33 years old.

Unpaid months of work, increased work hours, an intensification of work, pressure to complete projects or production work, poor maintenance of equipment and tools, and minimal protection and prevention measures are the real reasons for industrial accidents.

In the case of the ‘IONIOS Ltd’ construction company, the company has been contracted to carry out, with NSRF funding, the project ‘ Komotini Industrial Zone Flyover’ in the category of actions ‘construction/integration/completion of road axes TEN/T’, code: 03.21.02.03; for this section alone, it will be receiving EUR 4 million. However, its workers have not been paid for 6 or 7 months, while tight schedules mean that pressure is mounting for an immediate completion of the project, leading to skimping over worker safety and to industrial accidents.

This is the result of capitalist development in Greece, the lack of effective measures to protect workers and the policies of successive Greek governments in the name of competitiveness and ensuring the profitability of capital.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Will it condemn the practices of the ‘IONIOS Ltd’ construction company which has not paid workers for months and is putting their lives at serious risk?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2013)

The Commission deeply regrets the loss of human life in such tragic circumstances.

The Commission attaches great importance to the respect of working conditions by the employers, in particularly as regards health and safety at work.

Projects carried out with support of EU funds have to comply with EU and national law. However, the Commission is not in a position to assess the facts or state whether a private company has or has not complied with the applicable law. It is for the national authorities to ensure that the national legislation is correctly and effectively applied by the employer concerned, having regard to the specific circumstances of each case.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011242/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)

(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Να σταματήσουν οι απολύσεις στην εταιρία Aegean Airlines

Σε μαζική απόλυση 40 εργαζομένων από το ιπτάμενο προσωπικό καμπίνας (αεροσυνοδοί-φροντιστές), οι οποίοι εργάζονταν με συμβάσεις αορίστου χρόνου, προχώρησε η εταιρία Aegean Airlines από τον Σεπτέμβρη ενώ ταυτόχρονα απειλεί να απολύσει ακόμα περισσότερους.

Με αυτήν την απειλή εξαναγκάζει τους εργαζόμενους σε άδεια άνευ αποδοχών και, όπως έχει ανακοινώσει, θα είναι 25 εργαζόμενοι κάθε μήνα. Την ίδια όμως στιγμή ανανεώνει συμβάσεις εργαζομένων που εργάζονται με συμβάσεις ορισμένου χρόνου.

Ωστόσο η εταιρία από το 2011 έχει διπλασιάσει το δίκτυο της, πραγματοποιώντας όλους τους προορισμούς εξωτερικού της Ολυμπιακής Αεροπορίας. Αγόρασε το SLOT του Λονδίνου καταβάλλοντας 52 εκατ. ευρώ. Προχωρά σε εξαγορά της Ολυμπιακής Αεροπορίας έναντι 72 εκατ. ευρώ. Με λίγα λόγια, αυξάνει τις διαδρομές και τα κέρδη της ενώ ταυτόχρονα μειώνει τους εργαζόμενους αορίστου χρόνου και αυξάνει τους εργαζόμενους ορισμένου χρόνου.

Αποδεικνύεται λοιπόν ότι ο πραγματικός στόχος της εταιρίας, που είναι η κατάργηση των δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων με την αλλαγή των εργασιακών σχέσεων, θα έχει σαν αποτέλεσμα την παραπέρα μείωση των απολαβών τους. Ενώ, ταυτόχρονα, η εταιρεία αξιοποιεί την οδηγία Μπολγκενστάιν της ΕΕ για την πρόσληψη εργαζομένων από άλλες χώρες της ΕΕ, με διαφορετικά εργασιακά δικαιώματα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι σκοπεύει να πει στους απολυμένους για το μέλλον τους, όταν η ανεργία έχει φτάσει στο 25%;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(1 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και τα κράτη μέλη της ζώνης του ευρώ από κοινού με το ΔΝΤ παρέχουν άνευ προηγουμένου συνδρομή προς την Ελλάδα μέσω του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής. Αυτό βοηθά την Ελλάδα να διορθώσει τις δημοσιονομικές, οικονομικές και εξωτερικές ανισορροπίες, να εκσυγχρονίσει τις αγορές προϊόντων και εργασίας, να καταστήσει τον δημόσιο τομέα πιο αποδοτικό και πιο αποτελεσματικό και να βελτιώσει το επιχειρηματικό περιβάλλον, με στόχο να προωθήσει την ανάπτυξη και την απασχόληση.

Μια προσαρμογή τέτοιας έκτασης συνεπάγεται αναπόφευκτα μια βραχυπρόθεσμη αύξηση της ανεργίας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή καταβάλλει κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια να βοηθήσει τις ελληνικές αρχές στην προσπάθειά τους να ξεπεράσουν την τρέχουσα δυσχερή κατάσταση και να μετριάσουν το βραχυπρόθεσμο κόστος, ιδίως μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου. Το επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα «Ανάπτυξη ανθρώπινου δυναμικού» ενισχύει την ικανότητα των επιχειρήσεων και των εργαζομένων να προσαρμόζονται στον διεθνή ανταγωνισμό, υποστηρίζει την πρόσβαση στην αγορά εργασίας για τις υποεκπροσωπούμενες και ευάλωτες ομάδες, και μειώνει τον κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό. Το πρόγραμμα εθνικού αποθεματικού για απρόβλεπτα υποστηρίζει με πιο στοχοθετημένο τρόπο ανθρώπους που πλήττονται από τις συνέπειες των απρόβλεπτων κρίσεων, π.χ. βοηθώντας τους να δημιουργήσουν μια επιχείρηση. Οι ελληνικές αρχές έχουν αφιερώσει ένα συνδυασμένο σύνολο που ανέρχεται σε 3 δισ. ευρώ περίπου στο πλαίσιο των επιχειρησιακών προγραμμάτων για την ανάπτυξη ανθρώπινου δυναμικού (ΕΠ ΑΝΑΔ) και το εθνικό αποθεματικό για απρόβλεπτα (ΕΠ ΕΑΑ), το 85 % των οποίων χρηματοδοτείται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ), ενώ το υπόλοιπο προέρχεται από εθνικούς πόρους.

Στο πλαίσιο της πρωτοβουλίας «Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους» που δρομολόγησε η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, η Ελλάδα έλαβε μέτρα για να αντιμετωπίσει τα δραματικά επίπεδα ανεργίας των νέων με προϋπολογισμό ύψους 608 εκατ. ευρώ (85 % των οποίων χρηματοδοτείται από την ΕΕ) τα οποία προβλέπεται να βοηθήσουν περίπου 350 000 νέους. Παράλληλα, σχεδιάζονται μέτρα για να ενισχυθούν τα δίκτυα κοινωνικής προστασίας.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011242/12

to the Commission

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: An end to layoffs by Aegean Airlines

Since September 2012, Aegean Airlines has dismissed en masse 40 members of the cabin crew (flight attendants-stewardesses) who were employed on permanent contracts and is threatening to lay off even more.

With this threat, it is compelling workers to take unpaid leave and it has announced that 25 employees each month will be affected. At the same time, it is renewing the contracts of fixed-term contract staff.

However, since 2011 the company has doubled its network, serving all Olympic Airways’ foreign destinations. It bought the London SLOT for EUR 52 million and is now buying out OA for EUR 72 million. In short, it is increasing scheduled flights and profits, while reducing the number of permanent staff and increasing the number of fixed-term contract staff.

It seems then that the company’s real objective, which is to abrogate workers’ rights by changing labour relations, will result in a further reduction in their salaries. At the same time, the company is using the EU Bolkestein Directive to recruit workers from other EU countries with different labour rights.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What future prospects can it offer redundant workers, given that unemployment is running at 25%?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

The European Commission and the euro area Member States together with the IMF, are providing unprecedented support to Greece through the Economic Adjustment Programme. This helps Greece to correct the fiscal, financial and external imbalances, modernise the product and labour markets, make the public sector more efficient and more effective, and improve the business environment, with a view to spur growth and employment.

An adjustment of this magnitude inevitably entails a short term spike of unemployment. The Commission does it utmost to help the Greek authorities in overcoming the current difficult situation and alleviating the short term costs, in particular through the European Social Fund. The Human Resources Development operational programme reinforces the ability of firms and workers to adapt to international competition, suppports access to the labour market for under-represented and vulnerable groups, and reduces social exclusion. The National Contingency Reserve programme supports in a more targeted way people affected by the consequences of unforeseen crises, for example by helping them to set up a business. The Greek authorities have earmarked a combined total of almost EUR 3 billion under the HRD OP and the NCR OP, 85% of which is financed by the ESF with the rest coming from national resources.

Under the Youth Opportunities Initiative launched by the European Commission, Greece has taken steps to tackle the dramatic levels of youth unemployment with a budget of EUR 608 million (85% of which EU contribution) envisaged to help approximately 350.000 youngsters. In parallel, measures are being designed to strengthen social safety nets.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011243/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αδιάθετοι πόροι από το ΕΚΤ για τη στήριξη της απασχόλησης των νέων

Είναι σε θέση η Επιτροπή να με ενημερώσει για το ύψος των πόρων από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο για τη στήριξη της απασχόλησης των νέων, τους οποίους δεν έχουν αξιοποιήσει έως σήμερα τα κράτη μέλη; Ποιες οι επιδόσεις της Ελλάδας στον συγκεκριμένο τομέα και σε τι ύψος ανέρχονται οι πόροι του ΕΚΤ για τη χώρα, που παραμένουν ακόμα διαθέσιμοι, για την αντιμετώπιση του τεράστιου προβλήματος της ανεργίας των νέων;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(13 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Τα κράτη μέλη έχουν διαθέσει ένα σημαντικό ποσοστό των πόρων από το ΕΚΤ για την υποστήριξη των δεξιοτήτων των νέων και της απασχόλησής τους από την έναρξη της τρέχουσας περιόδου προγραμματισμού 2007-2013.

Επιπλέον, τα κράτη μέλη έχουν τη δυνατότητα να εξετάσουν τυχόν ανακατανομές σε μέτρα κατά της ανεργίας των νέων στο πλαίσιο των εθνικών κονδυλίων τους από το ΕΚΤ, σύμφωνα με τους ισχύοντες κανόνες και σε συνεργασία με την Επιτροπή. Ειδικά για τις ομάδες δράσης, οι οποίες ορίστηκαν βάσει της πρωτοβουλίας Barroso σχετικά με την ανεργία των νέων τον Ιανουάριο του 2012, οι πόροι του ΕΚΤ που ανακατανεμήθηκαν ή πρόκειται να ανακατανεμηθούν από τα κράτη μέλη σε μέτρα υπέρ των νέων ανέρχονται σε 3,1 εκατομμύρια ευρώ (630 000 συμμετέχοντες).

Στην Ελλάδα, σύμφωνα με το σχέδιο δράσης που εγκρίθηκε πρόσφατα και το οποίο στοχεύει να προωθήσει την απασχόληση και την επιχειρηματικότητα των νέων, 450 εκατομμύρια ευρώ από τους πόρους του ΕΚΤ έχουν δεσμευτεί μέχρι σήμερα (καλύπτοντας 167 000 συμμετέχοντες), τα οποία θα κινητοποιηθούν για την προώθηση παρεμβάσεων που αφορούν τους νέους. Ένα επιπρόσθετο κονδύλιο 547 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ (το οποίο προβλέπει 348 000 συμμετέχοντες) από τους πόρους του ΕΚΤ προορίζεται για τη χρηματοδότηση νέων δράσεων που απευθύνονται σε νέους ή για την ενίσχυση των ήδη υπαρχουσών δράσεων από το 2013 και μετά.

Τα κράτη μέλη έπρεπε να είχαν υποβάλει έως τις 31/12/2012 τις εθνικές στρατηγικές εκθέσεις τους σχετικά με την πρόοδο που έχει σημειωθεί μέχρι στιγμής, αναφορικά με την επίτευξη των στόχων των εθνικών και περιφερειακών προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2007-2013, τα οποία χρηματοδοτήθηκαν από το ΕΤΠΑ, το ΕΚΤ και το Ταμείο Συνοχής. Οι εν λόγω εκθέσεις θα δώσουν μια εικόνα του τρόπου με τον οποίο εξελίσσονται τα εν λόγω προγράμματα και του αντικτύπου τους, καθώς και μια εικόνα σχετικά με το πώς αντιμετωπίζεται η κρίση.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011243/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Unused ESF resources to address youth employment

Can the Commission state how much of the European Social Fund resources earmarked for addressing youth employment has not so far been used by Member States? How has Greece performed in this area and what amount of ESF resources for the country is still available to address the huge problem of youth unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

Member States have been dedicating significant ESF resources to support young people's skills and employment since the beginning of the current programming period 2007-2013.

In addition, Member States have the possibility to consider reallocations towards measures against youth unemployment within their national ESF envelopes, under existing rules and in cooperation with the Commission. Specifically for the action teams set up by the Barroso initiative on youth unemployment in January 2012, the ESF funds re-allocated or planned to be reallocated by Member States towards youth measures amounted to a total of EUR 3.1 billion (630 000 participants).

In Greece, under the recently adopted Action Plan aiming to stimulate employment and entrepreneurship of young people, to date around EUR 450 million of ESF funds (covering 167 000 participants) have been committed and are being mobilised to promote youth-related interventions. An additional envelope of EUR 547 million (projected 348 000 participants) of ESF resources is earmarked for funding of new actions targeting youth or reinforcement of existing ones from 2013 onwards.

Member States should have reported by 31.12.2012 on progress to date in achieving the objectives of the 2007-2013 national and regional programmes funded by the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund in their National Strategic Reports. These reports will provide a picture of how the programmes are progressing, their impact and how the crisis is being addressed.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011244/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Βοήθειας των πλέον φτωχών στην ΕΕ

Στα τέλη Οκτωβρίου 2012 η Επιτροπή πρότεινε την δημιουργία ενός νέου Ταμείου για τη στήριξη των πλέον φτωχών συνανθρώπων μας. Στο πλαίσιο του νέου Πολυετούς Δημοσιονομικού Πλαισίου (2014-2020), μάλιστα, αρχικά προτάθηκε να ενισχυθεί με 2,5 δις ευρώ. Ωστόσο, σύμφωνα με την ίδια, κάποια κράτη μέλη εμφανίζονται επιφυλακτικά.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποια κράτη μέλη δεν αντιμετωπίζουν θετικά τη σύσταση του συγκεκριμένου ταμείου;

Είναι σε θέση η Επιτροπή να με ενημερώσει για την πορεία των διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ της ίδιας και των κυβερνήσεων όσον αφορά την επίτευξη συμφωνίας επί του συγκεκριμένου ταμείου; Αναμένεται η χρηματοδότηση να παραμείνει στο ύψος που αρχικά προτάθηκε από την Επιτροπή;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(11 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής υποβλήθηκε στο Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο στο τέλος του Οκτωβρίου 2012. Σύμφωνα με την Συνθήκη, θα εξεταστεί βάσει της συνήθους νομοθετικής διαδικασίας, δηλ. σε συναπόφαση μεταξύ του Συμβουλίου και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

Η διαδικασία έγκρισης βρίσκεται σε πολύ αρχικό στάδιο και συνεπώς, πέρα από τις δημόσιες δηλώσεις των αντιπροσωπειών τους, οι επίσημες θέσεις των κρατών μελών δεν είναι γνωστές.

Ο προϋπολογισμός του Ταμείου θα καθοριστεί στις συζητήσεις που διεξάγονται στο πλαίσιο του πολυετούς χρηματοδοτικού πλαισίου 2014-2020, οι οποίες περιλαμβάνονται στην ημερήσια διάταξη στις 7-8 Φεβρουαρίου του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011244/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

In late October 2012, the Commission proposed setting up a new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. Under the new Multiannual Financial Framework (2014-2020) it was originally proposed to endow EUR 2.5 billion for this purpose. However, according to the Commission, some Member States now appear to harbour reservations about this proposal.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Which Member States do not welcome the establishment of this Fund?

Can it provide information about the state of negotiations between itself and national governments as regards achieving an agreement on this Fund? Is it expected that funding will remain at the level originally proposed by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The Commission proposal was submitted to Parliament and the Council at the end of October 2012. In accordance with the Treaty, it will be examined under the ordinary legislative procedure, i.e. in co-decision between the Council and European Parliament.

The adoption procedure is at a very early stage and therefore official positions of Member States are not known beyond public statements of their representations.

The budget for the Fund will be determined in the discussions on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, which are on the agenda of the 7-8 February European Council.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011245/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ενιαίο καθεστώς προστασίας των ευρεσιτεχνιών

Με δύο προτάσεις Κανονισμού της Επιτροπής COM(2011)0215 για την δημιουργία ενιαίου καθεστώτος προστασίας των ευρεσιτεχνιών και COM(2011)0216 για τις εφαρμοστέες μεταφραστικές ρυθμίσεις, καθώς και με μία Διεθνή Συμφωνία μεταξύ κρατών μελών στα πλαίσια μια «ενισχυμένης συνεργασίας», προωθείται η δημιουργία ενός Ευρωπαϊκού/Ενιαίου Δικαστηρίου Διπλωμάτων Ευρεσιτεχνίας με τρεις έδρες (Παρίσι, Λονδίνο, Μόναχο). Με δεδομένα ότι α) η κατοχύρωση διπλωμάτων ευρεσιτεχνίας είναι μια διαδικασία με πολύ σημαντικές προεκτάσεις, οικονομικές και κοινωνικές, και έχει εφαρμογή σε πολύ κρίσιμους τομείς όπως έρευνα, υγεία, φάρμακα, τεχνολογία κ.α. β) Με βάση το γεγονός ότι με την μέχρι τώρα εμπειρία του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού Πιστοποίησης (EPO), πιστοποιήσεις λαμβάνουν σε συντριπτικό βαθμό οι μεγάλες πολυεθνικές εταιρίες (ενδεικτικά οι τρεις πρώτες: Siemens, Philips, Samsung, οι δύο εκ των οποίων καταδικάστηκαν πρόσφατα από την Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού γιατί με καρτέλ κατάφεραν να καθυστερήσουν την επικράτηση νέων τεχνολογιών στις οθόνες τηλεοράσεων) αλλά και ότι οι «ιθαγένειες» που κυριαρχούν στις πιστοποιήσεις είναι αυτές των ισχυρών οικονομικών χωρών (ενδεικτικά οι τρεις πρώτες Γερμανία, Γαλλία, Μ. Βρετανία) και γ) ότι η Ιταλία και η Ισπανία, έχουν προσφύγει κατά του Συμβουλίου στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο και η απόφαση δεν έχει εκδοθεί ακόμα

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Πώς θα διασφαλίζεται πως δεν θα υπάρξουν δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις από την λειτουργία του νέου δικαστηρίου για τις Μικρομεσαίες Επιχειρήσεις των μικρών και λιγότερο αναπτυγμένων χωρών;

Το γεγονός ότι η γλώσσες λειτουργίας του Δικαστηρίου θα είναι μόνο γερμανικά, αγγλικά και γαλλικά δεν συνιστά εμπόδιο κατά την Επιτροπή για τις επιχειρήσεις και εφευρέτες των λοιπών κρατών μελών και, ειδικά, για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις αυτών;

Πώς δικαιολογείται με βάση το Κοινοτικό Δίκαιο ο περιορισμός στις τρεις αυτές γλώσσες;

Πώς, λοιπόν είναι ποτέ δυνατόν να υπάρχουν κοινά «Ευρωπαϊκά» επίπεδα εφευρετικότητας (patentability thresholds), δεδομένου ότι ο καθορισμός αυτών των επιπέδων είναι υποκειμενικός και επηρεάζεται, έμμεσα ή άμεσα, τόσο από τις συγκεκριμένες ανάγκες τεχνολογικής και οικονομικής ανάπτυξης της εκάστοτε χώρας όσο και από εκείνες του εν λόγω εμπορικού και τεχνολογικού κλάδου; Δεν ευνοεί την δημιουργία πρακτικών καρτέλ, όπως αυτές που καταδικάστηκαν από την Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (IP/12/1317);

Έχουν και ποιες χώρες ετοιμάσει τη δική τους μελέτη σχετικά με τις επιπτώσεις (impact assessment study) ενός τέτοιου εγχειρήματος;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(21 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

1.

Το Ενιαίο Δικαστήριο Διπλωμάτων Ευρεσιτεχνίας θα συσταθεί με διεθνή συμφωνία μεταξύ των κρατών μελών. Η ΕΕ δεν θα είναι μέρος της συμφωνίας και η Επιτροπή δεν είναι αρμόδια να ερμηνεύει το περιεχόμενό της. Ο βασικός στόχος πάντως του Ενιαίου Δικαστηρίου Διπλωμάτων Ευρεσιτεχνίας είναι η κατοχύρωση της ασφάλειας δικαίου και η αποφυγή των πολλών προσφυγών ενώπιον των εθνικών δικαστηρίων σε διάφορα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά το ίδιο θέμα (με την πιθανότητα αποκλινουσών αποφάσεων). Αυτό θα ωφελήσει ιδίως τις ΜΜΕ. Επιπλέον, από το τρέχον σχέδιο προκύπτει σαφώς ότι, κατά τον καθορισμό των δικαστικών εξόδων, η Διοικητική Επιτροπή πρέπει να σέβεται την αρχή της ισότιμης πρόσβασης στη δικαιοσύνη, ειδικά όσον αφορά τις ΜΜΕ.

2-3. Οι γλώσσες της διαδικασίας δεν περιορίζονται στην αγγλική, τη γαλλική και τη γερμανική. Στην πραγματικότητα, η γλώσσα της διαδικασίας ενώπιον ενός τοπικού/περιφερειακού τμήματος θα είναι η (μία από) επίσημη γλώσσα (τις επίσημες γλώσσες) του συμβαλλόμενου κράτους μέλους στο έδαφος του οποίου βρίσκεται το σχετικό τμήμα ή η επίσημη(ες) γλώσσα(ες) που ορίζουν τα συμβαλλόμενα κράτη μέλη με κοινό περιφερειακό τμήμα ή γλώσσα στην οποία χορηγήθηκε το δίπλωμα ευρεσιτεχνίας.

4.

Τα κριτήρια των δυνατοτήτων κατοχύρωσης με δίπλωμα ευρεσιτεχνίας (π.χ. εφεύρεση, νέα, επινόηση, δυνατότητα βιομηχανικής εφαρμογής, μη αποκλεισμός από τη δυνατότητα κατοχύρωσης με δίπλωμα ευρεσιτεχνίας) προβλέπονται στα άρθρα 52και 53 της ΣΕΔΕ (Σύμβασης για το Ευρωπαϊκό Δίπλωμα Ευρεσιτεχνίας). Τα κριτήρια αυτά θα τα ερμηνεύει κατά τρόπο ενιαίο το νέο δικαστήριο.

5.

Η Επιτροπή έχει υπόψη της την πρόσφατη μελέτη που πραγματοποίησε η Πολωνία αλλά δεν έχει ελέγξει συστηματικά τις εκτιμήσεις/μελέτες των επιπτώσεων στα διάφορα κράτη μέλη.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011245/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Unitary patent protection regime

The creation of a European Unitary Patent Court with three seats (Paris, London and Munich) is proceeding apace thanks to two proposals for regulations put forward by the Commission — COM(2011) 0215 on the creation of unitary patent protection and COM(2011) 0216 on the applicable translation arrangements — and an international agreement between the Member States under ‘enhanced cooperation’. Given that a) the patenting process has very important economic and social implications and has applications in key areas such as research, health, medicine, technology etc.; b) the experience of the European Patent Office (EPO) to date suggests that patents are obtained overwhelmingly by large multinational companies (significantly, the first three are: Siemens, Philips and Samsung, two of which were sanctioned recently by the Commission's Competition DG because, by forming a cartel, they had managed to delay the dominance of new television screen technologies) and most of these patents are obtained by nationals of Europe’s main economic powers (Germany, France and the United Kingdom account for the largest number of patents, in that order); and c) Italy and Spain have initiated legal action against the Council before the Court of Justice; its judgment is still pending.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What measures can be taken to ensure that the new Court will have no adverse consequences for SMEs from small and less developed countries?

Does it not agree that the decision to restrict the Court’s working languages to German, English and French will be an obstacle to businesses and inventors from Member States where other languages are spoken and, especially, their SMEs?

How can the decision to have only these three working languages be justified under EC law?

How can there ever be common ‘European’ patentability thresholds, since the process of setting these thresholds is subjective and influenced, directly or indirectly, both by the specific technological and economic development requirements of each country and by the specific needs of particular commercial and technology sectors? Does it not favour cartel practices, such as those condemned by the Commission’s DG Competition (IP/12/1317)?

Which countries have prepared their own impact assessment studies of such an enterprise?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

1.

The Unified Patent Court will be set up by an international agreement between Member States. The EU will not be a party to the Agreement and the Commission has no authority to interpret its content. Yet the main aim of the Unified Patent Court is to ensure legal certainty and avoid multiple cases before national courts in different Member States concerning the same issue (with potentially diverging decisions). This will in particular benefit SMEs. In addition, on the basis of the current draft, it is clear that, when setting the court fees, the Administrative Committee must respect the principle of fair access to justice, in particular for SMEs.

2-3. The language of proceedings is not restricted to German, English and French. In fact, the language of proceedings before a local/regional division will be (one of) the official language(s) of the Contracting Member State hosting the relevant division, or the official language(s) designated by Contracting Member States sharing a regional division or the language in which the patent was granted.

4.

The criteria for patentability (e.g. invention, new, inventive step, industrial applicability, no exclusion from patentability) are set out in Articles 52/53 EPC. They will be interpreted in a uniform way by the new court.

5.

The Commission is aware of a recent study carried out in Poland but has not systematically reviewed impact assessments/studies in the different Member States.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011246/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(10 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Πρόσθετο Πρωτόκολλο στη Σύμβαση της Βέρνης για αποφυγή της Διπλής Φορολογίας μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Ελβετίας

Στις 15.11.2012, κατατέθηκε στην Ελληνική Βουλή προς κύρωση, πρόσθετο πρωτόκολλο στη Σύμβαση της Βέρνης για αποφυγή της διπλής φορολογίας που υπογράφηκε μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Ελβετίας. Σύμφωνα με την αιτιολογική έκθεση που κατατέθηκε στην Βουλή «Η υπογραφή του Πρόσθετου Πρωτοκόλλου, ζητήθηκε από την Ελβετική Συνομοσπονδία, καθώς το κείμενο του Πρωτοκόλλου περιείχε ορισμένα σημεία που εκρίθη ότι χρήζουν περαιτέρω διευκρίνισης, από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα σύμφωνα με τη Συμφωνία των δυο πλευρών για τη φορολογία των τόκων των καταθέσεων». Το πρόσθετο πρωτόκολλο τροποποιεί τα άρθρα που σχετίζονται με την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών και διευκρινίζει, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι για την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών «τα συμβαλλόμενα κράτη δεν είναι ελεύθερα να επιδίδονται σε «αλίευση αποδείξεων»». Τέλος, το κείμενο προβλέπει ότι, αφού κυρωθεί το πρωτόκολλο από τις δύο πλευρές, αυτό έχει εφαρμογή αναδρομικά από 1.1.2012.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι γνωρίζει σχετικά;

Πώς σχολιάζει τα περί αλίευσης αποδείξεων «ενός συγκεκριμένου φορολογουμένου»; Υπάρχει αντίστοιχη πρόβλεψη σε σχετικές συμφωνίες που έχουν συνάψει άλλα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ με την Ελβετία;

Τα περί «αλίευσης αποδείξεων» και η προβλεπόμενη αναδρομικότητα εφαρμογής του πρωτοκόλλου από 1.1.2012 μπορεί να έχει επίπτωση στη διερεύνηση φορολογικών υποθέσεων, όπως πχ αυτών που εξετάζουν σήμερα οι αρχές στην Ελλάδα και οι οποίες σχετίζονται π.χ. με την λίστα Falciani;

Απάντηση του κ. Šemeta εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(25 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Εφόσον συμμορφώνονται με τη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ, τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να υπογράφουν και να επικυρώνουν συμβάσεις για την αποφυγή της διπλής φορολογίας και των πρόσθετων πρωτοκόλλων.

Συνήθως, οι εν λόγω συμβάσεις και τα πρωτόκολλα βασίζονται στο Υπόδειγμα Σύμβασης Φορολογίας Εισοδήματος και Κεφαλαίων του ΟΟΣΑ (137), το άρθρο 26 του οποίου ενσωματώνει τους κανόνες σχετικά με την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών. Το άρθρο αυτό προβλέπει την ευρύτερη δυνατή ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών σε φορολογικά θέματα, αλλά ταυτόχρονα διευκρινίζει ότι τα συμβαλλόμενα κράτη δεν είναι ελεύθερα να πραγματοποιούν «επιδρομές αλίευσης» ή να ζητούν πληροφορίες που είναι απίθανο να αφορούν φορολογικές υποθέσεις ενός συγκεκριμένου φορολογούμενου.

Οι επιπτώσεις των υφιστάμενων ή νέων συμβάσεων και πρωτοκόλλων για ειδικές έρευνες θα πρέπει να αξιολογούνται κατά περίπτωση.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011246/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Additional Protocol to the Berne Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Greece and Switzerland

On 15.11.2012, an additional Protocol to the Berne Convention for the avoidance of double taxation signed between Greece and Switzerland was submitted to the Hellenic Parliament for ratification. According to the explanatory report tabled in Parliament, ‘the signing of the Additional Protocol has been requested by the Swiss Confederation, as the text of the Protocol contains some points that have been deemed to need further clarification by the European Community in accordance with the agreement of both parties on the taxation of interest on deposits’. The Additional Protocol amends the articles relating to information exchanges and specifies, inter alia, that in this connection ‘the Contracting States are forbidden from launching fishing expeditions.’ Finally, the text provides that, after the ratification of the Protocol by both sides, the provisions thereof shall apply retrospectively from 1.1.2012.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What does it know about this matter?

How does it view the provisions on ‘fishing expeditions’ in respect of ‘individual taxpayers’? Is there any corresponding provision in similar agreements concluded between Switzerland and other EU Member States?

Could so-called ‘fishing expeditions’ and the provision regarding the retroactive application of the protocol from 1.1.2012 have an impact the investigation of tax cases, including for example, those which the Greek authorities are currently examining relating to the Falciani list?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2013)

As long as they comply with EC law, Member States may sign and ratify conventions for the avoidance of double taxation and additional protocols thereto.

Usually, these conventions and protocols are based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (138), Article 26 of which embodies the rules concerning the exchange of information. This article is intended to provide for exchange of information in tax matters to the widest possible extent but it clarifies at the same time that Contracting States are not at liberty to engage in ‘fishing expeditions’ or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer.

The impact of existing or new conventions and protocols on specific investigations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011247/12

to the Commission

Phil Bennion (ALDE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Access to European airports for persons with disabilities

Wide discrepancies exist within the European Union between airports with respect to their accessibility to persons with disabilities, in particular in terms of number of reserved parking places and accessible help points.

Can the Commission answer the following in light of this:

Are there any European legal requirements for airports to meet minimum standards in terms of accessibility for persons with disabilities?

Will the European Accessibility Act, still expected in 2012, include harmonisation measures and minimum infrastructure standards for airports in this respect?

Is any EU funding available for projects at airports improving accessibility for persons with disabilities?

Does the Commission have any plans to develop a Disability Travel Accessibility Review of European airports? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (139), obliges airports and air carriers to provide assistance to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility and has already considerably facilitated air travel for these persons.

To improve the application of the regulation and to address unclear issues for assistance providers and national authorities, the Commission has recently published comprehensive guidelines (140).

In accordance with the abovementioned Regulation, in particular its Article 5, European airports shall designate points of arrival and departure where all the basic information about the airport, namely regarding its accessibility, should be available to all passengers in accessible formats. Member States must designate bodies to ensure the correct application of the regulation and to check airports' conformity with quality standards for assistance according to Article 9 of the regulation. In the first half of 2013 the Commission will be collecting statistics on complaint handling and enforcement with regard to the regulation. These will be published.

The preparatory work for the European Accessibility Act is progressing. The Commission is carefully examining a range of options in view of both the accessibility requirements of different stakeholders, including businesses, persons with disabilities and public authorities and of the legal instruments at its disposal. The final scope of the proposal is not yet decided.

EU structural funds (European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund) are available for improving transport accessibility.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011248/12

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Alexandra Thein (ALDE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) y Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(10 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: VP/HR — La estrategia de la UE sobre la cuestión nuclear iraní

En los últimos años, el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, respaldado plenamente por la UE, ha aplicado una política que prevé la imposición de sanciones cada vez más estrictas contra Irán, puesto que considera que es el único modo de evitar que el Gobierno iraní adquiera armas nucleares. Algunas iniciativas alternativas, como la propuesta de compromiso promovida por los Gobiernos de Turquía y Brasil a fin de limitar el programa de enriquecimiento nuclear de Irán y exportar los excedentes de uranio enriquecido, o la propuesta de Rusia en la misma dirección fueron rechazadas tanto por los Estados Unidos como por la UE. Como resultado, Irán ha podido continuar con sus presuntas actividades de enriquecimiento. Por consiguiente, todo acuerdo diplomático que se alcance deberá prever un sistema de vigilancia cada vez más incisivo del programa nuclear iraní y una lista detallada de todas las medidas que Irán deberá adoptar para que se levanten de forma progresiva las sanciones. Hay indicios de que Irán podría mostrarse más flexible en las inspecciones del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica (OIEA) a través de la limitación del enriquecimiento al 5 % y, de este modo, evitar la acumulación de los excedentes de uranio enriquecido en suelo iraní. A cambio, los Estados Unidos y sus aliados deberían reconocer el derecho de Irán al enriquecimiento tecnológico, que es un punto clave en el Tratado sobre la no proliferación de las armas nucleares, y levantar las sanciones paulatinamente.

Habida cuenta del contexto:

¿Estaría dispuesta la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante a ofrecer a Irán unos incentivos significativos con objeto de hacer pleno uso de la diplomacia de la UE y de su enfoque dual hacia Irán, a la luz de los recientes indicios de flexibilidad que ha mostrado dicho país? En caso afirmativo, ¿qué tipo de incentivos ha considerado?

¿Estaría dispuesta la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante a proponer la retirada paulatina de las sanciones que la UE ha impuesto a Irán a cambio de que este país adopte unas medidas claramente definidas y verificables con el fin de atender a las preocupaciones de la comunidad internacional en lo que respecta a su programa nuclear?

¿Consideraría la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante entablar negociaciones paralelas con Irán en las que se aborden cuestiones de seguridad regional, que es motivo de preocupación tanto para la UE como para Irán, como, por ejemplo, la situación en Siria, el Golfo Pérsico, Irak y Afganistán, con objeto de crear confianza entre las partes?

¿Está al corriente la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de la degradación progresiva que las sanciones estrictas están infligiendo en el tejido social de la comunidad iraní, ya que condenan a la pobreza y a la emigración a muchas familias de clase media que podrían considerarse agentes potenciales de laicismo y reforma democrática? ¿Cree que redunda en beneficio de la UE mantener una política que debilita a la clase media iraní y favorece a los grupos iraníes extremistas?

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

(11 de febrero de 2013)

La UE está decidida a trabajar en pro de una solución diplomática sobre la base de un planteamiento doble que combine presión y diálogo. El objetivo sigue siendo que Irán se comprometa a realizar un gran esfuerzo por ganarse la confianza, guiándose por los principios de reciprocidad y avances graduales, lo que lleve a unas negociaciones serias sobre el programa nuclear de Irán.

Desde comienzos de 2012 la Alta Representante y vicepresidenta se ha esforzado por convencer a Irán para que entablase negociaciones serias. Aunque la cuestión nuclear constituye el asunto principal, el grupo E3 + 3 está dispuesto a debatir también otros temas. Durante las negociaciones de 2012 se presentó una propuesta de refuerzo de la confianza de cara a unas negociaciones encaminadas a lograr una solución global a largo plazo a la cuestión nuclear iraní. Irán no ha dado ninguna señal hasta ahora de que esté dispuesto a abordar las reservas acuciantes que suscita su programa nuclear. El último informe del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica (OIEA) confirmó la expansión del programa nuclear iraní y, en particular, de sus actividades de enriquecimiento.

Las sanciones no son un fin en sí mismas y son reversibles. Si Irán cumple las resoluciones pertinentes del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas (CSNU) y de la Junta de Gobernadores del OIEA, se suspenderían y eliminarían todas las sanciones en su contra. Está en manos de Irán actuar con responsabilidad y restablecer la confianza internacional en el carácter exclusivamente pacífico de su programa nuclear de modo que se pueda poner fin a las sanciones.

La Alta Representante y vicepresidenta actúa en nombre de los seis países y su mandato, tal como se establece en varias resoluciones del CSNU, consiste en persuadir a Irán a recuperar la confianza internacional en el carácter exclusivamente pacífico del programa nuclear de ese país.

Las medidas restrictivas acordadas por la UE tienen por objetivo que resulten afectados el programa nuclear de Irán y los ingresos del régimen iraní utilizados para financiar tal programa, y no se dirigen contra la población iraní.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011248/12

an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Alexandra Thein (ALDE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) und Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(10. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: VP/HR — EU-Strategie in der iranischen Nuklearfrage

In den letzten Jahren hat die US-Regierung mit vorbehaltloser Unterstützung der EU eine Politik verfolgt, die in der Verhängung von immer strengeren Sanktionen gegen Iran besteht, da dies als einziges Mittel erachtet wird, die iranische Regierung vom Erwerb von Kernwaffen abzuhalten. Alternative Vorstöße, wie beispielsweise der 2010 von der Türkei und Brasilien ausgearbeitete Plan zur Einschränkung des iranischen Anreicherungsprogramms und zur Ausfuhr der Überschüsse an angereichertem Uran sowie ein ähnlich gearteter Vorschlag Russlands stießen in den Vereinigten Staaten und in der EU auf Ablehnung. In der Folge konnte Iran seine Verdacht erregenden Anreicherungsaktivitäten fortsetzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund müsste jede neue diplomatische Vereinbarung eine noch strengere Überwachung des iranischen Nuklearprogramms und eine sorgfältig überprüfte Liste von Maßnahmen vorsehen, die Iran für eine schrittweise Aufhebung der Sanktionen zu ergreifen hat. Es liegen Anzeichen vor, dass sich Iran bei Inspektionen der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde flexibler zeigen und die Anreicherung auf 5 % begrenzen könnte, so dass es auf diese Weise nicht zu einer Anhäufung von Überschüssen des angereicherten Urans auf iranischem Territorium käme. Im Gegenzug müssten die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre Verbündeten das Recht Irans auf eine Anreicherungstechnologie, das einer der Schlüsselpunkte des Nichtverbreitungsvertrags ist, anerkennen und die auferlegten Sanktionen schrittweise abbauen.

1.

Ist die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin in Anbetracht dieser Tatsachen bereit, Iran starke Anreize anzubieten, um die Diplomatie, die Teil des zweigleisigen Ansatzes der EU gegenüber Iran ist, in vollem Umfang einzusetzen, und damit den jüngsten Anzeichen für ein Einlenken auf iranischer Seite Rechnung zutragen wird? Wenn ja, um welche Anreize handelt es sich dabei?

2.

Ist die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin bereit, eine allmähliche Lockerung der EU‐Sanktionen vorzuschlagen, wenn Iran im Gegenzug genau festgelegte und nachvollziehbare Schritte unternimmt, mit denen Bedenken der internationalen Gemeinschaft hinsichtlich seines Atomprogramms ausgeräumt werden?

3.

Prüft die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin die Möglichkeit, Parallelverhandlungen mit Iran in die Wege zu leiten, bei denen Themen der regionalen Sicherheit, die sowohl für die EU als auch für Iran von Belang sind, behandelt werden, wie beispielsweise die Lage in Syrien, am Persischen Golf, in Irak und Afghanistan, um auf diese Weise Vertrauen zwischen den Parteien aufzubauen?

4.

Ist sich die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin der zunehmenden Erosion bewusst, von der das soziale Gefüge der iranischen Gesellschaft infolge der lähmenden Sanktionen befallen wird, so dass viele Familien aus der Mittelschicht — potenzielle Multiplikatoren des Laizismus und demokratischer Reformen — in Armut und Emigration getrieben werden? Ist sie der Ansicht, dass die Fortsetzung einer Politik, die die iranische Mittelklasse schwächt und den iranischen Fundamentalisten Auftrieb gibt, im Interesse der EU liegt?

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

(11. Februar 2013)

Die EU ist entschlossen, weiterhin auf eine diplomatische Lösung nach dem zweigleisigen Ansatz, der Druck mit Dialog verbindet, hinzuarbeiten. Ziel bleibt die Einbindung Irans in einen echten Vertrauensbildungsprozess, der von den Grundsätzen der Gegenseitigkeit geleitet wird und schrittweise zu ernsthaften Verhandlungen über das Nuklearprogramm führt.

Seit Anfang 2012 bemüht sich die Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin bereits, Iran in ernsthafte Verhandlungen einzubinden. Der Schwerpunkt liegt zwar auf der Nuklearfrage, doch sind die E3+3 bereit, auch andere Fragen zu erörtern. Während der Gespräche im Jahr 2012 wurde ein Vorschlag zur Vertrauensbildung im Hinblick auf Verhandlungen über eine langfristige umfassende Lösung des iranischen Nuklearproblems unterbreitet.

Bisher hat Iran keinerlei Bereitschaft erkennen lassen, ernsthaft auf die vordringlichen Bedenken in Bezug auf sein Nuklearprogramm einzugehen. Dem jüngsten IAEO-Bericht zufolge werden das iranische Nuklearprogramm und insbesondere die Tätigkeiten zur Urananreicherung weiter ausgedehnt.

Sanktionen sind kein Selbstzweck und sind auch nicht irreversibel. Wenn Iran den Resolutionen des VN-Sicherheitsrates und des Gouverneursrates der IAEO nachkommt, so wird dies die Aussetzung oder Beendigung aller einschlägigen Sanktionen gegen Iran nach sich ziehen. Iran hat es in der Hand, verantwortlich zu handeln und das internationale Vertrauen in ein zu ausschließlich friedlichen Zwecken genutztes Nuklearprogramm wiederherzustellen, so dass die Sanktionen aufgehoben werden können.

Die Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin handelt im Namen der sechs Länder, und ihr Mandat besteht, wie in mehreren Resolutionen des VN-Sicherheitsrates dargelegt, darin, Iran davon zu überzeugen, das internationale Vertrauen in den ausschließlich friedlichen Charakter des iranischen Nuklearprogramms wiederherzustellen.

Die von der EU vereinbarten restriktiven Maßnahmen sollen das Nuklearprogramm Irans und die Einnahmen des iranischen Regimes zur Finanzierung des Programms beeinträchtigen und sind nicht gegen die iranische Bevölkerung gerichtet.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011248/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Alexandra Thein (ALDE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) e Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(10 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Strategia dell'Unione europea sulla questione nucleare iraniana

Negli ultimi anni, il governo degli Stati Uniti, con il pieno sostegno dell'UE, ha attuato una politica di sanzioni sempre più paralizzanti contro l'Iran, nella convinzione che questo sia l'unico modo per evitare che il governo iraniano si doti di armi nucleari. Iniziative alternative, come il piano di Turchia e Brasile 2010 per limitare il programma iraniano di arricchimento e di esportazione dell'uranio arricchito in eccesso, e una proposta russa nella stessa direzione sono state respinte dagli Stati Uniti e dall'Unione europea, con il risultato che l'Iran ha potuto continuare le attività di arricchimento sospette. Parallelamente, ogni nuovo accordo diplomatico dovrebbe comprendere una sorveglianza sempre più invadente del programma nucleare iraniano e un elenco molto dettagliato dei passi che l'Iran deve effettuare per ottenere una progressiva revoca delle sanzioni. Ci sono segnali che indicano che l'Iran potrebbe essere più flessibile sulle ispezioni dell'Agenzia internazionale dell'energia atomica, sul limite dell'arricchimento al 5 % e sulla rinuncia a detenere l'eccesso di uranio arricchito sul suolo iraniano. In cambio, gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati dovrebbero riconoscere il diritto dell'Iran alla tecnologia di arricchimento, un diritto che è uno dei punti chiave del trattato di non proliferazione e smantellare progressivamente le sanzioni imposte.

Alla luce di quanto sopra:

la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sarebbe disposta a offrire incentivi significativi all'Iran, onde utilizzare appieno la parte diplomatica del duplice approccio dell'UE nei confronti dell'Iran, tenendo conto dei recenti segnali di flessibilità inviati dall'Iran? In caso affermativo, che genere di incentivi?

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sarebbe disposta a proporre una qualche forma di graduale allentamento delle sanzioni UE in cambio di passi molto ben definiti e verificabili da parte dell'Iran che rispondano alle preoccupazioni della comunità internazionale riguardo al suo programma nucleare?

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sarebbe disposta a esaminare l’opportunità di istituire un binario parallelo di negoziati con l'Iran, che comprenda le questioni di sicurezza regionale che preoccupano sia l'UE che l'Iran, quali la situazione in Siria, in Golfo Persico, in Iraq e Afghanistan, onde costruire la fiducia tra le parti?

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è consapevole del progressivo degrado che le sanzioni paralizzanti stanno infliggendo al tessuto sociale della società iraniana, che spinge molte famiglie della classe media — potenziali agenti di laicità e di riforme democratiche — alla povertà o all'emigrazione? È convinta che sia nell'interesse dell'UE continuare una politica che sta indebolendo la classe media iraniana facendo il gioco dei estremisti iraniani?

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

(11 febbraio 2013)

L'Unione europea è determinata a trovare una soluzione diplomatica per mezzo di un duplice approccio che combina pressione e dialogo. L'obiettivo resta quello di coinvolgere l'Iran in un serio processo di rafforzamento della fiducia, guidato dal principio di reciprocità e costruito passo dopo passo, che porti a negoziati significativi sul programma nucleare.

Dall'inizio del 2012, l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente si adopera per impegnare l'Iran in negoziati costruttivi. Mentre l'accento è posto sulla questione nucleare, il Gruppo E3+3 è disposto a esaminare anche altre problematiche. In occasione delle trattative del 2012 è stata avanzata una proposta volta ad aumentare la fiducia per raggiungere una soluzione globale a lungo termine sulla questione nucleare iraniana.

Finora l'Iran non ha mostrato alcuna intenzione di rispondere seriamente alle preoccupazioni pressanti che riguardano il suo programma nucleare. L'ultima relazione AIEA conferma che il programma nucleare iraniano è in espansione, in particolare per quanto riguarda le attività di arricchimento.

Le sanzioni contro l'Iran non sono fini a sé stesse e sono revocabili. Se l'Iran si atterrà alle risoluzioni pertinenti del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite e del Consiglio dei governatori dell'AIEA, tutte le sanzioni pertinenti contro l'Iran saranno sospese e successivamente soppresse. Sta all'Iran comportarsi in modo responsabile e ripristinare la fiducia a livello internazionale nella natura esclusivamente pacifica del suo programma nucleare al fine di portare a una sospensione delle sanzioni.

L'AR/VP agisce per conto dei sei paesi e, come è precisato da numerose risoluzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni unite, il suo compito consiste nel ripristinare la fiducia nella natura esclusivamente pacifica del programma nucleare iraniano.

Le misure restrittive concordate dall'UE mirano a colpire il programma nucleare iraniano e le entrate del regime iraniano utilizzate per finanziarlo e non sono rivolte contro il popolo iraniano.

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-011248/12

za Komisijo (VP/HR)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Alexandra Thein (ALDE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) in Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(10. december 2012)

Zadeva: VP/HR – Strategija EU za iransko jedrsko vprašanje

V zadnjih letih je vlada ZDA s polno podporo EU izvajala politiko uvajanja vse strožjih sankcij proti Iranu, saj se smatra, da se lahko samo tako prepreči, da bi iranska vlada pridobila jedrsko orožje. Druge pobude, kot sta turško-brazilski načrt iz leta 2010 za omejitev iranskega programa za bogatenje urana in izvoz presežnega obogatenega urana ter ruski predlog s podobnimi rešitvami, sta ZDA in EU zavrnili. Tako lahko Iran še naprej izvaja svoje sumljive dejavnosti bogatenja urana. Zato bi moral vsak nov diplomatski dogovor vključevati vse temeljitejše spremljanje iranskega jedrskega programa in zelo podrobno določen seznam ukrepov, ki bi jih moral Iran sprejeti za postopno odpravo sankcij. Na iranski strani je zaznati morebitno večjo prilagodljivost glede inšpekcijskih pregledov Mednarodne agencije za atomsko energijo ter glede omejitve bogatenja na 5 % brez skladiščenja presežkov obogatenega urana na iranskem ozemlju. ZDA in njene zaveznice bi morale v zameno priznati pravico Irana do tehnologije za bogatenje, saj je ta pravica ena od bistvenih točk Pogodbe o neširjenju jedrskega orožja, in postopoma odpraviti uvedene sankcije.

Zato sprašujemo:

Ali bi bila podpredsednica/visoka predstavnica Iranu pripravljena ponuditi smiselne spodbude, da bi v celoti izkoristila diplomatski del dvotirnega pristopa EU do Irana, ob upoštevanju nedavnih znakov pripravljenosti na iranski strani? Če je temu tako, kakšne spodbude?

Ali bi bila podpredsednica/visoka predstavnica pripravljena predlagati postopno odpravo sankcij EU v zameno, da Iran sprejme podrobno določene in preverljive ukrepe in tako pomiri pomisleke mednarodne skupnosti glede iranskega jedrskega programa?

Ali bi podpredsednica/visoka predstavnica kot priložnost za krepitev zaupanja med stranema preučila možnost uvedbe vzporednih pogajanj z Iranom, ki bi vključevala vprašanja regionalne varnosti, ki zadevajo EU in Iran, kot so razmere v Siriji, Perzijskem zalivu, Iraku in Afganistanu?

Ali se podpredsednica/visoka predstavnica zaveda, da stroge sankcije povzročajo postopen razpad socialne strukture iranske družbe, saj so zaradi njih številne družine iz srednjega razreda, ki bi lahko bile akterji posvetnosti in demokratičnih reform, obsojene na revščino ali izseljevanje? Je po njenem mnenju nadaljevanje politike, ki slabi iranski srednji razred in koristi iranskim skrajnežem, v interesu EU?

Odgovor visoke predstavnice in podpredsednice Komisije Catherine Ashton v imenu Komisije

(11. februar 2013)

EU si odločno prizadeva za diplomatsko rešitev na podlagi dvotirnega pristopa, ki hkrati združuje pritisk in dialog. Namen prizadevanj je, da EU in Iran okrepita vzajemno zaupanje, ki bo postopoma privedlo do resnih pogajanj o jedrskem programu.

Visoka predstavnica/podpredsednica si že od začetka leta 2012 prizadeva, da bi Iran pokazal pripravljenost za resna pogajanja. Čeprav je glavni poudarek na jedrskem vprašanju, so E3+3 pripravljene razpravljati tudi o drugih vprašanjih. Predlog krepitve zaupanja za pogajanja, katerih cilj je doseči dolgoročno celovito rešitev iranskega jedrskega vprašanja, je bil izražen med pogajanji leta 2012. Iran do zdaj še ni pokazal pripravljenosti, da bi resno obravnaval nujna vprašanja glede svojega jedrskega programa. Mednarodna agencija za atomsko energijo (MAAE) je v poročilu potrdila širjenje iranskega jedrskega programa, zlasti njegovih dejavnosti bogatenja urana.

Sankcije niso same sebi namen in se jih da odpraviti. Če bo Iran izpolnil zadevne resolucije VS ZN in Sveta guvernerjev MAAE, bodo vse zadevne sankcije proti Iranu začasno in nato dokončno odpravljene. Na potezi je Iran, ki mora zdaj ravnati odgovorno in obnoviti mednarodno zaupanje v izključno miroljubno naravo svojega jedrskega programa, da bi se sankcije lahko odpravile.

Visoka predstavnica/podpredsednica zastopa šest držav in, kot je navedeno v številnih resolucijah VS ZN, njena naloga je Iran pripraviti do tega, da bo mednarodno skupnost ponovno prepričal o izključno miroljubni naravi svojega jedrskega programa.

Omejevalni ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela EU, so uperjeni proti iranskemu jedrskemu programu in prihodkom iranskega režima, s katerimi se ta program financira, in ne proti iranskemu ljudstvu.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011248/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Alexandra Thein (ALDE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) and Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — EU strategy on the Iranian nuclear issue

Over the last few years, the US Government, with the full support of the EU, has implemented a policy of imposing increasingly crippling sanctions against Iran, since this is considered to be the only way of preventing the Iranian Government from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alternative initiatives, such as the 2010 Turkey-Brazil plan to limit Iran’s enrichment programme and export the excess enriched uranium, and a Russian proposal in the same direction were rejected by the US and the EU. As a result, Iran has been able to continue its suspicious enrichment activities. Accordingly, any new diplomatic agreement would have to include ever more intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear programme and a very well-defined list of steps that Iran must take in order to obtain a progressive lifting of sanctions. There are signs that Iran may be more flexible on International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, as well as limiting enrichment to 5% and not stocking any excess enriched uranium on Iranian soil. In exchange, the US and its allies would have to acknowledge Iran’s right to enrichment technology, a right that is one of the key points of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to gradually dismantle the sanctions imposed.

In the light of the above:

Would the Vice-President/High Representative be willing to offer meaningful incentives to Iran in order to make full use of the diplomacy part of the EU double-track approach towards Iran, taking into account the recent signs of flexibility from Iran? If so, what kind of incentives?

Would the Vice-President/High Representative be willing to propose some form of gradual EU sanctions relief in exchange for very well-defined and verifiable steps by Iran which would address the international community’s concerns regarding its nuclear programme?

Would the Vice-President/High Representative consider instituting a parallel track of negotiations with Iran, which would include regional security issues of concern to both the EU and Iran, such as the situation in Syria, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan, as a way of building confidence between the parties?

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the progressive degradation that the crippling sanctions are inflicting on the social fabric of Iranian society, pushing many middle-class families — potential agents of secularism and democratic reform — into poverty or emigration? Does she believe it is in the EU’s interests to continue with a policy that is weakening the Iranian middle class and playing into the hands of the Iranian hardliners?

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

(11 February 2013)

The EU is determined to work towards a diplomatic solution on the basis of the double-track approach which combines pressure with dialogue. The objective remains to engage Iran in a serious effort of confidence building, guided by the principles of reciprocity and step by step, leading to meaningful negotiations on the nuclear programme.

Since the beginning of 2012 the HR/VP has made efforts to move Iran into meaningful negotiations. While the main focus is on the nuclear issue, the E3+3 is ready to discuss also other issues. A confidence building proposal for negotiations aiming to achieve a long-term comprehensive settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue has been put forward during 2012 talks.

So far Iran has failed to give any signal that it is ready to seriously address the urgent concerns regarding its nuclear programme. The latest IAEA report confirmed that the Iranian nuclear programme and particularly its enrichment activities are expanding.

Sanctions are not an end in itself and they are reversible. If Iran complies with relevant UNSC and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions the suspension and termination of all relevant sanctions against Iran would follow. It is in Iran’s hands to act responsibly and restore the international confidence in exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme so that sanctions could be brought to an end.

The HR/VP acts on behalf of the six countries and her mandate as described in several UNSC resolutions is to convince Iran to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

The restrictive measures agreed by the EU are aimed at affecting Iran's nuclear programme and revenues of the Iranian regime used to fund the programme and are not aimed at the Iranian people.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011249/12

alla Commissione

Barbara Matera (PPE)

(10 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Azione dell'UE in materia di cambiamenti climatici mondiali

Il 4 dicembre 2012, l'Organizzazione per la cooperazione e lo sviluppo economici (OCSE) ha pubblicato la sua relazione annuale in materia di aiuto internazionale. Quanto allo sviluppo sostenibile, le conclusioni che essa formula sono preoccupanti: il mercato globale si sta sviluppando in una maniera che causerà inevitabilmente cambiamenti climatici, generando effetti devastanti sia per l'ambiente sia per la società nel suo complesso. È sempre più chiaro che occorre adottare e attuare politiche in materia di cambiamenti climatici che siano complete e ampie, in particolare facendo seguito alla ricerca scientifica pubblicata una settimana prima della relazione dell'OCSE, ricerca che ritiene sempre più probabile un aumento della temperatura globale di 5oC.

L'UE sta attualmente perseguendo diverse politiche in materia di cambiamenti climatici e ha espresso l'impegno di mantenere l'aumento della temperatura globale a un valore massimo di 2oC. Tuttavia, la relazione dell'OCSE rileva che non è abbastanza per i paesi sviluppati esprimere un impegno volto a rallentare il cambiamento climatico. I paesi terzi in via di sviluppo, che tentano di fondare le proprie economie su solide industrie, devono altresì adoperarsi per raggiungere ciò che l'OCSE chiama «crescita verde», ovvero una crescita sostenibile da un punto di vista ambientale. Un problema emergente nei paesi terzi in via di sviluppo è costituito dal disinteresse dilagante per le pratiche ecocompatibili a favore di una crescita industriale incontrollata, il che sta avendo gravi ripercussioni sul clima mondiale.

Tutti i settori della società mondiale stanno risentendo dell'impatto provocato dai cambiamenti climatici, a prescindere dal loro status socioeconomico, eppure i paesi più poveri e svantaggiati saranno quelli a esserne colpiti più duramente. I cambiamenti climatici incontrollati, alimentati dagli attuali livelli di emissioni di gas serra, metteranno in moto una catena di eventi dannosi che degraderà in ultima analisi la qualità della vita. Dato che fenomeni quali l'inquinamento atmosferico e la contaminazione delle acque stanno diventando più frequenti, in particolare nei paesi terzi, il numero di patologie e di morti ad essi associate crescerà. Si prevede anche un aumento della scarsità di cibo e di acqua, e con esso dei casi di malnutrizione.

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

Dispone l'UE di politiche volte a garantire che gli Stati membri perseguano pratiche commerciali sostenibili e si adoperino per limitare l'impatto ambientale dell'UE?

Dispone l'UE di programmi specifici per assistere i paesi terzi a svilupparsi in maniera sostenibile? E in caso contrario, esistono dei piani volti ad attuare tali programmi?

Dispone l'UE di piani a lungo termine per affrontare eventuali crisi umanitariescatenate dai cambiamenti climatici?

Risposta di Connie Hedegaard a nome della Commissione

(11 febbraio 2013)

1.

Il pacchetto

«Energia e clima» prevede una serie di misure per permettere il raggiungimento dell'obiettivo, fissato dall'UE, di ridurre le emissioni di gas a effetto serra del 20 % entro il 2020. La Commissione continua a sostenere gli Stati membri in questo processo grazie a svariati interventi: la direttiva sull'efficienza energetica, la proposta di aumentare la spesa europea relativa al clima fino ad arrivare ad almeno il 20 % dell'intero bilancio UE 2014-2020, le norme 2020 di efficienza dei veicoli, il programma di dimostrazione «NER 300», l'attuazione di misure per la prevenzione e la gestione del rischio di catastrofi, e la strategia di adattamento dell'UE.

2.

L'UE ha integrato lo sviluppo sostenibile nella sua strategia di sviluppo e rappresenta il donatore principale per quanto riguarda i finanziamenti relativi al clima. Ad esempio, l'UE ha destinato 7,2 miliardi di euro nel biennio 2010-2012 all'adattamento ai cambiamenti climatici e al loro contenimento nei paesi in via di sviluppo. L'UE ritiene inoltre necessario integrare l'adattamento e la riduzione del rischio di catastrofi nel suo programma di cooperazione allo sviluppo e all'assistenza umanitaria. Il 2013 vedrà altre attività importanti volte a realizzare gli obiettivi del programma

«Energia sostenibile per tutti». La Commissione ha infine proposto che nel prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale almeno il 20 % dei fondi sia investito nei progetti di adattamento a basse emissioni di carbonio.

3.

Anche i programmi di aiuti umanitari e assistenza allo sviluppo dell'UE forniscono un sostegno finanziario per superare le crisi provocate da catastrofi climatiche, con particolare attenzione alla resilienza. Basandosi sulla recente comunicazione

«L'approccio dell'Unione alla resilienza: imparare dalle crisi della sicurezza alimentare», la Commissione adotterà un piano d'azione a sostegno delle strategia di resilienza nazionali affinché tengano in grande considerazione gli aspetti dell'adattamento, della sicurezza alimentare e della riduzione del rischio di catastrofi. Questo piano è collegato al processo dei piani di adattamento nazionali istituito dalla convenzione quadro delle Nazioni Unite sui cambiamenti climatici (UNFCCC) che mira ad aiutare i paesi meno sviluppati ad integrare nella pianificazione dello sviluppo le strategie di adattamento .

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011249/12

to the Commission

Barbara Matera (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: EU action on global climate change

On 4 December 2012, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its annual report on international aid. Focusing on sustainable development, the conclusions it presents are alarming: the global market is developing in a way that will inevitably lead to climate change, with devastating results both for the environment and for society as a whole. It has become increasingly clear that broad-sweeping and comprehensive climate change policies must be adopted and implemented, particularly following scientific research published the week before release of the OECD report and indicating that a rise in global temperature of 5°C is becoming increasingly likely.

The EU is currently pursuing a number of policies with regard to climate change, and has expressed a commitment to keeping the global temperature increase to a maximum of 2°C. However, the OECD report points out that it is not enough for developed countries to express a commitment to slowing climate change. Developing third countries trying to establish their economies by building strong industries must also work towards what the OECD calls ‘green growth’, that is, environmentally sustainable growth. An emerging issue in developing third countries is the rampant disregard for environmentally friendly practices in favour of unrestrained industrial growth, which is having a significant negative impact on the global climate.

All sectors of global society are feeling the impact of climate change regardless of their socio‐economic status, but the poorest and most disadvantaged countries will be hit the hardest. Unrestrained climate change, fuelled by current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, will set in motion a damaging chain of events that will ultimately degrade the quality of life. As air pollution and water contamination become more prevalent, particularly in third countries, the level of disease and death associated with these two issues will increase. Food and water scarcity is expected to rise as well, increasing the risk of malnourishment.

In light of this, I ask the Commission to answer the following:

Does the EU have policies in place to ensure that the Member States are pursuing sustainable business practices and working towards limiting the EU’s environmental impact?

Does the EU have specific programmes in place to assist third countries to develop in a sustainable way? If not, are there plans in place to implement such programmes?

Does the EU have long-term plans to address potential humanitarian crises caused by climate change?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

1.

The climate and energy package is a comprehensive set of measures to enable the EU's 20% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020. The Commission continues to support Member States to reach their targets through the Energy Efficiency Directive, the proposal to increase EU climate-related expenditure to at least 20% of the 2014-2020 EU budget, the 2020 vehicles efficiency standards, the

‘NER 300’ demonstration programme, the implementation of disaster risk prevention and management measures, and the EU Adaptation Strategy.

2.

The EU has mainstreamed sustainable development into its development policy and is the world's most generous donor in climate finance. The EU has for example provided EUR 7.2 billion in 2010-2012 for climate change mitigation and adaptation to developing countries. The EU also identified the need to integrate disaster risk reduction and adaptation into development cooperation and humanitarian response. 2013 will witness even more important activity with a view to realising the objectives of Sustainable Energy for All. The Commission has finally proposed that in the next MFF period at least 20% of funds be used to finance low carbon and adaptation projects.

3.

EU Humanitarian Aid and Development Assistance are also providing financial support to overcoming crises caused by extreme climatic events, with emphasis on resilience. Based on the recent Communication

‘The EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises’ the Commission will adopt an Action Plan to support national resilience strategies integrate adaptation, food security and DRR, linked to the UNFCCC National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process which aims to support least developed countries mainstream adaptation into development planning.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011250/12

à la Commission

Véronique Mathieu (PPE)

(10 décembre 2012)

Objet: Gazage des oies aux Pays Bas

La Commission peut-elle confirmer que le gouvernement des Pays Bas tue par gazage des oies sur son territoire depuis le mois d'avril, avec la contribution de subventions de l'Union européenne?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(4 février 2013)

L'abattage d'oiseaux aquatiques et d'autres oiseaux sauvages aux Pays-Bas est soumis à l'obtention d'une autorisation en vertu de la loi néerlandaise de 2002 sur la faune et la flore, conformément au régime dérogatoire prévu à l'article 9 de la directive 2009/147/CE concernant la conservation des oiseaux sauvages (141) Par le passé, les autorités néerlandaises ont régulièrement accordé des permis pour la capture et l'abattage des oies afin d'éviter de graves dommages aux cultures ou pour des raisons de sécurité et de santé publique. Les autorités n'ont pas encore informé la Commission, conformément à l'article 9, paragraphe 3, de la directive 2009/147/CE, des dérogations accordées en 2012 pour l'abattage des oies, ainsi que des méthodes autorisées. La Commission ne peut donc pas confirmer que des oies ont été tuées par gazage depuis avril 2012.

Les mesures visant à limiter les populations d'oies ne sont pas cofinancées par l'Union. En revanche, les dommages causés aux cultures et les frais supplémentaires occasionnés par les cultures spécifiques destinées au nourrissage hivernal des oies peuvent faire l'objet d'une indemnisation au titre d'un régime agro-environnemental spécial cofinancé dans le cadre du programme néerlandais de développement rural pour la période 2007-20013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011250/12

to the Commission

Véronique Mathieu (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Gassing geese in the Netherlands

Can the Commission confirm that the Dutch Government has been using gas to kill geese on its land since April, with the help of EU subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2013)

Killing of waterfowls and other wild birds in the Netherlands is subject to licensing under the Dutch Flora and Fauna Act of 2002, according to the derogation regime of Article 9 of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (142). In the past the Dutch authorities have granted permits on a regular basis for capturing and killing geese in order to prevent serious damages to crops or in the interest of public health and safety. The authorities have not yet informed the Commission according to Article 9.3 of Directive 2009/147/EC about the derogations granted in 2012 for killing geese, including the authorised methods. The Commission cannot therefore confirm that gas has been used to kill geese since April 2012.

Measures to control geese populations are not subject to Community co-financing. On the other hand, damage caused to crops or extra costs for the cultivation of specific crops for the winter feeding of geese can be compensated under a specific agri-environmental scheme co-financed under the Dutch rural development programme for the period 2007-2013.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011251/12

aan de Commissie

Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)

(10 december 2012)

Betreft: Hangende dossiers met ernstige implicaties voor grensarbeiders

De Europese interne markt met o.a. vrij verkeer van personen, vormt zonder twijfel een van de fundamenten van de Europese samenwerking. In de praktijk merken we echter dat nog steeds tal van grenzen en hindernissen bestaan die het dagelijkse leven van o.a. grensarbeiders ernstig bemoeilijken. De meeste problemen situeren zich op vlak van pensioenen, fiscaliteit en sociale zekerheid. De bevoegdheden  terzake liggen bij de lidstaten, de EU heeft via verordening 883/2004 de taak deze verschillende nationale systemen te coördineren. We kunnen echter constateren dat de oplossing voor tal van problemen wel bijzonder lang uitblijft.

De voorbije jaren interpelleerde ik de Commissie herhaaldelijk over verschillende kwesties. Nu wil ik in het bijzonder aandacht vragen voor de volgende drie kwesties die al enige tijd voor problemen zorgen, en waarop de Commissie en de betrokken lidstaten het antwoord aan de gedupeerde burgers voorlopig schuldig blijven.

1.

Over de wet koopkrachttegemoetkoming oudere belastingplichtigen (zie mijn vragen E‐008620/2011 en E-006539/2011 en correspondentie Ares (2012)1353404), kondigde de Europese Commissie op 31 mei 2012 een inbreukprocedure tegen Nederland aan. Volgens de meest recente informatie finaliseert de Commissie momenteel haar positie en wordt een formele beslissing verwacht begin 2013. Voor de naar schatting 282.000 mensen die recht hebben op een Nederlands pensioen maar niet in Nederland wonen, betekent dit echter dat een oplossing voor het verlies van 400 euro op jaarbasis al anderhalf jaar op zich laat wachten.

2.

Inzake de solidariteitsbijdrage (zie mijn vragen E-001107/2012, E-009599/2011, E‐8689/2010 en correspondentie Ares (2012)788406) onderzoekt de Commissie volgens de laatste informatie het antwoord van de Belgische autoriteiten.

3.

Tenslotte in verband met de 30 %-regel (zie mijn vragen E-000979/2012 en E‐009620/2011 en correspondentie Ares (2012)788406 en Ares (2012)1353404), is het overleg met de Nederlandse autoriteiten nog steeds gaande. Voor heel wat grensarbeiders houdt dit een netto maandverlies van enkele honderden euro's in.

Ik vraag de Commissie met klem om voor elk van de drie bovenvermelde zaken uitvoerig aan te geven wat de stand van zaken is, welke maatregelen werden genomen, welke concrete oplossing op welke  termijn mogelijk is en wat eventuele hinderpalen zijn.

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(5 februari 2013)

De diensten van de Commissie leggen momenteel de laatste hand aan hun beoordeling van de drie gevallen waarnaar het geachte Parlementslid verwijst. Begin 2013 dient een formeel besluit te worden genomen inzake verdere maatregelen voor de aanpak ervan.

De Commissie wijst erop dat zij bij de beoordeling van situaties die mogelijk niet verenigbaar met de wetgeving van de Europese Unie zouden kunnen zijn, de feitelijke en juridische omstandigheden grondig moet onderzoeken en alle relevante aspecten van de zaak uitvoerig moet evalueren.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011251/12

to the Commission

Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Unresolved issues with serious implications for frontier workers

The European internal market, with, inter alia, free movement of persons, is undoubtedly one of the foundations of European cooperation. In practice, however, we observe that numerous borders and obstacles still exist which seriously hamper the everyday life of frontier workers, among other people. The most problems relate to pensions, taxation and social security. Powers in this field are vested in the Member States, while, pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004, the EU has the task of coordinating these various national systems. However, we observe that solutions to many problems are taking a remarkably long time to materialise.

In recent years I have repeatedly tabled questions to the Commission concerning various issues. Now I would particularly like to draw attention to the following three, which have already been causing problems for some time and with regard to which the Commission and the Member States concerned have yet to give answers to the citizens whose interests are suffering.

1.

With regard to the Law on a purchasing power supplement for elderly taxpayers (cf. my questions E-008620/2011 and E-006539/2011 and correspondence Ares (2012)1353404), the European Commission announced infringement proceedings against the Netherlands on 31 May 2012. According to the most recent information, the Commission is currently finalising its position and a formal decision is expected at the beginning of 2013. However, for the estimated 282 000 people who are entitled to a Dutch pension but do not live in the Netherlands, this means that a solution for the loss of EUR 400 per annum has already been awaited for a year and a half.

2.

With regard to the solidarity contribution (cf. my questions E-001107/2012, E-009599/2011, E-8689/2010 and correspondence Ares (2012)788406), the latest information indicates that the Commission is examining the reply from the Belgian authorities.

3.

Lastly, in connection with the 30% rule (cf. my questions E-000979/2012 and E-009620/2011 and correspondence Ares (2012)788406 and Ares (2012)1353404), the talks with the Dutch authorities are still going on. For a good many frontier workers, this entails a net loss of several hundred euros per month.

I would urge the Commission to state in detail, with regard to each of the above three issues, what the state of play is, what measures have been taken, what specific solution will be possible, how soon, and what possible obstacles there are.

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission services are currently finalising their assessment of the three cases referred to by the Honourable Member. A formal decision on further action to deal with them should be taken in early 2013.

The Commission would point out that, when it examines situations the compatibility of which with the law of the European Union may be in doubt, it needs to investigate the factual and legal circumstances thoroughly and carry out a comprehensive assessment of all relevant aspects of the case.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011252/12

aan de Commissie

Jan Mulder (ALDE)

(10 december 2012)

Betreft: Spanje geeft Russen verblijfsvergunning

De Spaanse staatssecretaris van handel Jaime García-Legaz heeft aangekondigd verblijfsvergunningen te willen verlenen aan buitenlanders die een woning kopen van meer dan 160 000 euro. Zo wil Spanje de verkoop van duizenden leegstaande nieuwbouwwoningen bevorderen. De Spaanse overheid richt zich voornamelijk op kopers met de Chinese of Russische nationaliteit.

1.

Kan de Commissie zeggen of Spanje helemaal vrij is om dit te doen?

2.

Mogen personen met een dergelijke verblijfsvergunning zich ook buiten Spanje vestigen?

3.

Is het onder EU-recht toegestaan om verblijfsvergunningen op die manier uit te vaardigen?

Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie

(6 februari 2013)

De voorwaarden voor het verblijfsrecht van onderdanen van derde landen die willen investeren in de EU-lidstaten zijn niet geharmoniseerd door de EU-wetgeving. De lidstaten bepalen de voorwaarden voor binnenkomst en verblijf voor onderdanen van derde landen die willen investeren in het land en er langer dan drie maanden willen verblijven.

Spanje is gerechtigd alleen te beslissen over het aantal toe te kennen nationale verblijfstitels en de voorwaarden voor het toekennen van Spaanse nationale verblijfstitels aan onderdanen van derde landen. Deze nationale verblijfstitels laten onderdanen van derde landen niet toe buiten Spanje te verblijven, maar overeenkomstig artikel 21 van de Overeenkomst  ter uitvoering van het akkoord van Schengen mogen houders van een geldige verblijfstitel toegekend door een van de Schengenlanden zich gedurende een periode van ten hoogste drie maanden binnen een periode van zes maanden op grond van deze titel en van een geldig reisdocument vrij verplaatsen op het grondgebied van de overige Schengenlanden.

Richtlijn 2003/109/EG van de Raad van 25 november 2003 betreffende de status van langdurig ingezeten onderdanen van derde landen geeft houders van een verblijfsvergunning voor langdurig ingezetenen (onder bepaalde voorwaarden) rechten in een andere lidstaat. Deze EU-verblijfsvergunningen voor langdurig ingezetenen worden enkel toegekend wanneer aan de in de richtlijn vastgestelde voorwaarden is voldaan. Deze voorwaarden bepalen onder andere dat de onderdanen van derde landen minstens vijf jaar wettelijk en doorlopend op het grondgebied van de betreffende lidstaat moeten hebben gewoond. Zij moeten ook beschikken over een ziekteverzekering en voldoende middelen om zichzelf te onderhouden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011252/12

to the Commission

Jan Mulder (ALDE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Spain's decision to issue residence permits to Russians

Spain’s State Secretary for Trade, Jaime García-Legaz, has announced that he is willing to issue residence permits to foreign nationals who buy a home for more than EUR 160 000. In this way, Spain hopes to promote the sale of thousands of unoccupied new homes. The Spanish authorities are mainly hoping that Chinese or Russian nationals will buy them.

1.

Can the Commission say whether Spain is entirely free to do this?

2.

May people who are issued with such residence permits also settle outside Spain?

3.

Under EC law, is it permitted to issue residence permits in this way?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2013)

Conditions for residence of third-country national investors into the EU Member States are not harmonised under EC law. Member States determine the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals who wish to invest in the country and stay for longer than three months.

Spain is entitled to decide alone on the number of national residence permits and on the conditions that apply when granting Spanish national residence permits to third-country nationals. These national permits do not entitle the third-country nationals to reside outside Spain, but according to Article 21 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, holders of valid residence permits issued by one of the Schengen Member States may, in principle, on the basis of that permit and a valid passport, move freely for up to 3 months in any 6-month period within the territories of the other Schengen Member States.

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents entitles holders of a long-term permit to residence rights (under certain conditions) in another Member State. Those EU long-term residence permits are issued only when these conditions set out in the directive are fulfilled. These conditions include that the third-country nationals must have legally and continuously lived in the territory of the Member State concerned for at least 5 years; they also have to have sufficient resources to maintain themselves and health insurance.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011253/12

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(10 december 2012)

Betreft: Turkije verbiedt soap over sultan

Turkije heeft de mediawet aangepast. Daarmee wordt het verboden om in tv-series „met historische gebeurtenissen en personen die door de samenleving worden gerespecteerd de spot te drijven, ze te kleineren of vertekend weer te geven”.

Zo wordt met de nieuwe mediawet de populaire tv-serie „Muhtesem Yüzyi” verboden. In de serie komt sultan Suleiman de Grote voor, die zich daar vooral met het vrouwelijk schoon bezighoudt. Volgens de Turkse premier Erdoğan zou dat een „verdraaiing van historische feiten” zijn.

1.

Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht

1.

Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht

„Turkije gaat soap over sultan verbieden” (143)?

2.

Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de nieuwe Turkse mediawet die ervoor zorgt dat tv-series verboden worden? Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie deze inperking van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de persvrijheid? Beseft de Commissie dat dit in strijd is met artikel 11 van het EU-handvest voor de grondrechten?

3.

Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie het dat Turkije — vooral wat betreft de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de persvrijheid — almaar verder afglijdt? Is de Commissie ertoe bereid zich hier luid en duidelijk tegen uit te spreken en daarbij de conclusie te trekken dat Turkije niet in de EU thuishoort?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(5 februari 2013)

De Commissie is op de hoogte van de door het geachte parlementslid vermelde kwestie.

De vrijheid van meningsuiting, die volgens de jurisprudentie van het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens ook de vrijheid van kunstzinnige expressie omvat, is een grondrecht waarop de Commissie toezicht houdt in het kader van haar beoordeling van de vooruitgang die Turkije boekt bij het voldoen aan de politieke criteria. De Commissie heeft er bij diverse gelegenheden op gewezen dat Turkije tekortkomingen in dit verband moet aanpakken. Daarenboven heeft zij haar bezorgdheid geuit over de bestaande regels in verband met het verbieden van uitzendingen en de sancties die omroeporganisaties kunnen worden opgelegd.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011253/12

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Turkey's ban on a soap opera about the Sultan

Turkey has amended its Media Law. As a result, it is prohibited for TV serials to ‘mock, belittle or depict in a distorted manner historical events and people who are respected by society’.

Thus the new Media Law bans the popular TV serial ‘Muhtesem Yüzyi’. The characters in this serial include Sultan Suleiman the Great, whose main interest is depicted as being beautiful women. According to Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoğan, this constitutes a ‘distortion of historical facts’.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the report

1.

Is the Commission aware of the report

‘Turkije gaat soap over sultan verbieden’ [Turkey intends to ban a soap opera about the Sultan]? (144)

2.

What view does the Commission take of the new Turkish Media Law, under which TV serials are banned? What view does the Commission take of this restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of the press? Does the Commission realise that it breaches Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

3.

What view does the Commission take of the fact that Turkey is constantly regressing, particularly as regards freedom of expression and of the press? Will the Commission speak out loud and clearly against this and conclude that Turkey has no place in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the issue referred to by the Honourable Member.

Freedom of expression, which in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights includes freedom of artistic expression, is a fundamental right monitored by the Commission in its assessment of Turkey's progress towards meeting the political criteria. The Commission has on various occasions underlined the urgent need for Turkey to address shortcomings in this regard. Moreover, the Commission has expressed its concern over the existing rules on broadcasting bans and sanctions imposable on broadcasters.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011254/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Informação estatística sobre a dívida portuguesa

Tendo em conta que:

O Serviço de Estatística da União Europeia (Eurostat) é a organização responsável por produzir dados estatísticos para a União Europeia, promovendo a harmonização dos métodos estatísticos entre os diversos Estados-Membros;

O Eurostat assume particular relevância na produção de dados macroeconómicos e informação estatística, permitindo estabelecer uma sólida comparação à escala regional sobre os mais diversos indicadores;

A Direção-Geral do Tesouro e Finanças do Ministério das Finanças de Portugal publicou o Relatório do Setor Empresarial do Estado, com informação relativa ao primeiro semestre de 2011, sendo possível aferir uma dívida pública indireta de 32,388 mil milhões de euros. A mesma Direção-Geral publicou na altura o Relatório das Parcerias Público-Privadas, onde foi possível apurar uma dívida pública indireta de 1,127 mil milhões de euros;

No entanto, seria importante conhecer a mais recente informação estatística sobre as dívidas da administração pública portuguesa, diretas e indiretas.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

O Eurostat possui informação recente sobre o valor total da dívida pública de Portugal, nomeadamente a que se refere à totalidade da administração central, regional e local, bem como ao Setor Empresarial do Estado, Parcerias Público-Privadas e Setor Empresarial Local?

O Eurostat conhece o valor total da dívida pública direta de Portugal? Qual o valor da dívida das autarquias portuguesas?

O Eurostat conhece o valor total da dívida pública indireta de Portugal?

Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão

(8 de fevereiro de 2013)

Em resposta às questões suscitadas pelo Senhor Deputado, importa sublinhar que:

A Comissão (Eurostat) recebe das autoridades estatísticas portuguesas informações sobre a dívida global bruta do setor da administração pública, que inclui a dívida da administração central, regional e local e da segurança social. O Eurostat recebe também das autoridades estatísticas portuguesas informações anuais regulares sobre as parcerias público-privadas classificadas no setor da administração pública. No entanto, não estão disponíveis informações sobre as parcerias público-privadas classificadas como elementos extrapatrimoniais da administração pública. A Comissão (Eurostat) não dispõe de informações completas sobre a dívida das empresas públicas (detidas pela administração pública, central ou local).

O montante total de dívida direta de Portugal era de 198 136 milhões de euros no final do segundo trimestre de 2012. O valor da dívida aumentou em 13 437 milhões de euros em relação ao final de 2011.

A Comissão (Eurostat) entende a expressão «dívida pública indireta» como a dívida das empresas públicas. Embora a Comissão tenha conhecimento da existência desses dados e acolhe favoravelmente a sua publicação, tais dados não são, por agora, recolhidos nem validados pela Comissão. No futuro, e impreterivelmente a partir de janeiro de 2015, a Comissão (Eurostat) estará em condições de publicar a dívida de empresas públicas (bem como as garantias governamentais e as parcerias público-privadas extrapatrimoniais) por força da Diretiva 2011/85/UE sobre requisitos aplicáveis aos quadros orçamentais dos Estados-Membros.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011254/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Statistical information on Portuguese debt

Taking into account that:

the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) is the body responsible for producing statistical data for the European Union, thus promoting a harmonisation of the statistical methods used by the different Member States;

Eurostat plays a particularly important role in producing macroeconomic data and statistical information, allowing sound comparisons to be made at regional level of a wide range of indicators;

the Directorate-General for Treasury and Finances of the Portuguese Ministry of Finance published a report on state-owned enterprises containing information about the first half of 2011, from which it can be inferred that the indirect public debt stands at EUR 32 388 billion. This Directorate-General has also published a report on public-private partnerships, which suggests that the indirect public debt amounts to EUR 1 127 billion;

it is important that we are given the most up-to-date statistical information on both the direct and indirect debts incurred by the Portuguese public sector;

I would ask the Commission:

Does Eurostat have any recent information on Portugal’s aggregate public debt, including all central, regional, and local government, as well as state-owned enterprises, public-private partnerships and local enterprises?

Does Eurostat know the total amount of Portugal’s direct public debt? How much debt has been incurred by the Portuguese authorities?

Does Eurostat know the total amount of Portugal’s indirect public debt?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

In response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament, it is to be underlined that,

1.

The Commission (Eurostat) receives from the Portuguese statistical authorities information on the total gross debt of general government sector, which includes central government, regional and local units and Social Security.

Eurostat receives also from the Portuguese statistical authorities regular annual information on public-private partnerships classified in the general government sector. However, no information is available on those public-private partnerships, classified off-balance sheet of general government. The Commission (Eurostat) has no complete information at present on the debt of public corporations (held by central or local government units).

2.

The total amount of Portugal's direct debt was of EUR 198 136 million at the end of the second quarter of 2012. The figure of direct debt increased by EUR 13 437 million compared to the end of 2011.

3.

The Commission (Eurostat) understands the expression

‘indirect public debt’ as the debt of state-owned enterprises (public corporations). While the Commission is aware of the existence of these data and welcomes its publication, such data is not collected nor validated by the Commission for the time being. In the future, and at the latest from January 2015 onwards, the Commission (Eurostat) will be in a position to publish the debt of public corporations (as well as government guarantees and off-balance sheet public-private partnerships) due to Council Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011255/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Análise Anual de Crescimento

Tendo em conta que:

No discurso sobre o Estado da União realizado na sessão plenária do Parlamento Europeu, o Presidente da Comissão Europeia apresentou um intenso programa de trabalhos no sentido de promover um quadro macroeconómico e de governação favorável ao crescimento e ao emprego;

A Comissão Europeia tem vindo a apresentar várias medidas que visam criar mais oportunidades de emprego e apoiar o empreendedorismo;

A Comissão Europeia aprovou, no passado dia 28 de novembro, a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo cinco prioridades estratégicas destinadas a melhorar o clima económico nos mais diversos Estados-Membros;

As cinco prioridades definidas são: 1) prosseguir uma consolidação orçamental diferenciada e favorável ao crescimento; 2) restabelecer condições normais de crédito à economia; 3) promover o crescimento e a competitividade hoje e no futuro; 4) dar resposta ao desemprego e às consequências sociais da crise; 5) modernizar a administração pública;

Pretende-se assim alinhar o Semestre Europeu com o Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento e a estratégia «Europa 2020», alinhando a contenção orçamental com novas medidas de incentivo ao crescimento económico.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Como é que se vão alinhar as medidas definidas na Análise Anual de Crescimento com as várias medidas de crescimento económico já anunciadas pela Comissão, como a estratégia de industrialização, reestruturação de fundos comunitários ou apoio aos jovens?

Entende apropriado alinhar todas as estratégias setoriais que têm vindo a ser anunciadas numa grande orientação estratégica para a UE que esteja em consonância com a «Europa 2020»?

Resposta dada por José Manuel Durão Barroso em nome da Comissão

(20 de fevereiro de 2013)

Em 2010, a Comissão Europeia adotou a Estratégia Europa 2020 de criação de emprego e de crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo. A Comissão aplica e acompanha anualmente esta estratégia abrangente de crescimento, no contexto do Semestre Europeu para a coordenação das políticas económicas. O Semestre Europeu inicia-se com a Análise Anual do Crescimento, que estabelece as prioridades de política económica a nível da UE e dos Estados-Membros, para alcançar os objetivos e metas a longo prazo. As iniciativas setoriais em curso e as novas estratégias a nível da UE e a nível nacional devem, sempre que possível, ser alinhadas com os objetivos da Europa 2020 e com as prioridades da Análise Anual do Crescimento, a fim de maximizar o efeito dos instrumentos da UE no crescimento e os benefícios da coordenação das políticas económicas a nível da União. São exemplos recentes a iniciativa emblemática da Europa 2020 no domínio da política industrial «Reforçar a indústria europeia em prol do crescimento e da recuperação económica» e o «Pacote da UE para o emprego dos jovens».

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011255/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Annual Growth Survey

Taking into account that:

in his State of the Union address to the plenary session of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission outlined an intensive work programme aimed at promoting a macroeconomic and governance framework that favours growth and employment;

the European Commission has outlined a number of measures that seek to create more job opportunities and provide support to entrepreneurs;

on 28 November this year the European Commission approved the Annual Growth Survey for 2013, which defined five strategic priorities intended to improve the economic climate in a range of Member States;

the five priorities defined are: (1) pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; (2) restoring normal lending to the economy; (3) promoting growth and competitiveness for today and tomorrow; (4) tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and (5) modernising public administration;

the aim of this is to bring the European Semester into line with the Compact for Growth and Jobs and the Europe 2020 strategy, aligning fiscal restraint with new measures to provide incentives for economic growth;

I would ask the Commission:

How will the measures defined in the Annual Growth Survey be aligned with the various economic growth measures announced by the European Commission, such as the industrialisation strategy, restructuring of Community funds and support for young people?

Do you consider it appropriate to bring together all of the sector strategies announced as part of a major strategic approach for the EU in line with the Europe 2020 strategy?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

In 2010, the European Commission adopted the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs. The Commission implements and monitors this comprehensive growth strategy on an annual basis in the context of the European Semester for economic policy coordination. The European Semester begins with the Annual Growth Survey that sets the economic policy priorities at EU and Member States' level to achieve the long-term objectives and targets. Ongoing sectoral initiatives and new strategies at EU and national level should be aligned with the objectives of Europe 2020 and the priorities of the Annual Growth Survey whenever possible with a view to maximising the impact of EU levers for growth and the benefits of economic policy coordination at EU level. Recent examples are the Europe 2020 Industrial Policy flagship initiative ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery’ or the ‘EU Youth Employment Package’.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011256/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Alavancar o Crescimento Económico e o Emprego

Tendo em conta que:

A Comissão Europeia aprovou, no passado dia 28 de novembro, a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo cinco prioridades estratégicas destinadas a melhorar o clima económico nos mais diversos Estados-Membros;

As cinco prioridades definidas são: 1) prosseguir uma consolidação orçamental diferenciada e favorável ao crescimento; 2) restabelecer condições normais de crédito à economia; 3) promover o crescimento e a competitividade hoje e no futuro; 4) dar resposta ao desemprego e às consequências sociais da crise; 5) modernizar a administração pública;

Segundo a Comissão Europeia, «Não há um programa uniforme, de aplicação única para estimular o crescimento e o emprego, mas há objetivos comuns e um leque de reformas a ponderar. O apoio centrado à inovação nos setores público e privado, melhores sistemas de educação e de formação para aumentar os níveis gerais das competências e um regime jurídico mais simples para o arranque das empresas constituem, no seu conjunto, medidas que podem contribuir para estimular a competitividade e, portanto, o crescimento.»

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Porque é que não existe um programa integrado e uniforme para promover o crescimento e o emprego, mas sim várias medidas anunciadas?

Que reformas considera ainda que os Estados-Membros devem realizar?

Que reformas considera que Portugal ainda deverá realizar para alavancar o crescimento económico e o emprego?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(25 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

A Estratégia Europa 2020 para um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo é o programa integrado e uniforme da União Europeia para a promoção do crescimento e do emprego. As principais metas nos domínios do emprego, da inovação, da sustentabilidade, da educação e da inclusão social, juntamente com as sete iniciativas emblemáticas, formam um conjunto coerente de prioridades políticas da UE e ao nível nacional.

2.

O Semestre Europeu para a coordenação das políticas económicas abrange o estabelecimento de recomendações específicas por países, que identificam os principais desafios enfrentados pelos Estados‐Membros em matéria de reformas. A análise anual do crescimento apresentada pela Comissão em 28 de novembro de 2012 estabelece os desafios e as prioridades políticas para 2013 na União Europeia em geral.

3.

As reformas prioritárias a realizar em Portugal encontram‐se estabelecidas no programa de ajustamento económico para o país. O reforço do potencial de crescimento da economia, através do aumento da competitividade e da criação de empregos, continua a apresentar uma importância crucial para o êxito do referido programa. Neste contexto, foram realizados progressos importantes na implementação da agenda de reformas estruturais em diversos domínios, como os serviços, as profissões regulamentadas e o sistema judicial.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011256/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Stimulating economic growth and employment

Taking into account that:

on 28 November this year the European Commission approved the Annual Growth Survey for 2013, which defined five strategic priorities intended to improve the economic climate in a range of Member States;

the five priorities defined are: (1) pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; (2) restoring normal lending to the economy; (3) promoting growth and competitiveness for today and tomorrow; (4) tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and (5) modernising public administration;

according to the European Commission, ‘There is no “one-size-fits-all” agenda to boost growth and jobs, but there are common goals and a range of reforms to consider. Targeted support for research in the public and private sectors, better performing education and training systems to raise overall skill levels, and a simpler legal regime for business start-ups — all of these measures can help to boost competitiveness and therefore growth.’

I would ask the Commission:

Why is there no integrated and uniform programme to promote growth and employment, but only different announced measures?

What reforms do you consider that the Member States still need to make?

What reforms do you consider that Portugal still needs to make to stimulate economic growth and employment?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

1.

The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs is the European Union's integrated and uniform programme to promote growth and employment. The headline targets in the areas of employment, innovation, sustainability, education and social inclusion, together with the seven flagship initiatives, make up a coherent set of policy priorities for the EU and national level.

2.

The European semester for economic policy coordination includes the setting of country specific recommendations, which identify the main reform challenges for the Member States. The Annual Growth Survey as presented by the Commission on 28 November 2012 sets out the policy challenges and priorities for 2013 for the European Union as a whole.

3.

Reform priorities for Portugal are laid down in the Portuguese Economic Adjustment Programme. Raising the growth potential of the economy, improving competitiveness and employment creation remain of crucial importance for the success of the Programme. In this regard, good progress has been made in implementing the structural reform agenda in a number of areas such as services, regulated professions and judiciary reform.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011257/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Apoio à empregabilidade em 2013

Tendo em conta que:

Segundo a última informação estatística disponibilizada pelo Eurostat, em julho de 2012, a União Europeia apresentava uma taxa de desemprego de 10,4 %, enquanto na Zona Euro a taxa de desemprego atingia 11,3 %. A Europa a 27 tinha 25,2 milhões de desempregados e, destes, cerca de 18,1 milhões pertenciam à Zona Euro.

As taxas mais baixas de desemprego verificam-se na Áustria (4,5 %), Holanda (5,3 %), Alemanha e Luxemburgo (5,5 %). Inversamente, os países mais penalizados pelos números do desemprego são Espanha (25,1 %), Grécia (23,1 %) e Letónia (15,9 %). Portugal é o quarto país com a taxa mais alta de desemprego (15,7 %).

Ao longo dos últimos 12 meses, registou-se um aumento de 2 milhões no número de desempregados, havendo atualmente mais de 25 milhões de pessoas sem emprego;

A Comissão Europeia aprovou no passado dia 28 de novembro a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo cinco prioridades estratégicas destinadas a melhorar o clima económico nos mais diversos Estados-Membros;

As cinco prioridades definidas são: 1) prosseguir uma consolidação orçamental diferenciada e favorável ao crescimento; 2) restabelecer condições normais de crédito à economia; 3) promover o crescimento e a competitividade hoje e no futuro; 4) dar resposta ao desemprego e às consequências sociais da crise; 5) modernizar a administração pública.

Segundo a Comissão Europeia «cada uma das cinco prioridades visa assegurar o crescimento e o emprego, sendo colocada uma tónica especial na equidade. A Análise Anual do Crescimento sublinha que a situação do mercado do trabalho exige uma resposta urgente.»

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Como é que cada uma das 5 prioridades irá contribuir para diminuir o desemprego nos diversos Estados-Membros?

Quantos empregos espera que venham a ser criados no espaço europeu?

Entende que estas medidas estão alinhadas com outras que visam diminuir o desemprego?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(20 de fevereiro de 2013)

O emprego e as prioridades sociais permanecem na linha da frente da Análise Anual do Crescimento de 2013. São estabelecidas prioridades-chave no sentido da preparação de uma recuperação geradora de emprego e para uma melhoria da empregabilidade dos trabalhadores. Porém todas as cinco prioridades da Análise Anual do Crescimento contribuirão para reduzir o desemprego.

A Comissão recomenda, em particular, que a consolidação orçamental seja diferenciada e o potencial de crescimento futuro preservado. Os Estados-Membros devem dar prioridade aos investimentos destinados a reforçar a cobertura e a eficácia dos serviços de emprego e das políticas ativas do mercado de trabalho, tais como a formação para os desempregados e os mecanismos de garantias para os jovens.

A Comissão dá aos Estados-Membros orientações rigorosas para as políticas nacionais de emprego e do mercado de trabalho, ao centrar-se no desemprego de longa duração, no desemprego jovem (insistindo na implementação da garantia para a juventude) e na flexibilidade interna. A Análise Anual de Crescimento de 2013 também coloca uma forte tónica na criação de emprego e no potencial de setores em expansão, tais como a economia verde, os cuidados de saúde e as TIC. Espera-se que, até 2020, possam ser criados mais de 20 milhões de postos de trabalho no âmbito da economia verde. Quanto aos cuidados de saúde, serão criados mais 7 milhões de empregos até 2020 devido às necessidades de substituição. Por fim, no âmbito das TIC, a procura já ultrapassa a oferta de profissionais nessa área prevendo-se que a Europa venha a registar uma escassez de aproximadamente 700 000 profissionais das TIC até 2015. A Análise Anual de Crescimento de 2013 também recomenda que os Estados-Membros trabalhem num quadro jurídico fiável e orientado para o futuro, no desenvolvimento de competências adequadas e numa melhor orientação dos apoios públicos.

A Comissão examinará as políticas dos Estados-Membros, as reformas em curso e o seu potencial impacto socioeconómico, no contexto do Semestre Europeu de 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011257/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Support for employability in 2013

Taking into account that:

according to the most recent statistical information provided by Eurostat, in July 2012 the unemployment rate in the European Union stood at 10.4% while the unemployment rate in the eurozone was 11.3%. There are 25.2 million people out of work in the 27 EU Member States and of these around 18.1 million come from the eurozone;

the lowest rates of unemployment were recorded in Austria (4.5%), the Netherlands (5.3%), Germany and Luxembourg (5.5%). Conversely, the countries hardest hit in terms of levels of unemployment are Spain (25.1%), Greece (23.1%) and Latvia (15.9%). The fourth highest rate of unemployment was recorded in Portugal (15.7%);

over the past 12 months, the number of persons out of work has risen by 2 million and currently stands at over 25 million;

on 28 November this year the European Commission approved the Annual Growth Survey for 2013, which defined five strategic priorities intended to improve the economic climate in a range of Member States;

the five priorities defined are: (1) pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; (2) restoring normal lending to the economy; (3) promoting growth and competitiveness for today and tomorrow; (4) tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and (5) modernising public administration;

according to the European Commission, ‘each of the five priorities is focused on delivering growth and jobs, with a special emphasis on fairness. The Annual Growth Survey underlines that the labour market situation calls for an urgent response’;

I would ask the Commission:

How will each of these five priorities contribute to reducing unemployment in the various Member States?

How many jobs do you hope will be created in the European area?

Do you believe that these measures are in line with others intended to reduce unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

Employment and social priorities remain at the forefront of the Annual Growth Survey 2013. Specific key priorities are set out for preparing for a job-rich recovery and improve the employability of workers but all five priorities of the Annual Growth Survey will contribute to reducing unemployment.

The Commission recommends in particular that the fiscal consolidation should be differentiated and future growth potential preserved. Member States should prioritize investments to reinforce the coverage and effectiveness of employment services and active labour market policies, such as training for the unemployed and youth guarantee schemes.

The Commission presents strong guidance to Member States for their employment and labour market policies by focusing on long term unemployment, on youth unemployment — by insisting on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee — or on internal flexibility. The 2013 AGS also puts a strong emphasis on job creation and on the potential of expanding sectors, such as the green economy, healthcare and ICT. It is expected that over 20 million jobs could be created between now and 2020 within the green economy. In healthcare, there will be 7 million additional job openings till 2020 due to replacement needs. Finally within ICT, demand is already outstripping supply of ICT practitioners, with Europe expected to face a shortage of approximately 700 000 ICT practitioners by 2015 The 2013 AGS also recommends to Member States to work on future-oriented and reliable legal framework, the development of adequate skills and targeted public support.

The Commission will scrutinise Member States' policies and ongoing reforms and their potential socioeconomic impact in the context of the 2013 Semester.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011258/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego

Tendo em conta que:

O Conselho Europeu de junho de 2012 adotou o Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego no sentido de os Estados-Membros recorrerem aos instrumentos de crescimento de que dispõem;

Ao longo dos últimos meses, os diversos Estados-Membros têm vindo a adotar várias medidas com vista a alavancar o crescimento económico, mas que ainda não deram fruto devido à constante subida da taxa de desemprego e ao clima económico negativo;

A Comissão Europeia aprovou no passado dia 28 de novembro a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo cinco prioridades estratégicas destinadas a melhorar o clima económico nos mais diversos Estados-Membros;

As cinco prioridades definidas são: 1) prosseguir uma consolidação orçamental diferenciada e favorável ao crescimento; 2) restabelecer condições normais de crédito à economia; 3) promover o crescimento e a competitividade hoje e no futuro; 4) dar resposta ao desemprego e às consequências sociais da crise; 5) modernizar a administração pública.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

O Pacto para o Crescimento e Emprego já entrou em vigor?

Quais são as suas prioridades estratégicas no âmbito do Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego?

Será este o principal instrumento de dinamização económica ou existem outros que estejam a ser estudados pela Comissão?

Resposta dada pelo Presidente José Manuel Barroso em nome da Comissão

(26 de fevereiro de 2013)

1. e 2.

O Presidente da Comissão informou o Conselho Europeu de outubro de 2012 sobre a situação da implementação do Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego adotado pelos Chefes de Estado e de Governo em junho de 2012, concluindo que a Comissão tinha realizado progressos animadores em diversos aspetos. A Comissão apresentou uma vasta gama de propostas como parte do Pacto e está a trabalhar em estreita colaboração com o Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu para a rápida adoção e aplicação, a fim de que se possam verificar rapidamente resultados benéficos na economia.

Para mais pormenores sobre as suas prioridades e aplicação, a Comissão remete para a resposta à questão O-164/2012.

3.

A

«Europa 2020» é uma estratégia da UE para o crescimento executada e acompanhada no quadro do Semestre Europeu. Uma transposição completa e atempada das recomendações específicas dirigidas a cada país traduzir-se-á em reformas estruturais que têm o objetivo de aumentar a competitividade e a capacidade para gerar crescimento e emprego. O êxito do Pacto é também fundamental e o QFP é o principal instrumento de financiamento para a economia da UE e a expressão do compromisso coletivo no sentido de investir em termos de crescimento e de competitividade.

Em novembro passado, a Comissão adotou a Análise Anual do Crescimento 2013 (AGS). Dado que a situação económica continua a ser problemática e que as reformas iniciadas só agora começam a ter impacto, a Comissão considera que as prioridades do ano passado se mantêm plenamente válidas e que as atenções se deveriam centrar na execução das reformas em curso.

Na mesma data, a Comissão adotou o plano pormenorizado para uma União Económica e Monetária efetiva e aprofundada. Proporciona uma visão para um forte quadro institucional que tem por objetivo assegurar a estabilidade e a prosperidade do sistema financeiro e a economia da UE no futuro, o que é essencial para restabelecer a confiança e o crescimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011258/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Compact for Growth and Jobs

Taking into account that:

in June 2012, the European Council adopted the Compact for Growth and Jobs with the aim of ensuring that Member States make use of the instruments of growth available to them;

over recent months, Member States have adopted various measures aimed at driving economic growth which, owing to the constant rise in the unemployment rate and the negative economic climate, have not been successful;

on 28 November this year the European Commission approved the Annual Growth Survey, which defined five strategic priorities intended to improve the economic climate in a range of Member States;

the five priorities defined are: (1) pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; (2) restoring normal lending to the economy; (3) promoting growth and competitiveness for today and tomorrow; (4) tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and (5) modernising public administration;

I would ask the Commission:

Has the Compact for Growth and Jobs now entered into effect?

What are your strategic priorities with regard to the Compact for Growth and Jobs?

Will this be the main instrument of economic stimulation or are you also considering others?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

1, 2. The President of the Commission reported to the European Council of October 2012 on the state of play of the implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs, adopted by Heads of State in June 2012, concluding that encouraging progress has been made by the Commission on several aspects. The Commission has tabled a wide range of proposals as part of the Compact and is working closely with the Council and the European Parliament to secure rapid adoption and implementation so that beneficial results can be felt in the economy soon.

For details on its priorities and implementation, the Commission would refer to the answer to oral question O-164/2012.

3.

Europe 2020 is the EU's growth strategy implemented and monitored in the framework of the European semester. A complete and timely implementation of the Country Specific Recommendations will translate into structural reforms to increase competitiveness and capacity to create growth and jobs. The success of the Compact is also key and the MFF is the main financing instrument to EU economy and the expression of the collective commitment to invest in growth and competitiveness.

Last November, the Commission adopted the 2013 Annual Growth Survey (AGS). Given that the economic situation remains challenging and that the reforms initiated are only starting to have an impact, the Commission considers that the priorities from last year remain fully valid and that the focus should be on implementation of ongoing reforms.

On the same day the Commission adopted the Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union. It provides a vision for a strong institutional framework to ensure the stability and prosperity of the EU's financial system and economy in the future which is key to restore confidence and growth.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011259/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Emprego Jovem

Tendo em conta que:

Em junho de 2012, a taxa de desemprego jovem (i.e. trabalhadores com idade inferior a 25 anos) na União Europeia era de 22,5 %, correspondendo a 5,5 milhões de jovens sem uma ocupação profissional, e de 22,6 % na Zona Euro, correspondendo a 3,4 milhões de desempregados. Este flagelo social tem vindo a aumentar ao longo dos últimos meses, dado que uma comparação homóloga (com junho de 2011) permite constatar que mais 182 mil jovens estão desempregados na Europa a 27, enquanto na Zona Euro são mais 204 mil.

As taxas de desemprego jovem mais baixas verificam-se na Alemanha (8,0 %), na Áustria (8,9 %) e na Holanda (9,2 %). Os valores mais elevados registam-se na Grécia (53,8 % em Abril de 2012) e em Espanha (52,9 %).

Portugal continua a apresentar uma das mais elevadas taxas de desemprego jovem da UE, atualmente equivalente a 36,4 %. Esta taxa representa um crescimento de 7,1 pontos percentuais face aos valores registados no período homólogo (junho de 2011 — 29,3 %).

A Comissão Europeia aprovou, no passado dia 28 de novembro, a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo o combate ao desemprego jovem como uma prioridade estratégica;

Segundo a Comissão Europeia , a «Análise Anual do Crescimento» convida igualmente os Estados-Membros a desenvolver mecanismos de garantia destinados aos jovens no âmbito dos quais todos os jovens de idade inferior a 25 anos recebem uma oferta de emprego, prossecução dos estudos ou estágio no prazo de quatro meses a contar da conclusão formal dos seus estudos ou início do seu desemprego.

Em 5 de dezembro, a Comissão apresentará uma proposta global sobre os mecanismos de garantia destinados aos jovens no seu Pacote sobre o Emprego dos Jovens.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Como é que pretende sensibilizar os Estados-Membros para os novos mecanismos de garantia destinados aos jovens?

Qual a análise que faz das várias medidas destinadas a apoiar a empregabilidade jovem na União Europeia?

Tem conhecimento do número de jovens que atualmente trabalham fora do seu país de origem e se existe uma tendência crescente transversal aos diversos Estados-Membros?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

No seu Pacote de Emprego dos Jovens

 (145)

2.

A Comissão congratula-se com as várias medidas que os Estados-Membros adotaram ou estão em vias de adotar para aumentar o emprego jovem. O anexo 3 do documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão

 (146)  (147)

1.

No seu Pacote de Emprego dos Jovens

2.

A Comissão congratula-se com as várias medidas que os Estados-Membros adotaram ou estão em vias de adotar para aumentar o emprego jovem. O anexo 3 do documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão

3.

Os dados do Inquérito Europeu às Forças de Trabalho do segundo trimestre de 2012 mostraram que 489 000 trabalhadores entre os 15 e os 24 anos de idade residiam noutro país da UE (ou seja, 2,6 % do total da população jovem empregada). Isto representa uma diminuição em comparação com o que se verificava antes da crise (544 000 no segundo trimestre de 2007). Para a classe de idade 25-29, a tendência é diferente: cerca de 981 000 trabalhadores residiam noutro país da UE (ou seja, 4,2 % da população empregada com idades entre os 25 e os 29 anos), o que constitui um aumento em comparação com os dados de há cinco anos (868 000 no segundo trimestre de 2007).

1.

No seu Pacote de Emprego dos Jovens

 (145), a Comissão propõe uma recomendação do Conselho que incentiva os Estados-Membros a criarem uma garantia para a juventude. As negociações no Conselho já foram iniciadas em dezembro de 2012 tendo em vista a sua adoção no início de 2013. De igual modo, a proposta inclui recomendações específicas que convidam a Comissão a apoiar iniciativas de sensibilização relativas à criação de garantias para a juventude.

2.

A Comissão congratula-se com as várias medidas que os Estados-Membros adotaram ou estão em vias de adotar para aumentar o emprego jovem. O anexo 3 do documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão

 (146) que serve de apoio à comunicação principal (147) dá uma visão global completa destas medidas. A Comissão propôs a recomendação acima mencionada por ter em consideração os altos níveis de desemprego jovem persistentes e por se ter inspirado em políticas positivas baseadas em provas em toda a UE.

3.

Os dados do Inquérito Europeu às Forças de Trabalho do segundo trimestre de 2012 mostraram que 489 000 trabalhadores entre os 15 e os 24 anos de idade residiam noutro país da UE (ou seja, 2,6 % do total da população jovem empregada). Isto representa uma diminuição em comparação com o que se verificava antes da crise (544 000 no segundo trimestre de 2007). Para a classe de idade 25-29, a tendência é diferente: cerca de 981 000 trabalhadores residiam noutro país da UE (ou seja, 4,2 % da população empregada com idades entre os 25 e os 29 anos), o que constitui um aumento em comparação com os dados de há cinco anos (868 000 no segundo trimestre de 2007).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011259/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Youth Employment

Taking into account that:

in June 2012, the youth unemployment rate (i.e. among workers under 25) was 22.5% in the European Union, giving a total of 5.5 million young people out of work, and 22.6% in the euro area, equivalent to 3.4 million unemployed. This social scourge has worsened in recent months: compared with June 2011, the number of young people out of work has increased by 182 000 in the EU-27, and by 204 000 in the euro area;

the lowest youth unemployment rates are in Germany (8%), Austria (8.9%) and the Netherlands (9.2%). The highest are Greece (53.8% in April 2012) and Spain (52.9%);

Portugal still has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the EU, currently standing at 36.4%. This represents a 7.1% increase on the June 2011 rate (29.3%);

on 28 November, the Commission approved the Annual Growth Survey for next year, in which it earmarked the fight against youth unemployment as a strategic priority;

according to the Commission, the Annual Growth Survey also invites Member States to develop a ‘youth guarantee’ whereby every person under the age of 25 receives an offer of a job, further study or traineeship within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed;

the Commission will present a full proposal on ‘youth guarantees’ in its Youth Employment Package on 5 December;

I would therefore ask the Commission:

How does it plan to raise the Member States’ awareness of the new ‘youth guarantees’?

What is the Commission’s view of the various measures aimed at supporting youth employment in the European Union?

Does the Commission know how many young people are currently working outside their own countries of origin and whether this is a growing trend throughout the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

1.

In its Youth Employment Package

 (148)

2.

The Commission welcomes the various measures that Member States have adopted or are about to adopt to boost youth employment. A full overview can be found in Annex 3 of the Staff Working Document

 (149)  (150)

1.

In its Youth Employment Package

2.

The Commission welcomes the various measures that Member States have adopted or are about to adopt to boost youth employment. A full overview can be found in Annex 3 of the Staff Working Document

3.

EU-Labour Force Survey data for the second quarter of 2012 showed 489 000 workers aged 15-24 residing in another EU country (or 2.6% of the overall young population in employment). This represents a decline compared to the pre-crisis situation (544 000 in the second quarter of 2007). For the age class 25-29, the trend is different: around 981 000 workers resided in another EU country (or 4.2% of those aged 25-29 in employment), an increase compared to five years ago (868 000 in the second quarter of 2007).

1.

In its Youth Employment Package

 (148), the Commission proposes a Council recommendation calling the Member States to establish a Youth Guarantee. Negotiations have started already in the Council in December 2012 with a view to its adoption in early 2013. Equally, the proposal includes a specific recommendation inviting the Commission to support awareness-raising activities on the setting up of Youth Guarantees.

2.

The Commission welcomes the various measures that Member States have adopted or are about to adopt to boost youth employment. A full overview can be found in Annex 3 of the Staff Working Document

 (149) supporting the main Communication (150). It is by taking into account the persisting high levels of youth unemployment and inspired by positive evidence based policies across the EU, that the Commission proposed the abovementioned recommendation.

3.

EU-Labour Force Survey data for the second quarter of 2012 showed 489 000 workers aged 15-24 residing in another EU country (or 2.6% of the overall young population in employment). This represents a decline compared to the pre-crisis situation (544 000 in the second quarter of 2007). For the age class 25-29, the trend is different: around 981 000 workers resided in another EU country (or 4.2% of those aged 25-29 in employment), an increase compared to five years ago (868 000 in the second quarter of 2007).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011260/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Programas de Assistência Financeira

Tendo em conta que:

Vários países europeus estão sob assistência financeira, sendo a Comissão Europeia um dos principais intervenientes nestes programas de apoio.

Portugal, à semelhança da Grécia, Irlanda, Espanha e, já recentemente, França, está a fazer inúmeros esforços no sentido de melhorar a sustentabilidade das suas contas públicas, devendo diminuir os impostos sobre o rendimento, conforme é agora sugerido pela Comissão Europeia.

A Comissão Europeia aprovou, no passado dia 28 de novembro, a Análise Anual do Crescimento para o próximo ano, definindo o combate ao desemprego jovem como uma prioridade estratégica.

Segundo a Comissão Europeia, a «Análise Anual do Crescimento» coloca a ênfase na proteção dos mais vulneráveis. Os impostos sobre o rendimento e as contribuições para a segurança social devem ser reduzidos, nomeadamente no que respeita aos trabalhadores com salários mais baixos, e devem ser aceleradas as reformas destinadas a simplificar a legislação laboral e a desenvolver regimes de trabalho flexíveis, bem como a garantir que a evolução salarial seja favorável à criação de emprego.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Como avalia o facto de, nos programas de ajustamento financeiros realizados com vários Estados-Membros, defender o aumento de impostos para compensar a subida dos gastos sociais e agora, na Análise Anual de Crescimento, defender a diminuição dos impostos sobre o rendimento?

Sabendo desta nova posição, está a Comissão disponível para rever os acordos de assistência financeira realizados com os Estados-Membros?

Tendo conhecimento de que a Comissão é apenas uma das 3 instituições internacionais que supervisionam os programas de ajustamento, está disponível para sensibilizar as restantes para a importância de manter os rendimentos de trabalho inalteráveis?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Análise Anual do Crescimento (AAC) apresenta uma abordagem diferenciada e global do restabelecimento da produção sustentável e do crescimento do emprego nos Estados-Membros da UE. Em especial, no que respeita aos Estados-Membros que beneficiam de assistência financeira, a AAC salienta a necessidade de um esforço determinado para colocar as finanças públicas numa trajetória sustentável, a fim de restabelecer a confiança dos investidores, reduzir os custos do reembolso da dívida e criar margem de manobra orçamental para políticas orçamentais favoráveis ao crescimento. Propõe igualmente uma redução da carga fiscal nos Estados-Membros onde é comparativamente elevada e entrava a criação de emprego.

No caso dos Estados-Membros beneficiários de assistência financeira, a correção dos elevados défices públicos é uma prioridade. Para que esta correção seja sustentável, os programas de ajustamento centram-se na consolidação orçamental baseada nas despesas. No entanto, tendo em conta a envergadura do ajustamento necessário, uma consolidação feita exclusivamente do lado da despesa é difícil porque, a curto prazo, implica riscos para o bom funcionamento do Estado. Por este motivo, e tendo igualmente em conta o facto de a carga fiscal nestes países ser bastante inferior à média da UE, os programas também incluem um aumento da mesma. A mais longo prazo, estes aumentos de impostos devem ser substituídos, na medida do possível, por medidas suplementares de redução das despesas.

No âmbito das análises regulares dos programas de ajustamento, a Comissão aprecia, em estreita consulta com os outros membros da troica, todas as questões pertinentes para o programa, incluindo reformas estruturais destinadas a aumentar a competitividade da economia e o potencial de crescimento, o que constitui a base fundamental para um nível adequado de rendimentos do trabalho.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011260/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Financial assistance programmes

Given that:

various European countries are receiving financial assistance, and the Commission is one of the main players in these support programmes;

Portugal, together with Greece, Ireland, Spain and — most recently — France, is making a huge effort to improve the long-term sustainability of its public finances, and must lower its income tax rates, in line with what the Commission is now proposing;

on 28 November the Commission adopted its Annual Growth Survey 2013, earmarking action to tackle youth unemployment as a strategic priority; and

according to the Commission, the Annual Growth Survey will particularly target protecting the most vulnerable groups in society. Income tax rates and social security contributions should be cut, particularly in the case of the lowest wage earners. At the same time, action should be stepped up on reforms to simplify labour legislation and extend flexible working arrangements, as well as to ensure that wage trends have a positive impact on job creation;

I would therefore ask the Commission:

How does it view the fact that the fiscal adjustment programmes introduced with a number of Member States defend tax hikes to compensate for the increase in welfare payments, whereas the Annual Growth Survey advocates cutting income tax rates?

Given this change in position, does the Commission intend to review the fiscal adjustment programmes that have been introduced with the Member States?

Since the Commission is just one of three international bodies overseeing the fiscal adjustment programmes, does it intend to raise the awareness of the other international bodies as to the importance of maintaining current levels of labour income?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Annual Growth Survey (AGS) presents a comprehensive and differentiated approach of restoring sustainable output and employment growth in the EU Member States. In particular, with regard to Member States receiving financial assistance, the AGS emphasises the need for a determined effort to put public finances on a sustainable path in order to restore investor confidence, reduce the costs of debt repayment and create budgetary room for growth-enhancing fiscal policies. It also proposes a reduction in the tax burden in Member States where this is comparatively high and hampers job creation.

For Member States receiving financial assistance the correction of the high public deficits is a priority. In order to make this correction sustainable, the adjustment programmes focus on expenditure-based fiscal consolidation. However, in view of the large adjustment needs an exclusively expenditure-based consolidation is difficult as in the short term it entails risks to the well-functioning of the state. For this reason, and also in view of the fact that the tax burden in these countries is substantially below the average in the EU the programmes also include a targeted increase in the tax burden. In the longer-term, such tax increases should be replaced to the extent possible by further measures reducing expenditure.

In the framework of the regular reviews of the adjustment programmes, the Commission consults very closely with the other troika members on all matters relevant to the programme, including structural reforms aimed at raising the economy's competitiveness and growth potential which is the fundamental basis for an adequate level of labour incomes.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011261/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Preservação das comunidades piscatórias, seu modo de vida e tradições

Segundo a própria Comissão, a política agrícola da UE propõe-se conciliar uma produção alimentar adequada na UE, garantindo, paralelamente, a viabilidade económica das comunidades rurais e contribuindo para fazer face a desafios ambientais, como as alterações climáticas, a gestão dos recursos hídricos, a bioenergia e a biodiversidade. Em todos os Estados-Membros da UE, os agricultores mantêm o espaço rural vivo e contribuem para a conservação do modo de vida rural. Se não existissem explorações agrícolas nem agricultores, as nossas aldeias, vilas e pequenas cidades seriam profundamente afetadas — no pior sentido.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Assume idêntica atitude para com as comunidades piscatórias? Reconhece a existência de um paralelismo entre a situação dos agricultores e dos pescadores, nomeadamente quanto ao seu papel social e ambiental?

Reconhece a necessidade de preservar as comunidades piscatórias, o seu modo de vida e as suas tradições?

Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

As comunidades piscatórias desempenham um papel importante no tecido socioeconómico das zonas dependentes da pesca. Conceder-lhes apoio é essencial para o êxito da política comum das pescas reformada.

2.

O apoio às comunidades piscatórias é importante e deve ir além da preservação do seu modo de vida tradicional. O setor das pescas está a atravessar tempos de mudança, o que tem fortes repercussões no emprego e na qualidade de vida das zonas dependentes da pesca. Para que estas comunidades permaneçam sustentáveis, é importante ajudá-las a fazerem face às mudanças. Este apoio pode assumir diferentes formas, nomeadamente ajuda à valorização, a nível local, das suas capturas ou à diversificação das suas atividades, por exemplo desenvolvendo produtos turísticos baseados na pesca.

3.

A Comissão considera que é às zonas dependentes da pesca que cabe definir as suas necessidades e prioridades. Desde 2007, o Fundo Europeu das Pescas tem vindo a apoiar grupos de desenvolvimento local nas zonas dependentes da pesca, ajudando-os a definir e a aplicar estratégias integradas de desenvolvimento local. Atualmente estão ativos 303 grupos deste tipo e já foram apoiados cerca de 3 000 projetos. Na sua proposta para o futuro Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e das Pescas, a Comissão propôs que estes grupos possam beneficiar de apoio europeu suplementar proveniente de outros fundos de gestão partilhada (Feader, FEAMP, FEDER e FSE), no quadro das estratégias de desenvolvimento local lideradas pelas comunidades locais.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011261/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Safeguarding fishing communities, their way of life and their traditions

According to the Commission, the aim of the EU’s farm policy is to ensure that adequate European food production goes hand in hand with economically viable rural communities and action on environmental challenges such as climate change, water management, bioenergy and biodiversity. In all EU Member States, farmers keep the countryside alive and maintain the rural way of life. If there were no farms or farmers, our hamlets, villages and market towns would be profoundly affected — for the worse.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Does it believe the same policy should apply to fishing communities? Does it agree that a parallel can be drawn between the position of farmers and that of fishermen, in particular as regards the social and environmental role they play?

Does it agree that fishing communities, their way of life and their traditions need to be safeguarded?

What action has it taken or will it take to achieve this?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

1.

Fishing communities play an important role in the socioeconomic fabric of fisheries-dependent areas. Supporting them is essential for the success of a reformed Common Fisheries Policy.

2.

Support for fishing communities is important and should go beyond safeguarding their traditional way of life. The fisheries sector is undergoing times of change and this has a strong impact on jobs and the quality of life in those areas dependent on fishing. It is important to help these communities address these changes to remain sustainable. This support can take different forms, including helping these communities to add more value locally to their catches or diversifying their activities for example by the development of tourist products based on fishing.

3.

The Commission is of the opinion that it is at the level of fisheries-dependent areas that needs and priorities should be defined. The European Fisheries Fund supports since 2007 local development groups in fisheries-dependent areas, helping them define and implement integrated local development strategies. 303 of these groups are now in activity and nearly 3.000 projects have already been supported. In its proposal for the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Commission has proposed to allow these groups to access further European support from other shared management funds (EAFRD, EMFF, ERDF and ESF) in the framework of Community-Led Local Development.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011262/12

ao Conselho

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia

O Diretor-Geral do OLAF, Giovanni Kessler, apelou recentemente ao estabelecimento de uma procuradoria de justiça europeia enquanto instituição europeia formal como forma de fazer face à corrupção a nível europeu.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Considera pertinente este apelo?

Que comentários lhe merece?

Assumiu alguma posição sobre esta matéria?

Em sua opinião, como deveria articular-se com os ordenamentos jurídicos nacionais?

Não crê que uma procuradoria europeia poderia pôr em causa o princípio da subsidiariedade e a independência judicial dos Estados‐Membros? Por que forma poderia evitar-se estas consequências?

Resposta

(25 de fevereiro de 2013)

Nos termos do artigo 86.° do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia, introduzido pelo Tratado de Lisboa, «a fim de combater as infrações lesivas dos interesses financeiros da União », o Conselho, deliberando por unanimidade após aprovação do Parlamento Europeu, pode instituir uma Procuradoria Europeia por meio de regulamentos e com base numa proposta legislativa da Comissão. Até à data, a Comissão ainda não apresentou qualquer proposta nesse sentido.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011262/12

to the Council

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: European public prosecutor's office

Giovanni Kessler, Director-General of OLAF, recently called for the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office as a formal EU institution in order to combat corruption at EU level.

I would therefore ask the Council:

Does it consider this call to be relevant?

Does it have any comments to make?

Has it reached a position on the subject?

How does the Council consider that a European public prosecutor’s office should intermesh with national legal systems?

Does the Council not think that a European public prosecutor’s office would compromise the principle of subsidiarity and judicial independence of Member States? How could these consequences be avoided?

Reply

(25 February 2013)

Pursuant to Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, ‘in order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union’ the Council, acting unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office by means of regulations and on the basis of a legislative proposal from the Commission. So far, no such proposal has been submitted by the Commission.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011263/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia

O Diretor-Geral do OLAF, Giovanni Kessler, apelou recentemente ao estabelecimento de uma procuradoria de justiça europeia enquanto instituição europeia formal como forma de fazer face à corrupção a nível europeu.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Considera pertinente este apelo?

Que comentários lhe merece?

Assumiu alguma posição sobre esta matéria?

Em sua opinião, como deveria articular-se com os ordenamentos jurídicos nacionais?

Não crê que uma procuradoria europeia poderia pôr em causa o princípio da subsidiariedade e a independência judicial dos Estados-Membros? Por que forma poderia evitar-se estas consequências?

Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão

(22 de fevereiro de 2013)

A criação de uma Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia, a partir da Eurojust, em conformidade com o artigo 86.° do TFUE, faz parte do Programa de Trabalho da Comissão para 2013. O Presidente José Manuel Barroso confirmou no seu discurso no Parlamento Europeu sobre o estado da União 2012 que a Comissão apresentará uma proposta em 2013.

A Comissão está atualmente a realizar as necessárias consultas e trabalhos preparatórios tendo em vista a preparação de uma proposta. Os trabalhos preparatórios ainda não estão concluídos.

Uma Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia terá de trabalhar em estreita cooperação com as autoridades nacionais responsáveis pela aplicação da lei, dado que, em conformidade com o artigo 86.° do TFUE, os processos judiciais deverão ser apresentados nos tribunais nacionais.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011263/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: European public prosecutor's office

Giovanni Kessler, Director-General of OLAF, recently called for the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office as a formal EU institution in order to combat corruption at EU level.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Does it consider this call to be relevant?

Does it have any comments to make?

Has it reached a position on the subject?

How does the Commission consider that a European public prosecutor’s office should intermesh with national legal systems?

Does the Commission not think that a European public prosecutor’s office would compromise the principle of subsidiarity and judicial independence of Member States? How could these consequences be avoided?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), from Eurojust in accordance with Article 86 TFEU, is included in the Commission Work Programme for 2013. President Barroso has confirmed in his 2012 state of the Union speech before the European Parliament that the Commission will present a proposal in 2013.

The Commission is currently conducting the necessary consultations and preparatory works in view of preparing a proposal. The preparatory works are not yet finalised.

An EPPO will need to work in close cooperation with national law enforcement authorities as its prosecution cases have to be brought to national courts in accordance with Article 86 TFEU.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011264/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Europeana: futuro ponto de referência para as tradições musicais da Europa

Em resposta à minha pergunta escrita E-008649/2012, a comissária Androulla Vassiliou declarou, em nome da Comissão que: «O Europeana já disponibiliza conteúdos relevantes para o ensino da música. A recomendação da Comissão sobre a digitalização, a acessibilidade em linha de material cultural e a preservação digital convida os Estados-Membros a incentivar as instituições culturais, os editores e outros detentores de direitos de autor a disponibilizar o seu material digital através do Europeana. Tal ajudará a projetar este sítio Web como ponto de referência para as tradições musicais da Europa.»

Depreendo da resposta recebida que, não obstante a sua relevância, os conteúdos disponibilizados não são ainda suficientes para projetar o Europeana como ponto de referência para as tradições musicais da Europa.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que resposta obteve por parte das instituições culturais, os editores e outros detentores de direitos de autor quanto à disponibilização do seu material digital no Europeana?

Considera que o convite que formulou tem surtido o efeito pretendido? Admite vir a tomar novas medidas que o promovam?

Resposta dada por Neelie Kroes em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

Enquanto ponto único de acesso ao património cultural da Europa, a Europeana oferece atualmente acesso a mais de 23,5 milhões de bens culturais (151), propriedade de cerca de 2 200 instituições culturais de toda a Europa. Estes bens abrangem diversos aspetos do património, nomeadamente livros impressos antigos, artes do espetáculo e moda, mas igualmente tradições musicais.

Para além de incluir exposições temáticas, oferecendo aos visitantes a possibilidade de, por exemplo, explorar o mundo dos instrumentos musicais (152), a Europeana promove a reutilização das suas coleções pelas comunidades criativas e culturais (153).

A Recomendação sobre a digitalização e a acessibilidade em linha de material cultural e a preservação digital (154) reconhece que os conteúdos protegidos por direitos de autor, nomeadamente material sonoro ou audiovisual, não estão representados de forma adequada na Europeana. Estabelece, por conseguinte, de forma específica que 2 dos 30 milhões de objetos que as instituições culturais nos Estados-Membros devem a ajudar a Europeana a disponibilizar até 2015 devem ser material sonoro ou audiovisual, e convida ainda os Estados‐Membros a melhorarem as condições para a digitalização e acessibilidade em linha de material protegido por direitos de autor.

Para reforçar os progressos a realizar nestes domínios, o programa de trabalho do Programa de Apoio à Política em matéria de TIC do Programa-Quadro para a Competitividade e a Inovação para 2013 dá preferência à agregação de material audiovisual, a fim de melhorar a base dos conteúdos (155) da Europeana, enquanto as propostas para o Mecanismo Interligar a Europa (2014-2020) (156) prevêem um apoio à agregação de novos domínios de conteúdos e domínios sub‐representados para a Europeana.

Paralelamente, a Comissão está a lançar um diálogo entre os intervenientes sobre «Licenças para a Europa» (157), a fim de ajudar o setor a encontrar soluções inovadoras para um melhor acesso aos conteúdos em linha, devendo apresentar as suas conclusões e soluções até ao final de 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011264/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Europeana: a future point of reference for musical traditions in Europe

In response to my Written Question E-008649/2012, Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou replied as follows on behalf of the Commission: ‘Europeana already provides content relevant to music teaching. The Commission Recommendation on the digitisation, online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation invites Member States to encourage cultural institutions, publishers and other right holders to make their digitised material accessible through Europeana. This will help the site to become a reference point for Europe’s musical traditions’.

On the basis of this response, and notwithstanding its relevance, I presume that the content is still not sufficient to make Europeana a point of reference for musical traditions in Europe.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

What response has it had from cultural institutions, editors and other copyright owners on the issue of whether their digital material can be made available via Europeana?

Does the Commission regard the invitation it has made as having been successful? Is it considering taking other measures?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

As the single access point to Europe's cultural heritage, Europeana currently provides access to over 23.5m cultural objects (158) held by some 2,200 cultural institutions from all across Europe. These objects address diverse aspects of culture, including early printed books, performing arts, fashion, but also musical traditions.

Besides featuring thematic exhibitions, offering its visitors the possibility to e.g. explore the world of musical instruments (159), Europeana promotes the re-use of its collections by creative and cultural communities (160).

The recommendation on the digitisation and the online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation (161) acknowledges that in-copyright content, including sound or audiovisual material, is ill represented on Europeana. It therefore stipulates specifically that 2m out of the 30m objects the cultural institutions in the MS should help Europeana make accessible by 2015 should be sound or audiovisual material, and further invites the Member States to improve the conditions for the digitisation and online accessibility of in-copyright material.

To reinforce progress in these areas, the CIP ICT PSP work programme for 2013 gives preference to the aggregation of audiovisual material to improve the Europeana content base (162), while the proposals for the Connecting Europe Facility (2014-2020) (163) foresee support for aggregation of new and underrepresented content domains for Europeana.

In parallel, the Commission is launching a stakeholder dialogue on ‘Licences for Europe’ (164) to help the industry deliver innovative solutions for greater access to online content. It should deliver its conclusions and solutions by the end of 2013.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011265/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Aumento de emissões globais de dióxido de carbono

Notícias recentes dão conta de um relatório do East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research que aponta para um aumento das emissões globais de dióxido de carbono e que alerta para os riscos para a população e para a natureza se não for invertida esta tendência. Segundo o mesmo estudo, as emissões globais de 2012 ultrapassaram em 58 % as de 1990, tendo atingido o número recorde de 35,6 mil milhões de toneladas.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento destes indicadores?

Quem são, neste momento, os maiores poluidores mundiais?

Que contributos dá para inverter esta tendência? Nomeadamente, que instrumentos utiliza para promover a redução das emissões de dióxido de carbono interna e externamente? Como avalia a sua eficácia?

Qual a melhor forma de conciliar o direito ao ambiente com o direito ao desenvolvimento dos povos?

Resposta dada por Connie Hedegaard em nome da Comissão

(7 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

A Comissão tem conhecimento dos indicadores referidos pelo Senhor Deputado.

2.

De acordo com os últimos dados da

Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research trends

, os cinco países com maiores emissões de CO

2

a nível mundial em 2011 foram a China (29 %), os Estados Unidos da América (16 %), a UE (11 %), a Índia (6 %) e a Federação da Rússia (5 %). As emissões de CO

2

representam 77 % das emissões de gases com efeito estufa.

3.

Em Copenhaga, a comunidade internacional reconheceu como objetivo geral para a ação climática manter o aquecimento mundial abaixo dos 2 °C, de forma a evitar impactos perigosos e potencialmente catastróficos. Embora países que representam mais de 80 % das emissões mundiais tenham prometido estabelecer metas internas, uma análise do PNUA mostra que, infelizmente, os compromissos de Quioto e as promessas incondicionais de Copenhaga-Cancun representam, no máximo, 1/3 das reduções de emissões necessárias até 2020. Por esta razão, a UE está empenhada no debate com os parceiros internacionais de maneiras de reduzir este desfasamento. Além disso, o pacote Clima e Energia adotado pela UE contém um vasto conjunto de medidas a tomar pela União Europeia para fazer face às alterações climáticas. A eficácia destas medidas é avaliada no quadro das obrigações de monitorização ao nível da UE e a nível internacional.

4.

Não existe contradição alguma entre o direito dos povos ao desenvolvimento e o direito a ter um ambiente despoluído. Pelo contrário, tal como revela um relatório recente do Banco Mundial

4.

Não existe contradição alguma entre o direito dos povos ao desenvolvimento e o direito a ter um ambiente despoluído. Pelo contrário, tal como revela um relatório recente do Banco Mundial

 (165), não limitar as alterações climáticas porá em risco o desenvolvimento e a erradicação da pobreza. A experiência da europeia mostra que é possível dissociar o aumento das emissões do crescimento económico, uma vez que, nas duas últimas décadas, a redução das emissões foi de 18 % e o crescimento económico de 48 %.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011265/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Increase in global carbon dioxide emissions

Recent news reports have referred to a report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in East Anglia, which states that there has been an increase in global carbon dioxide emissions and warns of the risks to the population and nature if this trend cannot be reversed. According to the report, global emissions in 2012 exceeded emission levels in 1990 by 58%, and have now reached the record level of 35.6 billion tonnes.

I would therefore ask the Commission.

1.

Is it aware of these figures?

2.

Who, at present, are the largest worldwide polluters?

3.

What steps is it taking to reverse this trend? Specifically, what instruments is it using to encourage the reduction of carbon dioxide emission both internally and externally? How is it examining the effectiveness of such measures?

4.

What is the best way to reconcile the right to an environment and the right of populations to develop?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

1.

Yes, the Commission is aware of the data mentioned by the Honourable Member.

2.

According to latest figures from the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research trends, the five largest CO

2

emitters worldwide in 2011 have been China (29%), the United States (16%), the EU (11%), India (6%) and the Russian Federation (5%). CO

2

emissions represent 77% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

3.

In Copenhagen, the international community recognised limiting global warming below 2°C as the overall ambition level for climate action in order to be able to prevent dangerous and potentially catastrophic impacts. While countries representing more than 80% of global emissions have pledged domestic targets, a UNEP analysis shows that, unfortunately, the Kyoto commitments and the unconditional Copenhagen-Cancun pledges amount to at most 1/3 of the required emission reductions by 2020. Hence the EU is engaging proactively in discussions with international partners on how to close the ambition gap. Moreover, with the climate and energy package, the EU has developed a comprehensive set of measures to address climate change at EU level. The effectiveness of these measures is examined through the EU and international monitoring obligations.

4.

There is no contradiction between the right of populations to develop and the right to a clean environment. On the contrary, as a recent World Bank report

4.

There is no contradiction between the right of populations to develop and the right to a clean environment. On the contrary, as a recent World Bank report

 (166) shows, unabated climate change will undermine development and poverty eradication. Decoupling emissions from economic growth is possible as Europe’s experience shows, since over the past two decades emissions reduced by 18% while the economy grew by 48%.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011266/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Biocombustíveis

Em resposta à minha pergunta escrita E-009442/2012, o senhor comissário Günther Oettinger declarou, em nome da Comissão que: «A Diretiva Energias Renováveis da UE inclui requisitos de monitorização e apresentação de relatórios para os Estados-Membros e a Comissão sobre vários aspetos da política de biocombustíveis da UE, incluindo o seu impacto na segurança alimentar. A Comissão deve propor, se for caso disso, medidas corretivas, nomeadamente se existirem elementos que atestem que a produção de biocombustíveis tem um impacto considerável sobre o preço dos géneros alimentícios. O primeiro relatório bianual da Comissão será brevemente publicado.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Quando será publicado o referido relatório? Pode destacar desde já alguns dos seus elementos?

Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão

(5 de fevereiro de 2013)

O primeiro relatório bianual da Comissão no âmbito da Diretiva Energias Renováveis (167) será publicado no primeiro trimestre de 2013.

Foram já publicados vários documentos que contêm informações pertinentes no que se refere aos requisitos de monitorização e de apresentação de relatórios para os Estados‐Membros e a Comissão sobre os impactos da política de biocombustíveis da UE, entre os quais os seguintes:

Relatórios apresentados pelos Estados-Membros à Comissão em conformidade com o artigo 22.° da Diretiva Energias Renováveis. Estes relatórios fornecem, designadamente, informações sobre a flutuação dos preços das matérias-primas e a utilização dos solos nos Estados‐Membros associadas à utilização crescente da biomassa e de outras formas de energia proveniente de fontes renováveis. Todos os relatórios dos Estados-Membros estão disponíveis no sítio Web da Comissão (168).

Uma avaliação de impacto, publicada juntamente com a proposta de diretiva que altera a Diretiva Energias Renováveis e a Diretiva Qualidade dos Combustíveis (169), incluindo informações e estatísticas sobre os aspetos da produção de biocombustíveis ligados à utilização dos solos que também são relevantes para a segurança alimentar.

As estatísticas e análises mais recentes sobre a energia proveniente de fontes renováveis publicadas pelo Eurostat, incluindo informações sobre a produção e utilização dos biocombustíveis (170).

Em geral, estes documentos confirmam que, em 2010, 83 % dos biocombustíveis consumidos na UE foram produzidos na própria UE; uma parte destes foi produzida a partir de matérias-primas importadas. Os principais países exportadores de biodiesel para a UE foram a Argentina, o Brasil e os EUA no que se refere ao biodiesel derivado principalmente da soja, e a Indonésia e a Malásia no que diz respeito ao biodiesel derivado principalmente do óleo de palma. No que toca à produção de bioetanol, os principais países exportadores foram o Brasil, no que respeita ao bioetanol derivado da cana-de-açúcar, e os EUA, no que se refere ao bioetanol derivado do milho.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011266/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Biofuels

In response to my Written Question E-009442/2012, Commissioner Günther Oettinger has replied, on behalf of the Commission, that: ‘the EU Renewable Energy Directive includes monitoring and reporting requirements for the Member States and the Commission on several aspects of EU biofuel policy, including its impact on food security. If appropriate, the Commission has to propose corrective action, in particular if evidence shows that biofuel production has a significant impact on food prices. The first biannual report of the Commission will be published shortly.’

I would therefore ask the Commission:

When will the report referred to above be published? Would the Commission be willing at this stage to divulge some of the contents of the report?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The first biannual report of the Commission under the Renewable Energy Directive (171) will be published in the first quarter of 2013.

Several documents containing information with relevance to the monitoring and reporting requirements of Member States and the Commission on the impacts of EU biofuels policy have already been published, including the following:

Reports submitted by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 22 of the Renewable Energy Directive. These reports provide, inter alia, information on changes in commodity prices and land use within Member States associated with increased use of biomass and other forms of energy from renewable sources. All reports from Member States are available on the Commission's website (172).

An Impact Assessment published together with the proposal for a directive amending the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive (173) including information and statistics on land-use related aspects of biofuel production which are also of relevance to food security.

The latest statistics and analysis on energy from renewable sources published by Eurostat, including information on the production and use of biofuels (174).

In general, these documents confirm that in 2010, 83% of the biofuels consumed in the EU were produced in the EU, part of which was produced from imported feedstock. The main countries exporting biodiesel to the EU were Argentina, Brazil and the USA for biodiesel derived mainly from soy, and Indonesia and Malaysia for biodiesel derived mainly from palm oil. For bioethanol, the main exporting countries were Brazil for sugarcane bioethanol, and the USA for maize bioethanol.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011267/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Cuba: lei em matéria de migração — resultados práticos

Em resposta à minha pergunta escrita E-009489/2012, a Senhora Vice-Presidente declarou, em nome da Comissão: «Aquando da adoção da nova lei em matéria de migração, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente expressou o seu desejo de que a lei fosse amplamente aplicada»

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Dispõe de informações quanto ao modo como a lei vem sendo aplicada?

Nomeadamente, os membros da oposição democrática têm tido tratamento idêntico ao dos demais cidadãos cubanos no tocante às facilidades de sair e regressar a Cuba?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(7 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

A lei entra em vigor em 14 de janeiro. As informações públicas mais recentes apontam no sentido de o novo sistema estar pronto para arrancar, estando 195 serviços em todo o país a preparar-se para dar início à emissão de novos passaportes ou à atualização dos atuais. A Delegação da UE em Havana e os Estados-Membros acompanharão o impacto da entrada em vigor da nova regulamentação sobre os pedidos de vistos Schengen.

2.

Como indicado acima, ainda não é possível avaliar o impacto da nova lei sobre um grupo específico da população. A nova lei prevê algumas limitações à liberdade de viajar. Na sua declaração de 18 de outubro de 2012, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente expressou o seu desejo de que a lei fosse amplamente aplicada.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011267/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: HR/VP — Cuba: migration law — practical results

In response to my Written Question E-009489/2012, you stated on the Commission’s behalf: ‘On the occasion of the adoption of the new migration law, the HR/VP expressed the wish that this law is broadly implemented.’

I should therefore like to ask you:

Do you have any information as to how the law has been applied?

In particular, have members of the democratic opposition received the same treatment as other Cuban citizens in terms of being free to leave and return to Cuba?

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

(7 February 2013)

1.

The law will come into effect starting from 14 January. The latest public information is that the new system is ready to take off, with 195 offices throughout the country getting prepared to start delivering new passports or updating current ones. The EU Delegation in Havana and Member States will monitor the impact on requests for Schengen visas further to the new regulations.

2.

As above, it is not yet possible to assess the impact of the new law on a specific population target group. The new law includes a number of limitations to free travelling. The HR/VP expressed hope in her statement of 18 October 2012 that the law will be broadly implemented.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-011268/12

à la Commission

Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL)

(10 décembre 2012)

Objet: Politique industrielle en Europe

Le secteur industriel est nécessaire au développement économique et social de l'Union européenne. Défendre notre patrimoine industriel constitue dès lors une exigence d'intérêt général.

Nombre d'emplois ont été détruits dans l'industrie manufacturière. Nos capacités de production ont été fortement réduites. Ce processus a été accéléré par la crise économique ravageuse qui a débuté en 2007. Ainsi à l'heure actuelle, le nombre d'emplois dans l'industrie en Europe est de 11 % inférieur à celui de 2008.

Pourtant, l'industrie constitue une activité phare de l'économie européenne. Elle produit la majorité des exportations de l'Union et concentre 70 % des dépenses de recherche et développement.

En France, la filière acier vient de subir un coup terrible avec les menaces de fermeture de l'usine de Florange détenue par le consortium Mittal, premier producteur européen d'acier.

La Commission a annoncé, dans plusieurs communications relatives au secteur industriel et à la stratégie Europe 2020, vouloir faire passer de 16 à 20 % la part de l'industrie dans le PIB européen. Par ailleurs, elle ne change pas de stratégie politique et économique misant toujours sur un marché de plus en plus concurrentiel.

Alors qu'il est chaque jour davantage évident que cette stratégie n'a pas réussi à maintenir l'emploi industriel en Europe, la Commission peut-elle indiquer les mécanismes concrets envisagés pour promouvoir et défendre l'industrie en Europe? Pourrait-elle également indiquer si elle compte ou non revoir sa conception de la politique industrielle basée uniquement sur les mécanismes de marché?

Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission

(23 janvier 2013)

En octobre 2010, la Commission a élaboré une politique industrielle intégrée à long terme dans le cadre de la stratégie Europe 2020. La dernière mise à jour de cette stratégie date du 10 octobre 2012: elle a pour objectif de s'attaquer aux graves conséquences de l'actuelle crise économique en apportant des résultats susceptibles de contribuer, à court terme, à la relance économique et, à moyen et long terme, à la croissance.

Le Conseil «Compétitivité» a approuvé cette stratégie, qui est plus axée sur l'action que par le passé et qui mise sur une réaction commune des autorités européennes (nationales et régionales) et du secteur industriel pour s'atteler aux problèmes auxquels doit faire face aujourd'hui l'industrie européenne. Dans le contexte de cette politique industrielle ainsi actualisée, six lignes d'action prioritaires ont été définies, qui devraient aider à stimuler l'investissement dans les secteurs émergents, certes, mais aussi dans les industries traditionnelles comme l'automobile ou la sidérurgie.

La stratégie prévoit également des mesures visant à ouvrir de nouveaux débouchés pour l'industrie sur le marché intérieur, qui connaît actuellement une période de relative stagnation, et sur les marchés mondiaux, qui affichent encore des taux de croissance nettement supérieurs à ceux du marché intérieur. Un défi majeur pour l'industrie de l'Union est d'exploiter au mieux les possibilités offertes par les marchés étrangers émergents, en particulier pour les PME, lesquelles continuent à afficher un taux d'internationalisation relativement faible en dehors du marché intérieur.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011268/12

to the Commission

Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Industrial policy in Europe

The industrial sector is essential for the European Union’s economic and social development. It is therefore in the public interest to defend our industrial heritage.

Countless jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry and our production capacities have been slashed; a process that has only been exacerbated by the financial crisis that has ravaged Europe since 2007. There are now 11% fewer manufacturing jobs in Europe than in 2008.

Manufacturing is, however, a flagship sector of the European economy, which is responsible for 70% of EU exports and attracts 70% of spending on research and development.

France’s steel industry was recently dealt a severe blow with the threatened closure of the factory in Florange owned by the Arcelor-Mittal consortium, Europe’s leading steel producer.

In numerous recent papers on the manufacturing sector and the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission has stated its aim of increasing manufacturing’s share of European GDP from 16 to 20%. It has, however, failed to change its economic and political strategy, which is based on an increasingly competitive market.

Since it is becoming ever more painfully evident that this strategy is unable to safeguard manufacturing employment in Europe, can the Commission say what measures it intends to take to protect and promote manufacturing in Europe? Does it intend to review its solely market-based industrial policy?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2013)

The Commission defined in October 2010 a long-term integrated industrial policy in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. This strategy was updated last on 10 October 2012 with a view to coping with the harsh consequences of the current economic crisis by delivering results that can help to economic recovery in the short-term and growth in the mid and long-term.

The ‘Competitiveness’ Council has endorsed this strategy that is more active than in the past and relies on the joint reaction by European authorities (both national and regional) and industry to respond to the challenges that European industry faces today. This updated industrial policy has identified six priority action lines that should help to boost investment in both rising sectors but also on traditional industries such as automobile and steel.

The strategy also includes measures to create new opportunities for industry in the internal market that is currently undergoing a relative period of stagnation and in the global markets that still show much higher growth rates than the internal market. A major challenge for EU industry is to make the best of the opportunities offered by foreign emerging markets, especially for SMEs that still present a relatively low rate of internationalisation outside the internal market.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011270/12

to the Commission

Vicky Ford (ECR)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: EU research funding for poverty related and neglected diseases

The ITRE Committee voted its text on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) on 28 November 2012. In the text which was adopted, there is specific mention of the importance of research into poverty related and neglected diseases (PRNDs) in the Societal Challenge on Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing.

Can the Commission explain how it intends to structure funding for PRNDs under Horizon 2020 and how it will ensure that that there will be funding for all aspects of the innovation cycle for product development for PRNDs, especially for pre-trial drug development?

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

(31 January 2013)

The Commission's plan for Horizon 2020 is to continue supporting research on poverty related and neglected diseases (PRND). The bulk of clinical research for product development will be funded through the second phase of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP-2) (175), the public-public partnership initiative to undertake all types of clinical trials of new medical interventions against PRND in sub-Saharan Africa which is foreseen to start soon after the launch of Horizon 2020. The Commission has proposed a contribution of up to EUR 1 billion from the Health Challenge of Horizon 2020 for EDCTP-2.

Furthermore, Horizon 2020 will also have opportunities for investigator-driven basic research on PRND research through the European Research Council (ERC). The Commission proposed a major increased budget to support excellent science, of about EUR 13 billion under the Excellent Science pillar of Horizon 2020.

Finally, research on PRND could also be addressed under the next phase of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) (176), the foreseen public-private partnership between the Commission and various industries in the life sciences arena.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-011271/12

till kommissionen

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(10 december 2012)

Angående: En ny alkoholstrategi för EU

Utvärderingen av en alkoholstrategi pågår fortfarande. Det är dock förvånande att trots att ett antal ledamöter av Europaparlamentet, företrädare för medlemsstaterna, icke-statliga organisationer och till och med alkoholindustrin har efterlyst en ny alkoholstrategi för EU, så har kommissionen inte för avsikt att följa upp och utveckla detta.

1.

Kan kommissionen förklara varför den ignorerar dessa krav?

2.

Hur tänker kommissionen gå vidare med en framtida alkoholstrategi när utvärderingen är klar?

Svar från Tonio Borg på kommissionens vägnar

(18 januari 2013)

Europeiska kommissionen är fullt medveten om den breda uppslutning kring de EU-åtgärder mot alkoholrelaterade skador som parlamentsledamoten hänvisar till. Emellertid har utvärderingen av den befintliga alkoholstrategin för EU ännu inte slutförts och därför har inte heller ett beslut om möjliga uppföljningsåtgärder inom detta område fattats.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011271/12

to the Commission

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: A new alcohol strategy for the EU

The evaluation of an alcohol strategy is still ongoing. However, I am astonished to be informed that, despite the fact that several Members of the European Parliament, Member State representatives, non-governmental organisations and even the alcohol industry have requested a new EU alcohol strategy, the Commission does not intend to develop this and follow it up.

1.

Could the Commission explain why they are ignoring these requests?

2.

How will the Commission proceed with a future alcohol strategy when the evaluation is done?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2013)

The European Commission is fully aware of the broad support for EU Action on alcohol related harm as referred to by the Honourable Member. The evaluation of the current EU Alcohol strategy is not finalised yet and a decision on possible steps to follow-up action in this area has therefore not yet been taken.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011272/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(10 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Applicazione della direttiva 1999/22/CE in Italia e in altri Stati membri dell'UE

Tutti gli Stati membri sono tenuti a conformarsi alla direttiva 1999/22/CE relativa alla custodia degli animali selvatici nei giardini zoologici e, nello specifico, tutti i giardini zoologici (come da definizione) sono tenuti ad avere una licenza e sono oggetto di ispezioni periodiche allo scopo di garantirne la conformità. Alla luce di ciò, è preoccupante apprendere che la maggior parte dei giardini zoologici in Italia rimangano senza licenza e pertanto non siano regolamentati (fonte: Indagine sui giardini zoologici nei paesi dell'UE — 2011 Italia (177), a cura della Born Free Foundation per la Coalizione Europea ENDCAP). Ciò significa che migliaia di animali detenuti in questi zoo vivono ancora in condizioni inaccettabili.

Data la rilevanza della questione, lo scrivente si è rivolto assieme ad altri colleghi ai Ministri italiani dell'Ambiente, delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali e della Salute, competenti in materia, ma ad oggi, dopo quasi cinque mesi, non è ancora pervenuta alcuna risposta (178). Dalla citata indagine sui giardini zoologici nei paesi dell'UE 2011 (179), realizzata in 20 Stati membri dell'Unione, si evince che l'Italia non è l'unico paese in cui molti zoo rimangono non regolamentati in violazione della direttiva 1999/22/CE.

In tale contesto, può la Commissione confermare il numero di giardini zoologici presenti nel territorio dell'UE, quanti sono in percentuale quelli non regolamentati e perché?

Ritiene essa di dover promuovere dei controlli per appurare la piena attuazione e applicazione della direttiva? Quali misure sono state adottate per garantire che tutti i giardini zoologici siano conformi ai requisiti di legge e che gli animali siano tenuti in condizioni adeguate e in linea con le loro esigenze di specie? Inoltre, quali azioni sono state intraprese nei confronti di quegli Stati membri, come l'Italia, che continuano a non rispettare i requisiti della direttiva 1999/22/CE?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(1o febbraio 2013)

La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole parlamentare alle risposte alle interrogazioni E‐003677/2011, presentata da Richard Ashworth, E-005760/2011, presentata da Oreste Rossi, E-006006/2011, presentata da Marina Yannakoudakis e E-004837/2012, presentata da Oreste Rossi, sullo stesso argomento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011272/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Enforcement of Directive 1999/22/EC in Italy and other EU Member States

All Member States are required to comply with Directive 1999/22/EC on the keeping of wild animals in zoos and, more specifically, all zoos (as defined in the directive) have to be licensed and are subject to regular inspections to ensure that they comply with the law. It is therefore worrying to learn that most zoos in Italy remain unlicensed and therefore unregulated (Source: EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 — Italy (180), by the Born Free Foundation for the European coalition ENDCAP). This means that thousands of animals kept in these zoos are still living in unacceptable conditions.

Given the importance of this issue, I and other colleagues have contacted the Italian Ministers of the Environment, Agriculture, Food and Forestry, and Health, who are responsible for such matters, but to date, after nearly five months, we have not yet received any reply (181). From the abovementioned EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 (182), carried out in 20 EU Member States, it is clear that Italy is not the only country in which many zoos are still unregulated and in breach of Directive 1999/22/EC.

In this regard, can the Commission confirm the number of zoos in the EU, what the percentage of unregulated zoos is and why they are unregulated?

Does it not think it should carry out inspections to ascertain whether the directive is being implemented and enforced in full? What measures have been taken to ensure that all zoos comply with legal requirements and that the animals are kept in appropriate conditions in keeping with the needs of their species? Lastly, what action has been taken against those Member States, such as Italy, which are still not meeting the requirements of Directive 1999/22/EC?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-003677/2011 by Richard Ashworth, E-005760/2011 Oreste Rossi, E-006006/2011 Marina Yannakoudakis and E-004837/2012 by Oreste Rossi on the same issue.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011274/12

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(10 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Kit per la fabbricazione di falsi vini in polvere in vendita on-line

Su due delle più grandi piattaforme di e-commerce attualmente presenti sul mercato mondiale, Amazon e Ebay, sono in vendita veri e propri kit per la produzione, evidentemente contraffatta, di vini italiani tutelati da denominazioni protette, fra cui Prosecco, Amarone e Valpolicella. Tali prodotti sono dei falsi che utilizzano la pratica della rinomanza italiana a danno non solo del mercato vitivinicolo italiano, ma anche della salute dei consumatori.

Stante la risposta della Commissione alla mia interrogazione E-008527/2012 intende essa prendere posizione anche avverso queste piattaforme di e-commerce e eventuali altri siti web che propongono la vendita di tali prodotti?

Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione

(4 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione ha chiesto agli Stati membri di prendere le misure necessarie per mettere fine alle pratiche illegali concernenti l'etichettatura dei prodotti in questione. Per tale ragione, sono anche state richieste indagini sulle vendite via Internet. I servizi della DG Agricoltura e sviluppo rurale hanno richiesto agli Stati membri interessati di comunicare entro la fine del mese di gennaio 2013 le misure prese dalle rispettive autorità di controllo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011274/12

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Online sale of kits for manufacturing fake wines from powder

Two of the leading on‐line sales platforms in the world today — Amazon and eBay — are selling whole kits for manufacturing counterfeit versions of Italian wines covered by protected designations, including Prosecco, Amarone and Valpolicella. These are fake products that are using the reputation of Italian winemaking to the detriment not only of the Italian wine market, but also of consumer health.

With reference to the Commission’s answer to my Written Question E‐008527/2012, will it also take a stance with regard to these e‐commerce platforms and any other websites which are offering these kits for sale?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2013)

The Commission have asked the Members States to take the necessary measures to put an end to the illegal practices as regards the labelling of these products. Investigations about the Internet sales were also required for this reason. The services of DG Agriculture and Rural development have required the Member States concerned to report by the end of the month of January 2013 on the measures taken by their controlling authorities.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011275/12

an die Kommission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) und Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(10. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Nicht-Berücksichtigung der Meinung ihrer eigenen Sachverständigen im Bereich „Streitbeilegung Investor — Staat“ seitens der Kommission

In der Nachhaltigkeitsstudie für das umfassende Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen (CETA) der EU mit Kanada wird schlussfolgernd festgestellt, dass der Mechanismus zur zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung ein angemesseneres Umsetzungsinstrument im Rahmen des CETA darstelle als die Streitbeilegung zwischen Investor und Staat (183). Dennoch basiert das CETA auf der Streitbeilegung zwischen Investor und Staat und nicht auf der zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung.

Warum hat die Kommission sich dazu entschlossen, der Empfehlung ihrer eigenen Sachverständigen in der Frage der zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung nicht zu folgen?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(5. Februar 2013)

In der Nachhaltigkeitsstudie für das umfassende Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen (CETA) der EU mit Kanada wird ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass es nicht die Ansichten der Kommission wiedergibt. Das Parlament seinerseits hat — genauso wie der Rat — die Aufnahme der Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten in das CETA gebilligt.

Bezüglich der Streitbeilegung im Rahmen des CETA ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass ein Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten (Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS) ein angemesseneres Instrument für die Beilegung von Streitigkeiten zwischen einem Investor und dem Staat, in dem die Investition getätigt wird, darstellt als ein Mechanismus zur zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung. Zwar sieht das CETA auch die zwischenstaatliche Streitbeilegung vor, doch hat die Europäische Union nicht die Absicht, für jeden potenziellen Fall ein Streitbeilegungsverfahren anzustrengen. Sie legt den Schwerpunkt eher auf Fälle mit systemischer Bedeutung. Bisher kam der bilaterale Streitbeilegungsmechanismus in Freihandelsabkommen nicht zum Einsatz. Zudem sieht der Mechanismus zur zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung keine Entschädigung für den Investor vor; die Sicherstellung einer angemessenen Entschädigung im Falle von rechtswidrigen Handlungen ist hingegen der Hauptzweck des Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten. Aus diesen und anderen Gründen ist es angebracht, einen ISDS-Mechanismus in das CETA aufzunehmen und sich nicht ausschließlich auf den Mechanismus zur zwischenstaatlichen Streitbeilegung zu verlassen.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011275/12

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) och Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(10 december 2012)

Angående: Kommissionen ignorerar sina egna experter när det gäller tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat

I bedömningen av konsekvenserna för hållbar utveckling av det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel mellan EU och Kanada drar man slutsatsen att en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan stater är en lämpligare verkställighetsmekanism i det övergripande avtalet än tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat (184). Trots detta grundar sig det övergripande avtalet på tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat och inte på tvistlösning mellan stater.

Varför har kommissionen valt att bortse från råden från sina egna experter när det gäller tvistlösningar mellan investerare och stat?

Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar

(5 februari 2013)

I hållbarhetsbedömningen av det övergripande avtalet om ekonomi och handel mellan EU och Kanada anges uttryckligen att den inte representerar kommissionens åsikt. Europaparlamentet har i sin tur godkänt att en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat förs in i avtalet, och det har även rådet.

När det gäller tvistlösning enligt avtalet anser kommissionen att en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat är lämpligare än en mekanism mellan stater för att lösa tvister mellan en investerare och den stat som står som värd för investeringen. Det finns även möjlighet till tvistlösning mellan stater enligt avtalet, men EU avser inte att föra varje tänkbart fall till tvistlösning. Fokus ligger istället på ärenden av principiell betydelse. Hittills har den bilaterala tvistlösningsmekanismen i frihandelsavtalen inte använts. I den bilaterala tvistlösningmekanismen ingår heller inte någon kompensation för investeraren. Huvudsyftet med mekanismen för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat är att säkra lämplig kompensation i händelse av illegalt agerande. Av detta och andra skäl är det lämpligt att införa en mekanism för tvistlösning mellan investerare och stat i avtalet, och inte förlita sig enbart till mekanismen för tvistlösning mellan stater.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011275/12

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) and Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Commission disregards its own experts regarding investor-to-state dispute settlement

The Sustainability Impact Assessment of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) concludes that a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism is a more appropriate enforcement mechanism in CETA than an investor-to-state dispute settlement (185). Despite this, the CETA is based on investor-to-state dispute settlement and not state-to-state.

Why has the Commission chosen to disregard the advice of its own experts in the matter of investor-to-state dispute settlements?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Sustainability Impact Assessment of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) explicitly states that it does not represent the views of the Commission. Parliament, in turn, has endorsed the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement in the CETA, as has the Council.

Concerning the settlement of disputes under CETA, the Commission considers that an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism is more appropriate than a state-to-state mechanism for the settlement of disputes between an investor and the state hosting the investment. While state-to-state dispute settlement will be provided for as well in CETA, the Union does not intend to bring every potential case to dispute settlement. Rather it focuses on cases with systemic importance. To date, the bilateral dispute settlement in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has not been used. Moreover, the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism does not provide for compensation to the investor, and securing adequate compensation, where an illegal action has been taken, is the core purpose of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. For these and other reasons, it is appropriate to include an ISDS mechanism in CETA, and not rely on the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism alone.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011276/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Trato fiscal privilegiado de los clubes de futbol en España

El Ministerio de Hacienda del Gobierno español está concediendo un trato privilegiado a una serie de clubes deportivos que mantienen una importante deuda tributaria con la Administración. Así, los clubes de futbol, las mayores asociaciones deportivas del país, han mantenido volúmenes de negocio muy altos, generando un volumen de deuda que, en la actualidad, está recayendo sobre la administración pública

Según datos presentados por Beatriz Viana, Directora General de la Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, las citadas entidades deportivas adeudan más de 700 millones de euros. La administración afirma que no permitirá la generación de mayor deuda con el fisco, pero a la misma vez ofrece mecanismos para facilitar el pago de la deuda contraída hasta el momento aplazando o fraccionando los pagos a realizar por aquellos clubes que sean viables.

Esto supone un trato desigual con respecto al resto de contribuyentes dentro de España, así como con respecto al resto de clubes de futbol europeos que, como es lógico, deben estar al corriente en el pago de sus tributos.

No es comprensible que, mientras se incrementan impuestos como el IVA y se privatizan hospitales y empresas públicas para obtener recursos en el corto plazo, se ofrezca este trato fiscal privilegiado a estas entidades privadas recreativas.

Los sistemas tributarios deben garantizar un trato igualitario y una justicia redistributiva a través de su progresividad, y en el caso del sistema tributario español se está procurando exactamente lo contrario. Así, existen numerosas vías para facilitar la evasión fiscal, habiendo el Gobierno actual incluso aprobado una amnistía a tipos irrisorios, e instrumentos que, como las SICAV, permiten a los grandes capitales pagar cantidades mínimas. A esta injusticia fiscal se suman estos multimillonarios clubes deportivos que pueden adeudar enormes sumas mientras por otro lado se condena a la quiebra a miles de empresas productivas. En lugar de recomendar a España que ejerza la responsabilidad redistributiva que tiene, la Comisión recomendó subir impuestos tan regresivos como el IVA, medida que está hundiendo al consumo y, por tanto, a la economía española.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de la facilitación de pago de la deuda a los clubes españoles? ¿Que opinión le suscita? ¿Considera la Comisión que dichos clubes deportivos reciben un trato fiscal igualitario en comparación con el resto de clubes europeos?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de febrero de 2013)

Como explicó la Comisión en su respuesta conjunta a las preguntas escritas E-005751/2012 y E-005768/2012 (186), la Comisión conoce los informes sobre las importantes cantidades que los clubes profesionales de fútbol adeudan a la administración española en concepto de impuestos y cotizaciones a la seguridad social.

La Comisión está de acuerdo en que, en virtud de las normas sobre ayudas estatales, las deudas fiscales y de seguridad social de los clubes profesionales de fútbol no han de tratarse diferentemente de las deudas análogas de otros agentes económicos. Para poder evaluar la situación a que hace referencia Su Señoría, la Comisión solicitó a las autoridades españolas que proporcionaran la información correspondiente. Ahora está analizando esos datos y, por lo tanto, no está todavía en condiciones de hacer observaciones sobre las cuestiones planteadas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011276/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Preferential tax treatment for football clubs in Spain

The Spanish Ministry of Finance is giving preferential treatment to a number of sports clubs which owe the authorities significant amounts in taxes. This has enabled football clubs, the country’s biggest sports associations, to continue to do business on a very high scale, which has generated debts that are currently born by the public administration.

According to figures presented by Beatriz Viana, the Director-General of the State Tax Administration Agency, these sports clubs owe more than EUR 700 million. The tax agency has stated that it will not allow them to fall further into debt with the treasury, but at the same time it offers different options which make it easier to pay off the accumulated debt, for example, allowing viable clubs to defer payments or pay in instalments.

This is unfair since all other Spanish taxpayers, as well as the other European football clubs, must, of course, be up to date with their tax payments.

It is incomprehensible that while taxes such as VAT are being increased and hospitals and public companies are being privatised as a means of generating short-term resources, these private recreational bodies are receiving preferential tax treatment.

Tax systems should guarantee equal treatment and redistributive justice through progressive taxation, whereas exactly the opposite is occurring under the Spanish taxation system. In Spain, there are many mechanisms which make tax evasion easier, including the present government’s approval of a tax amnesty with derisory rates, and instruments such as SICAVs, which allow large companies to pay minimal taxes. This unfair tax system allows multi-millionaire sports clubs to run up enormous amounts of debt, while it condemns thousands of manufacturing companies to bankruptcy. Instead of recommending that Spain should exercise its responsibility for redistribution, the Commission advised it to increase regressive taxes such as VAT, a measure which is causing consumption, and therefore the Spanish economy, to collapse.

Is the Commission aware of the debt payment options offered to Spanish football clubs, and what is its opinion on this matter? Does the Commission think that these sports clubs are being treated on an equal footing with other European clubs in relation to tax?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

As the Commission explained in its joint answer to written questions E-005751/2012 and E-005768/2012 (187), the Commission is aware of reports on substantial amounts of taxes and social security contributions which professional football clubs owe to the Spanish Government.

The Commission agrees that, under the state aid rules, tax and social security debts of professional football clubs must not be treated differently from similar debts of other economic actors. In order to be able to assess the situation referrred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission requested the Spanish authorities to provide relevant information. It is currently analysing this information, and hence is not yet in a position to comment on the issues raised.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011277/12

to the Commission

Gay Mitchell (PPE)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: Competition law — 3M and a ‘vertical agreement’

I am informed that 3M are purported to have created an unfair market situation within the European Union. It was raised with me that 3M by having partnered an Irish-based company have entered into what appears to be a vertical agreement contrary to the Treaties. This I am informed has forced other Irish-based companies to purchase their materials exclusively from a single local distributor, which is a direct competitor to those other companies that operate in that specific industry in the Irish jurisdiction. If correct, this means the company has a price advantage on raw materials and has access to sensitive information regarding their competitors’ business. Other companies are also forced to use a foreign currency instead of the euro which incurs additional banking costs. It is suggested that this may be a breach of competition law.

Will the Commission make a statement on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits agreements which appreciably restrict competition in the internal market. Commission Regulation 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 exempts from the prohibition in Article 101 certain categories of vertical agreements (such as appointments of distributors) if, broadly, the market shares of the companies concerned do not exceed 30% on the relevant markets and the agreement does not contain so-called hardcore restrictions. If the block exemption does not apply, an individual assessment is required as to whether the agreement appreciably restricts competition and, if so, whether efficiencies outweigh the negative effects.

On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Member's question, the Commission is not in a position to express a view on whether there may be a breach of Article 101 or other EU competition rules in the case at hand.

The European Commission and the national competition authorities of the Member States have parallel competence to apply the EU competition rules. The Commission notice on cooperation within the network of competition authorities explains in what situations one or more national competition authorities, or the European Commission, are well placed to deal with a case. In addition, every individual/business affected by anti-competitive behaviour has the right to enforce the EU competition rules through the courts and tribunals of the Member States.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011278/12

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: VP/HR — Dos años de encarcelamiento de David Ravelo en Colombia: persecución y amedrentamiento a organizaciones de defensa de los derechos humanos

Según numerosas ONG y asociaciones de defensa de los derechos humanos, el Gobierno colombiano está llevando a cabo un proceso de persecución contra los defensores de los derechos humanos que pone en duda la voluntad de respeto de los mismos por parte del Presidente Santos y que dificulta la labor de los defensores con obstáculos interpuestos por el propio Gobierno.

Este es el caso de David Ravelo Crespo, secretario general de la Corporación Regional para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CREDHOS), organización que realiza un importante trabajo de seguimiento de numerosas violaciones de los derechos humanos desde su sede en la ciudad de Barrancabermeja (Colombia); el Sr. Ravelo lleva ya dos años encarcelado como parte de una estrategia de amedrentamiento constante a la labor crítica con el Gobierno.

Anteriormente fue encarcelado durante 27 meses en 1993, acusado de rebelión, pero resultó absuelto de todos los cargos e incluso ganó posteriormente una demanda de reparación contra el Estado, que tuvo que indemnizarle. El Secretario General de Credhos fue detenido de nuevo en 2010, acusado de un supuesto homicidio agravado. La acusación fue presentada por el Fiscal William Gildardo Pacheco Granados, quien anteriormente desempeñó el cargo de teniente de la Policía Nacional, del que fue destituido a raíz de una investigación iniciada por la Procuraduría por la supuesta desaparición de un joven en Armenia (Colombia) en 1991. Según la propia ley colombiana, en concreto el Decreto 261 de 2000, nadie que haya sido destituido de un cargo público puede desempeñar el cargo de fiscal.

Numerosas organizaciones internacionales han condenado las irregularidades cometidas durante su juicio, que, comenzando por la inhabilitación del fiscal, deberían ser suficientes para anular un proceso abierto en cualquier país democrático. Además, durante el juicio solo se han tenido en cuenta los testimonios de tres testigos de cargo, ignorándose más de 30 procedentes de diferentes personalidades de Barrancabermeja que aseguran que David Ravelo es inocente y que los testigos de cargo mienten.

1.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante del caso expuesto y ha mostrado su preocupación por él?

2.

¿Dispone la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de más información o piensa solicitarla e intervenir para que el Sr. Ravelo tenga un juicio con plenas garantías para su defensa?

3.

¿Considera la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante que el Gobierno de Colombia garantiza los derechos humanos aun cuando numerosas ONG y asociaciones denuncian sistemáticamente una campaña constante de persecución y amedrentamiento?

Respuesta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de febrero de 2013)

La Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta está al tanto del caso del Sr. Ravelo que sus servicios vienen siguiendo desde 2008. Tras la condena del Sr. Ravelo en diciembre de 2012, su caso ha sido ahora recurrido y las presuntas irregularidades relativas al juicio en primera instancia están siendo sometidas a examen. A finales de diciembre, representantes de una serie de misiones de la UE visitaron al Sr. Ravelo en prisión. Durante esta reunión, el Sr. Ravelo manifestó su confianza en que su caso sería revisado de manera positiva, lo que supone que confía en que el sistema de justicia colombiano pueda garantizar vías de recurso y una tutela judicial efectiva.

No corresponde a la UE interferir en un procedimiento judicial. No obstante, su Señoría puede estar seguro de que los servicios de la UE, en estrecha colaboración con los Estados miembros, mantendrán la debida vigilancia de que el proceso se realiza en las condiciones adecuadas.

De acuerdo con la Constitución colombiana, el Gobierno no desempeña ningún papel en procedimientos judiciales como el que nos ocupa, que son competencia exclusiva de las autoridades judiciales (Ministerio Público y tribunales), que actúan con total independencia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011278/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — David Ravelo's two-year imprisonment in Colombia: persecution and intimidation of human rights organisations

According to several human rights NGOs and associations, the Colombian government is persecuting human rights advocates, which casts doubt on President Santos’s commitment to guarantee these rights, and their work is being hampered by obstacles put in their way by the government itself.

Such is the case of David Ravelo Crespo, secretary-general of the Regional Corporation for the Defence of Human Rights (CREDHOS), an organisation which plays an important role in monitoring the many human rights violations from its headquarters in Barrancabermeja, Colombia. Mr Ravelo has already been imprisoned for two years under the relentless strategy of intimidation to curtail any criticism of the government.

He was previously imprisoned for 27 months beginning in 1993, when he was accused of rebellion. He was, however, acquitted of all charges, and he even won a subsequent claim for damages against the government. The secretary-general of CREDHOS was arrested again in 2010 on suspicion of aggravated murder. The case against him was brought by Public Prosecutor William Gildardo Pacheco Granados, who had previously been removed from his post as police inspector following an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into the disappearance of a young man in Armenia, Colombia in 1991. According to Colombian law, specifically Decree 261/2000, no one who has been dismissed from public office can fill the post of public prosecutor.

Numerous international organisations have condemned the anomalies in the trial, starting with Pacheco Granados’s ineligibility to act as public prosecutor. These irregularities should be enough to quash proceedings in any democratic country. Furthermore, during the trial only the statements from three prosecution witnesses were heard, while more than 30 testimonies from various people in Barrancabermeja, who attested to David Ravelo’s innocence and accused the prosecution witnesses of lying, were ignored.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High-Representative aware of this case, and has she expressed herconcern about it?

2.

Does the Vice-President/High-Representative have any further information, or does she intend to request it and intervene so that Mr Ravelo stands trial with all the guaranteesnecessary for his defence?

3.

Does the Vice-President/High-Representative take the view that the Colombiangovernment guarantees human rights, even though numerous NGOs andassociations consistently speak out about a constant campaign of persecution andintimidation?

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

(7 February 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of the case of Mr Ravelo, which her services have been following since 2008. Following Mr Ravelo’s conviction in December 2012, his case has now gone to appeal, where the alleged irregularities concerning the first-instance trial are being examined. Repesentatives of a number of EU missions visited Mr Ravelo in prison in late December. During this meeting, Mr Ravelo showed confidence that his case would be reviewed positively, implying his confidence that the Colombian justice system can afford remedies and ensure due process.

It is not for the EU to interfere in a judicial procedure. However, the Honourable Member can rest assured that EU services, working in close collaboration with Member States, will remain vigilant that due process is afforded.

Under Colombia’s constitution, the government has no role in judicial procedures such as the present one, which are the exclusive domain of the judicial authorities (Public Prosecutor’s office and courts), which operate in full independence.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011279/12

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: VP/HR — Asesinato del líder campesino Vidal Vega en Paraguay

El pasado sábado 2 de diciembre asesinaron a un líder campesino en una colonia al este de Paraguay. Este asesinato ha sido uno de los nuevos golpes contra la movilización campesina que se están multiplicando desde la toma del poder por el Gobierno golpista de Federico Franco.

Vidal Vega era un líder campesino vinculado a las luchas por la restitución de las tierras que fueron expropiadas durante la dictadura. Una de las ocupaciones de tierras organizadas por los movimientos campesinos por la restitución dio lugar, el pasado junio, a la conocida «Masacre de Curuguaty», en la que murieron 11 campesinos y 6 policías y que resultó clave para el golpe contra el presidente electo Fernando Lugo.

El líder campesino vivía con su mujer y dos hijos en la colonia de Yvyra Pytã, donde dos sicarios llamaron a la puerta de su casa y le dispararon a quemarropa con una escopeta, acabando con su vida. Un sicario fue detenido y el otro escapó y continúa en paradero desconocido. El fiscal encargado del caso sostiene que fue un ajuste de cuentas, pero numerosas organizaciones de Paraguay sostienen que este asesinato supone un ataque político a la lucha de los campesinos sin tierra y una amenaza a quien trate de buscar la verdad.

Vega, que había participado en la ocupación que dio lugar a la masacre, estaba colaborando en una investigación paralela realizada por la Plataforma de Estudios e Investigación de Conflictos Campesinos (PEICC) sobre los hechos acaecidos en Curuguaty. Dicha investigación desacredita la versión oficial con numerosas pruebas de peso, sostiene la participación de francotiradores en la emboscada a la policía y denuncia posteriores ejecuciones extrajudiciales de campesinos por la policía.

Numerosas organizaciones internacionales y paraguayas sostienen la participación de los latifundistas en el asesinato del Sr. Vega para encubrir la participación de estos grandes terratenientes en los hechos de Curuguaty y sus conexiones con el actual Gobierno golpista de Federico Franco.

1.

¿Ha condenado o piensa condenar públicamente la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante el asesinato de Vidal Vega?

2.

¿Exigirá la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante que se investiguen en profundidad los hechos, al tratarse de un importante testigo en la investigación de la PEICC y pudiendo estar ligados estos hechos con el golpe de Estado?

3.

¿Qué medidas de presión piensa llevar a cabo para solicitar que se garantice la seguridad de los movimientos campesinos en su lucha por la restitución de tierras robadas durante la dictadura?

4.

¿Qué medidas esta desarrollando la Alta Representante para favorecer la vuelta de Fernando Lugo a la Presidencia de Paraguay?

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

(7 de febrero de 2013)

La Delegación de la UE en Paraguay sigue de cerca los acontecimientos en este país, incluidos los movimientos campesinos, y observa con ojos críticos los acontecimientos en torno a la masacre de Curuguaty y el asesinato de Vidal Vega. Toda reacción de la UE necesita ponderarse cuidadosamente en vista de la investigación interna en curso en Paraguay.

La UE apoya a Paraguay en su proceso democrático y en la normalización de su situación dentro de la región. La invitación de las autoridades paraguayas a la UE para que observe las elecciones de abril de 2013 fue acogida con satisfacción. Estas elecciones son especialmente importantes para Paraguay, y la contribución de la UE a la consolidación democrática de Paraguay será una Misión de Observación Electoral (MOE) que acompañará el proceso. La UE centrará todos sus esfuerzos en asegurar que una MOE de la UE se despliegue con medios y energías suficientes para garantizar una observación profesional de las elecciones de abril de 2013, en consonancia con las normas internacionales y en coordinación con otros observadores internacionales, contribuyendo así al proceso democrático de Paraguay.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011279/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Murder of peasant leader Vidal Vega in Paraguay

On Saturday, 1 December 2012, a peasant leader was murdered in a settlement in eastern Paraguay. Vidal Vega’s murder is yet another blow to the peasant movement, which has repeatedly come under attack since the government headed by Federico Franco seized power in a coup.

Vega was a peasant leader who campaigned for the return of land confiscated during the dictatorship. In June 2012, one of the land occupations organised by the peasant movement to promote land returns led to the infamous ‘Curuguaty massacre’, which left 11 peasants and 6 police officers dead, and was a key factor in the coup against the president elect, Fernando Lugo.

The peasant leader lived with his wife and their two children in the settlement of Yvyra Pytã. Two hit men knocked on his front door and shot him dead at point-blank range with a shot gun. One of the hit men was caught but the other escaped and his whereabouts are still unknown. The public prosecutor investigating the case maintains that Vega was murdered to settle a private score, but many organisations in Paraguay believe his murder was a political attack on the landless peasants’ fight and a warning for anybody trying to uncover the truth.

Vega, who had participated in the occupation that led to the massacre, had been cooperating with a parallel investigation into what happened in Curuguaty led by the Platform for the Study and Investigation of Peasant Conflicts (PEICC). The PEICC investigation discredited the official version of events on the basis of compelling proof, held that snipers had taken part in the police ambush and claimed there had been previous cases of extrajudicial killings of peasants by the police.

Many international and Paraguayan organisations maintain that large landowners were complicit in Vega’s murder, their motive being to hide their involvement in the Curuguaty massacre and their links to Federico Franco’s coup government.

1.

Has the Vice-President/High Representative publically condemned the murder of VidalVega? If not, does she intend to?

2.

Will the Vice-President/High Representative insist on a thorough inquiry being carriedout into Vidal Vega’s murder, given that he was a key witness in the PEICC investigationand that these events might be linked to the coup d’état?

3.

What type of pressure will the EU exert to guarantee the safety of the peasant movementsfighting for the return of land stolen from them during the dictatorship?

4.

What measures is the High Representative planning to take to increase the likelihood ofFernando Lugo returning as President of Paraguay?

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

(7 February 2013)

The Delegation of the EU in Paraguay is closely following events in Paraguay, including the peasant movements, and critically observing events around the Curuguaty massacre and the killing of Vidal Vega. Any reaction from the EU needs to be carefully assessed in view of the ongoing internal investigation in Paraguay.

EU supports Paraguay in its democratic process and normalisation of its situation within the region. The Paraguayan authorities’ invitation to the EU to observe the April 2013 elections was welcomed. These elections are particularly important for Paraguay and accompanying the process with an Electoral Observation Mission (EOM) will be the EU’s contribution to Paraguay democratic consolidation. The EU will put all its efforts into making sure that an EU EOM is deployed with sufficient means and energies to ensure a professional observation of the April 2013 elections, in line with international standards and in coordination with other international observers, thereby contributing to the Paraguay’s democratic process.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011280/12

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(10 December 2012)

Subject: EU plans to reduce the regulatory burden on Member States

While the UK is ranked 8th overall in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013, it is ranked 72nd for burden of government regulation. EU Member States on average are ranked 94th in the world in this category (out of 144 countries) with three EU Member States (Greece, Italy and Hungary) ranked in the bottom 10. By way of comparison, non-EU Member States Iceland and Switzerland are ranked 20th and 16th respectively.

A recent report by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) estimated that in 2011 the extra cost to UK business from EU regulations was GBP 95.8million as opposed to GBP 89.1million from domestic rules. The CBI also estimates that over-regulation is holding back the British private sector from investing.

1.

Against this background, how is the Commission planning to reduce the regulatory burden on EU Member States?

2.

One of the CBI’s recommendations is to strengthen the impact assessment process for new regulation. Is the Commission confident that its own impact assessment process is sufficiently robust given the high extra costs of EU regulation? How can the Commission improve its impact assessment process and ensure that EU regulation is adequately scrutinised?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2013)

1.

Regulatory burden differs very much from Member State to Member State. Finland, for example, ranks in the Global report's index for

1.

Regulatory burden differs very much from Member State to Member State. Finland, for example, ranks in the Global report's index for

‘Burden of government regulation’ as number 6 out of 144 countries. This, like the Stoiber report (188), is evidence that how EU legislation is implemented is very important. The Commission Communication on ‘EU Regulatory Fitness’ adopted on 12 December 2012 refers to this, but also sets out how the Commission plans to ensure that EU legislation delivers its benefits at minimum costs. In particular, the communication announces a new Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) (189) specifically targeted at eliminating unnecessary regulatory costs (whatever their origins) and ensuring that the body of EU legislation remains fit for purpose. REFIT will be implemented in a transparent manner and include a follow-on to the Administrative Burden Reduction Programme (ABR) aimed at ensuring that the 25% reduction in administrative burden approved by the co-legislators will be successfully implemented by Member States.

2.

The Commission's impact assessment system is comprehensive, transparent and subject to independent scrutiny. It is delivering results efficiently as confirmed by a recent report by the European Court of Auditors and indicated by various existing studies including one by the European Parliament

2.

The Commission's impact assessment system is comprehensive, transparent and subject to independent scrutiny. It is delivering results efficiently as confirmed by a recent report by the European Court of Auditors and indicated by various existing studies including one by the European Parliament

 (190). Further improvements to the ex ante assessment of costs and benefits, the presentation of summary results and the review of the impact assessment guidelines will be made. They are listed in the communication on ‘EU Regulatory Fitness’.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011281/12

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Follow-up question to E-009750/2012: the role of COM(2001)0351and its regulatory role in the right to erect satellite TV dishes of the UK public

The Commission specifically set out the idea of an individual’s ‘right to use a satellite dish’ in its communication of 27 June 2001 on satellite dishes (COM(2001)0351). More recently, a London constituent was refused planning permission to install a 1.4 m antenna by his local borough council planning authority in a way which would allow it to operate correctly. The local authority refused to enter into negotiations about how its requirements could be accommodated, instead referring the applicant to the appeals process, which requires considerable preparation, with no guarantee of permission being granted and the threat of fines being issued and/or the equipment being removed.

Is there any reason why COM(2001)0351 would not apply to the UK?

UK permitted development rights allow a parabolic antenna of up to 1 metre. Some broadcasts from EU Member States cannot be reliably received on such a small antenna in the UK. Larger antennas are usually refused planning permission. Does this infringe Section III(a) or Section III(c) of the communication?

If planning permission is refused a complicated appeals process must be followed, with no guarantee of success. Is this prohibited by Section III(b) of the communication?

Whilst it is accepted that local planning authorities may refuse any particular plan for normal planning reasons, COM(2001)0351 makes it very clear that an outright refusal to grant permission for an antenna of the required size to receive the services the individual chooses is an infringement of Article 56 (ex 49). However, UK local authorities argue that as long as some services can be received via a small dish the EU requirement is satisfied. Is there any reason why the clear requirement for the individual to choose the services he/she receives would be outweighed by aesthetic concerns, when the development is not on a listed building or in an area of special interest?

UK local planning authorities are only answerable to a judicial court. The cost of bringing a case to the UK courts is beyond many individuals. Does this constitute a breach of Section III(d)?

Very small antennas intended for the UK domestic services of BSkyB are routinely installed in ways prohibited by government guidelines, and this is ignored by local authorities: does this violate Section III(e) of the communication?

Considering sites which are not UK national listed buildings nor within conservation areas, is it a correct interpretation of the communication that if a 1.4m antenna is required, then permission should be granted routinely by a UK local authority even if this creates some negative aesthetic effects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

COM(2001)0351 (191) sets out guidelines on the application of the general principles of free movement of goods and services (192) concerning the use of satellite dishes. These guidelines are based on case law of the CJEU (193) and are addressed to all Member States, including the United Kingdom.

Member States are free to adopt national measures in their internal legal systems on the installation and use of satellite dishes. National measures may include restrictions for reasons of public policy, public health safety or environmental protection. Any such restrictions must be compatible with Treaty principles, be proportionate, non-discriminatory and not effect competition between satellite dish installers.

Citizens in the UK wishing to install and use satellite dishes may be required to comply with pre-authorisation requirements and may use appeal procedures fixed by national or local authorities and established under national law in the event that authorisations are refused by public authorities. Designated appeal bodies in the UK, including courts, decide each individual case on its merits and determine whether the principles identified above are respected.

Local authorities in the UK impose planning restrictions which may vary because of the need to protect or preserve the local environment. In line with UK Government guidelines, these authorities generally do not grant permission to erect antenna exceeding 1.4 metres. This is not a breach of the Commission’s guidelines as smaller satellites are available on the UK market.

In most cases, planning permission appeals are heard by the Planning Inspectorate whose decision can be appealed in national courts. Section 111 (d) of the Commission’s guidelines only deals with taxation issues.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011282/12

til Kommissionen

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(11. december 2012)

Om: Økologiske mærkningsordninger

I uge 49 bragte et større, lokalt medie i Danmark (P4 Fyn) en række indslag om, at æbler fra for eksempel Tyskland i henhold til EU-regler kan få det danske økologiske mærke, selv om der er brugt sprøjtemidler, der ikke er tilladt inden for økologisk dyrkning i Danmark. Reglerne skulle gøre, at man ikke kan nægte udenlandsk frugt det danske Ø-mærke, så længe det sættes på inden for landets grænser.

Kan Kommissionen oplyse, om det virkelig kan passe, at EU kan tvinge dette ned over et frivilligt nationalt mærke, som det danske økologiske mærke er?

Forbrugerne bliver jo snydt som følge af denne praksis. Så vidt forespørgeren er orienteret, er det ifølge EU-regler tilladt for medlemsstaterne at have frivillige mærker.

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Dacian Cioloş

(15. februar 2013)

Kommissionen er i øjeblikket i gang med en revision af den politiske og lovgivningsmæssige ramme for økologisk landbrug. Spørgsmålet om mærkning af økologiske produkter er et af de emner, der er under overvejelse i denne forbindelse.

Kommissionen har ikke tilstrækkeligt kendskab til dansk lovgivning på dette område til at kunne undersøge det stillede spørgsmål. Kommissionen vil anmode de danske myndigheder om de nødvendige oplysninger.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011282/12

to the Commission

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Eco-labelling rules

In the week of 3 December 2012 there were a number of reports on the Danish local radio station P4 Fyn, which has quite a large audience, stating that under EU rules apples from Germany, for example, may be awarded the Danish eco-label even if they are sprayed with substances that are not permitted in organic farming in Denmark. Apparently the rules mean that foreign fruit cannot be refused the Danish eco-label as long as it is affixed on Danish territory.

Can the Commission say whether it is really possible for the EU to render compulsory the award of a voluntary national eco-label such as the Danish one?

This type of practice misleads consumers. As far as I am aware the EU rules allow the Member States to have their own voluntary labels.

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

The Commission is currently undertaking a review of the political and legislative framework for organic farming. Within this review, the issue of labelling of organic products is one of the issues under consideration.

The Commission does not have sufficient details on the Danish national legislation in this respect to be able to investigate the problem raised. It will request the necessary details from the Danish authorities.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011283/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Bahnhofsprivatisierungen

In Österreich sollen Medienberichten zufolge Bahnhöfe der öffentlichen Verkehrsgesellschaften an private Investoren verkauft werden. Dabei soll zumeist die Haltestellenfunktion erhalten bleiben, die Immobilien sollen jedoch anders genutzt werden und der Fahrkartenverkauf soll aufgegeben werden.

1.

Welche Strategie verfolgt die Kommission im Rahmen der TEN-T für kleine und große Bahnhöfe?

2.

In welchen Mitgliedstaaten sind Bahnhöfe zumeist in privater Hand, in welchen Mitgliedstaaten zumeist in öffentlicher Hand?

3.

Verfügt die Kommission über Informationen darüber, welche Auswirkungen Bahnhofsprivatisierungen auf den inländischen und grenzüberschreitenden Personen‐ und Güterverkehr haben?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(18. Februar 2013)

1.

Im Mittelpunkt der TEN-V-Politik der Kommission stehen die Funktionen von Bahnhöfen, nicht jedoch die Gebäude selbst. Bahnhofsgebäude wurden daher in den letzten Jahren ausdrücklich aus der TEN-V-Finanzierung ausgenommen. Andere EU-Rechtsvorschriften, die etwa die Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität betreffen, sind jedoch auch beim Bau von Bahnhöfen einzuhalten.

2.

In der Mehrzahl der Fälle sind die Bahnhöfe Eigentum von staatseigenen Infrastrukturbetreibern oder Eisenbahnunternehmen. In sehr wenigen Ausnahmefällen befinden sie sich in privater Hand.

1.

Im Mittelpunkt der TEN-V-Politik der Kommission stehen die Funktionen von Bahnhöfen, nicht jedoch die Gebäude selbst. Bahnhofsgebäude wurden daher in den letzten Jahren ausdrücklich aus der TEN-V-Finanzierung ausgenommen. Andere EU-Rechtsvorschriften, die etwa die Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität betreffen, sind jedoch auch beim Bau von Bahnhöfen einzuhalten.

2.

In der Mehrzahl der Fälle sind die Bahnhöfe Eigentum von staatseigenen Infrastrukturbetreibern oder Eisenbahnunternehmen. In sehr wenigen Ausnahmefällen befinden sie sich in privater Hand.

3.

Die Richtlinie 2012/34/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. November 2012 zur Schaffung eines einheitlichen europäischen Eisenbahnraums

1.

Im Mittelpunkt der TEN-V-Politik der Kommission stehen die Funktionen von Bahnhöfen, nicht jedoch die Gebäude selbst. Bahnhofsgebäude wurden daher in den letzten Jahren ausdrücklich aus der TEN-V-Finanzierung ausgenommen. Andere EU-Rechtsvorschriften, die etwa die Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität betreffen, sind jedoch auch beim Bau von Bahnhöfen einzuhalten.

2.

In der Mehrzahl der Fälle sind die Bahnhöfe Eigentum von staatseigenen Infrastrukturbetreibern oder Eisenbahnunternehmen. In sehr wenigen Ausnahmefällen befinden sie sich in privater Hand.

3.

Die Richtlinie 2012/34/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. November 2012 zur Schaffung eines einheitlichen europäischen Eisenbahnraums

 (194) stellt sicher, dass das Recht auf Zugang zu Eisenbahninfrastrukturen sowie auf Nutzung von Serviceeinrichtungen für alle Bahnhöfe in der Union gilt, unabhängig von ihrem Eigentümer. Der Zugang zu diesen Dienstleistungen muss gewährt werden, wenn es für ein Eisenbahnunternehmen keine tragfähigen Alternativen zur Nutzung des Bahnhofs gibt, um Güter‐ oder Personenverkehrsdienste zu wirtschaftlich annehmbaren Bedingungen zu erbringen.

Nach ihrer Umsetzung sollen diese Vorschriften gewährleisten, dass die Eigentumsverhältnisse von Bahnhöfen die Schienenverkehrsdienste nicht beeinflussen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011283/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Privatisation of railway stations

According to reports in the media, railway stations belonging to the public transport companies in Austria are to be sold to private investors. In most cases, the stations will still function as stations but the buildings themselves are to be put to other uses and tickets will no longer be sold.

1.

What strategy is the Commission pursuing for large and small railway stations under the TEN-T project?

2.

In which Member States are railway stations mostly in private hands and in which Member States are they mostly publicly owned?

3.

Does the Commission have any information indicating the impact of railway station privatisation on domestic and international passenger and goods transport?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

1.

The focus of the Commission’s TEN-T policy concerns the function and not the buildings of the railway stations. Therefore TEN-T funding has in the last years explicitly excluded the buildings of railway stations from its scope. However, other pieces of EU legislation, such as those on accessibility for persons with reduced mobility, have to be complied with while constructing such stations.

2.

In the majority of cases railway stations are owned by state-owned infrastructure managers or railway undertakings. Very few exceptions exist where railway stations are owned by private entities.

1.

The focus of the Commission’s TEN-T policy concerns the function and not the buildings of the railway stations. Therefore TEN-T funding has in the last years explicitly excluded the buildings of railway stations from its scope. However, other pieces of EU legislation, such as those on accessibility for persons with reduced mobility, have to be complied with while constructing such stations.

2.

In the majority of cases railway stations are owned by state-owned infrastructure managers or railway undertakings. Very few exceptions exist where railway stations are owned by private entities.

3.

Directive 34/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area

1.

The focus of the Commission’s TEN-T policy concerns the function and not the buildings of the railway stations. Therefore TEN-T funding has in the last years explicitly excluded the buildings of railway stations from its scope. However, other pieces of EU legislation, such as those on accessibility for persons with reduced mobility, have to be complied with while constructing such stations.

2.

In the majority of cases railway stations are owned by state-owned infrastructure managers or railway undertakings. Very few exceptions exist where railway stations are owned by private entities.

3.

Directive 34/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area

 (195) ensures that access rights to railway infrastructures and to services in service facilities apply to all railway stations throughout the Union, irrespective of their ownership. Access must be granted to such services where there is no viable alternative for a railway operator for using the station, in order to operate the freight or passenger service concerned under economically acceptable conditions.

These rules, once transposed, should ensure that ownership of the railway stations will have no bearing on rail services.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011284/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Bekämpfung von Fachkräftemangel und Arbeitslosigkeit in der EU

Die Österreichische Hoteliervereinigung (ÖHV) hat auf den Fachkräftemangel in der eigenen Branche mit Anwerbekampagnen in Spanien und Griechenland reagiert, wo die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit jeweils bei über 50 % liegt. Damit sollen qualifizierte Mitarbeiter angeworben werden, die in ihren Heimatländern keine Arbeitsstellen finden können.

1.

Sieht die Kommission die Anwerbekampagnen des Österreichischen Hotelierverbands als Lösungsansatz für den Fachkräftemangel anderer Branchen sowie als eine Möglichkeit an, gleichzeitig die Arbeitslosigkeit in anderen EU-Mitgliedstaaten zu reduzieren?

2.

Sieht die Kommission Risiken oder Gefahren bei derartigen Anwerbekampagnen im Allgemeinen und bei den Kampagnen der Österreichischen Hoteliervereinigung im Speziellen?

3.

Plant die Kommission ähnliche Anwerbekampagnen zu unterstützen, um die Arbeitslosigkeit in der Europäischen Union zu bekämpfen?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(19. Februar 2013)

Nach Auffassung der Kommission steht die ÖHV-Kampagne mit dem EU-Ziel der Förderung der Arbeitskräftemobilität in der Europäischen Union im Einklang. Gezielte Anwerbekampagnen können dazu beitragen, den Fachkräftemangel im Hotelgewerbe und in anderen Branchen zu reduzieren, in denen vergleichbare Kampagnen bereits stattfinden. So wurden im Jahr 2012 über das Portal EURES Österreich, das von der öffentlichen Arbeitsvermittlung AMS verwaltet wird, Techniker aus Spanien angeworben. EURES Österreich nimmt außerdem an Jobmessen in Griechenland teil, um Personal für die Tourismusbranche in Österreich zu rekrutieren. Diese Maßnahmen wirken sich allerdings kaum auf die Arbeitslosigkeit aus, da die Arbeitskräftemobilität in Europa zwar zunimmt, aber insgesamt immer noch eher gering ist.

Die Kommission sieht keine größeren Gefahren bei derartigen Kampagnen, wenn sie gut vorbereitet und in Zusammenarbeit mit den Entsendeländern durchgeführt werden.

Die Kommission versucht mit dem Kooperationsnetz EURES, das 1993 eingerichtet wurde und an dem die Kommission und die öffentlichen Arbeitsverwaltungen beteiligt sind, die Vermittlung und Rekrutierung von Arbeitskräften in ganz Europa zu verbessern. EURES umfasst derzeit ein Netz von mehr als 850 EURES-Beratern, die in täglichem Kontakt mit Arbeitsuchenden und Arbeitgebern in ganz Europa stehen. EURES bietet Arbeitskräften, Arbeitgebern und mobilitätswilligen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Information, Beratung und Rekrutierungs-/Vermittlungsdienste an. Durch die EURES-Reform sollen in Zusammenarbeit mit öffentlichen und privaten Arbeitsvermittlungen Dienstleistungskapazitäten für die Vermittlung und Rekrutierung entwickelt werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011284/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Addressing skill shortages and unemployment in the EU

The ÖHV [Austrian Hoteliers’ Association] has responded to the skills shortage in its own sector with advertising campaigns in Spain and Greece, where youth unemployment stands at over 50%. The aim is to recruit qualified staff that are unable to find employment in their home countries.

1.

Does the Commission view the recruitment campaign by the Austrian Hoteliers’ Association as a possible solution for skills shortages in other sectors and as a way to reduce unemployment in other EU Member States?

2.

Does the Commission identify any risks or dangers in such recruitment campaigns in general and in the campaigns of the Austrian Hoteliers’ Association in particular?

3.

Is the Commission planning to support similar recruitment campaigns in order to combat unemployment in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

The Commission considers that the ÖHV campaign is in line with the EU objective of promoting labour mobility throughout the Union. Targeted recruitment campaigns can help to reduce hiring difficulties in the hotel and other sectors where similar campaigns are already taking place. For example, in 2012 EURES Austria, which is managed by the public employment service AMS, undertook to recruit technicians from Spain. EURES Austria also takes part in job fairs in Greece to recruit staff for tourism in Austria. The effect on unemployment, however, appears to be limited, as the overall employment mobility of workers in Europe is still rather low, although it is increasing.

The Commission sees no major risks in such campaigns if they are well prepared and carried out in cooperation with the sending countries.

Through EURES, a cooperation network involving the Commission and the public employment services set up in 1993, the Commission aims to improve placement and recruitment across Europe. EURES currently has a human network of more than 850 EURES advisers in daily contact with jobseekers and employers across Europe. It seeks to provide workers, employers and citizens wishing to exercise their freedom of movement with information, advice and recruitment/placement (job-matching) services. The reform of EURES will help to develop service capacities for placement and recruitment in cooperation with public and private employment services.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011285/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Kosten der Polizeieinsätze bei Demonstration vor den Gebäuden der Europäischen Institutionen

Im Herbst 2012 fanden auf dem Place de Luxembourg vor dem Europäischen Parlament in Brüssel mehrmals größere Demonstrationen statt. Wohl im Hinblick auf mögliche Ausschreitungen wurde die Esplanade Solidarnosc vor dem Europäischen Parlament mit Stacheldrahtbarrieren abgesichert, und es war eine deutlich erhöhte Polizeipräsenz rund um das Parlament wahrzunehmen. Auch vor den Gebäuden andere EU-Institutionen sind Demonstrationen regelmäßig von Polizeipräsenz begleitet.

1.

Standen die genannten polizeilichen Maßnahmen in direktem Zusammenhang mit den Demonstrationen vor dem Europäischen Parlament? Wenn ja, warum kam es speziell in Zusammenhang mit den letzten Demonstrationen zu zusätzlichen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen und zusätzlicher Polizeipräsenz?

2.

Wie wird im Vorfeld von Demonstrationen entschieden, ob zusätzliche Sicherheitsmaßnahmen benötigt werden, und sind die Europäischen Institutionen in diesen Entscheidungsprozess eingebunden?

3.

Wer trägt die Kosten für die Polizeieinsätze in Zusammenhang mit Demonstrationen im Umfeld der EU-Institutionen in Brüssel?

4.

Werden die Veranstalter von Demonstrationen für die Kosten von Polizei‐ und Feuerwehreinsätzen vor EU-Institutionen herangezogen?

Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission

(12. Februar 2013)

1. und 2.

Entscheidungen über (zusätzliche) Polizei‐ und Sicherheitsmaßnahmen bei Demonstrationen im öffentlichen Raum in Brüssel obliegen den zuständigen belgischen Behörden, im Falle von Demonstrationen im Gebiet Brüssel-Stadt namentlich der Brüsseler Polizei.

Die Brüsseler Polizeibehörden unterrichten die EU-Organe im Vorfeld über Großveranstaltungen und geplante Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Die EU-Organe können am Entscheidungsprozess mitwirken, indem sie Informationen bereitstellen, die ihre spezifischen Sicherheitsbelange betreffen, und Maßnahmen vorschlagen, die insbesondere dem Schutz ihres Personals und ihrer Gebäude dienen. Die Entscheidung darüber, welche Maßnahmen getroffen werden, obliegt jedoch allein den zuständigen belgischen Polizeibehörden.

Entscheidungen über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen stützen sich in der Regel auf Analysen des OCAM (Organe de Coordination pour l'Analyse de la Menace), der belgischen Behörde für die Bewertung von Bedrohungen, sowie auf frühere Erfahrungen mit bestimmten Arten von Demonstrationen. Nach Kenntnis der Kommission waren in dem vom Herrn Abgeordneten angesprochenen Fall der Grund für die erhöhte Polizeipräsenz in der Tat die in der Anfrage erwähnten Demonstrationen.

3.

Die Kosten von Polizeieinsätzen bei Demonstrationen werden von den belgischen Behörden getragen.

4.

Von einer Haftung der Veranstalter von Demonstrationen ist der Europäischen Kommission nichts bekannt. Daher bittet sie den Herrn Abgeordneten, sich diesbezüglich an die belgischen Behörden zu wenden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011285/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Cost of policing demonstrations near the premises of European institutions

In autumn 2012 several fairly large demonstrations were staged on Place de Luxembourg outside the European Parliament in Brussels. Solidarność 1980 Esplanade, which runs between Parliament’s buildings, was closed off with barbed-wire barriers in anticipation of possible rioting, and a greatly increased police presence was clearly visible within the Parliament complex. The police are also routinely deployed when there are demonstrations close to the premises of other EU institutions.

1.

Were these police measures directly linked to the latest demonstrations at Parliament? If so, why were additional security measures and a greater police presence considered necessary for those demonstrations in particular?

2.

How is it decided before the event whether additional security measures will be needed for demonstrations, and are the European institutions involved in the decision-taking?

3.

Who bears the cost of policing demonstrations at the EU institutions in Brussels?

4.

Are the organisers of demonstrations liable for the costs of police and fire service operations in the vicinity of EU institutions?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

1 and 2. Decisions on (additional) police and security measures regarding demonstrations in the public domain in Brussels are the responsibility of the competent Belgian authorities, and in particular of the Brussels police for demonstrations taking place on the territory of Bruxelles-Ville.

The Brussels police authorities inform the EU institutions in advance of major events and of the

Security measures envisaged. The EU institutions can contribute to the decision-making process

by providing information on their specific security concerns and by suggesting measures aimed in

particular at protecting their staff and premises. The decision on which measures are taken, however, is made solely by the competent Belgian police authorities.

As a general rule, decisions on implementing security measures are based on analyses provided by OCAM (Organe de Coordination pour l'Analyse de la Menace), the Belgian threat assessment authority, and on previous experience with specific types of demonstrations. As far as the Commission is able to determine, the increased police presence was indeed linked to the demonstrations referred to in the question of the Honourable Member.

3.

The costs of policing demonstrations are borne by the Belgian authorities.

4.

The European Commission is not aware of a liability of organisers of demonstrations and

would ask the Honourable Member to address this question to the Belgian authorities.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011286/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Chemicals in the aviation industry

The aviation industry needs a lot of chemicals to fulfil stringent aviation safety requirements. For example a lot of chromates are needed within the maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) sector. Despite many years of research, there seems to be no viable alternatives on the horizon which would fulfil aviation safety needs. Recent proposals under REACH (to add various chromates to the REACH authorisation list) have therefore raised some concerns within the aviation industry. Could the Commission clarify the following?

1.

Has the Commission ignored EASA’s objection to the proposal to add chromium trioxide to the REACH authorisation list (bearing in mind the fact that this substance is essential for the corrosion protection of aeroplanes and flight safety), and if so, why?

2.

Is the Commission aware that many SMEs, which are essential to the supply chain of the aerospace industry, could go bankrupt as a result of the decision to add chromium trioxide to the REACH authorisation list? Has the Commission made an impact assessment on the amount of jobs which might be at stake as a result of this decision? Would the Commission be concerned that airlines might have to maintain aircraft outside the EU where these chemicals are not banned?

3.

Will the European Parliament have a veto right to object to proposals under REACH which could have a negative impact on flight safety and the aviation industry?

4.

Will the Commission reconsider the REACH legislation with regard to its applicability to chemical substances which are essential to fulfil flight safety requirements?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

A draft amendment of Annex XIV to REACH was transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council for scrutiny, in accordance with the procedure under Article 133. The draft includes trichloroethylene and seven chromium VI compounds.

While preparing the draft, the Commission based itself on the recommendation submitted by the Agency (ECHA), taking into consideration comments from stakeholders during the public consultation

For the seven chromium VI compounds, ECHA proposed the latest application date to be 21 months after entry into force of the regulation. Based on a broader appreciation of the significance of the specific structure of the relevant markets and the related supply chains, the Commission concluded that the latest application date should be extended to 35 months after entry into force of this regulation.

The Commission is aware of the critical use of chromium trioxide in the aerospace sector. Socioeconomic elements, including impacts on SMEs, will be considered when assessing the individual applications for authorisation, in accordance with Article 60 of REACH.

Applicants who make an application before the latest application date may continue to use the substance or place it on the market for the use(s) applied for until a decision on the application for authorisation is taken, and thereafter in case of a positive decision, thus allowing to maintain the continuity of their activities. Authorisations do not have to be held by all the downstream users, many of them being SMEs, but may instead be obtained by the manufacturer or importer of the substance, covering the uses for which he supplies it, thereby covering downstream users. The REACH Regulation does not foresee sector-specific exemptions.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011287/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Humanitarian aid in Sudan

Given the urgent need for humanitarian aid in the Blue Nile and South Kordofan states, what steps has the Commission taken to urge the Government of Sudan to fully implement the memorandum of understanding for humanitarian access?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

Since the beginning of the crises in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, the unimpeded access to victims of conflict in both states has been a priority issue for the EU. To this end, the matter has been raised by the Commission as a major concern in every meeting with the Sudanese authorities since the beginning of the crisis, both in Sudan and in Brussels. In addition, in contacts with third countries that enjoy more privileged relations with the Government of Sudan, the EU has requested them to urge the Government of Sudan to allow access to the victims of these conflicts. The HR/VP also published a statement in September 2012 referring to this concern, and the EU Special Representative for Sudan and South Sudan has repeatedly conveyed the EU's concern as regards humanitarian access. Finally, the Commission has also actively supported the efforts of the United Nations, notably Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in this respect.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011288/12

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Cost of the European Space Expo exhibition and visitor attendance

1.

Can the Commission please confirm how many people visited the European Space Expo when it was launched in 7 EU cities between 1 June and 9 December 2012?

2.

Can the Commission provide visitor breakdowns per city?

3.

Can the Commission also provide details of the cost of the exhibition, especially information on its own contribution, including its staff members’ mission expenses?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

1.

From 1 June 2012 to 9 December 2012, the Commission showcased in seven major European cities the benefits of innovative space technologies for the economy and citizens' well-being. Carried out in collaboration with international partner organisations the Space Expo offers to visitors the opportunity to see, touch and experience the wide range of solutions that space technologies and services provide.

In this time frame the Space Expo has been visited by more than 80 000 citizens. This high number is due to the fact that the exhibition is located at prime locations that the host cities have made available for this project. Thanks to the collaboration with the host countries there is, moreover, a high proportion of school children among the visitors. This makes the Space Expo particularly valuable for inspiring young people to take a professional course that will equip them with the skills necessary for the jobs of the future.

2.

Date

City

Visitors

1 June-5 June 2012

Copenhagen

7 500

25 June-28 June 2012

Toulouse

4 000

17 August-21 August 2012

Helsinki

23 000

26 September-11 October 2012

Brussels

16 208

23 October-26 October 2012

Vienna

5 140

12 November-18 November 2012

Larnaca

14 504

3 December-9 December 2012

London

11 015

3.

The average cost of the Space Expo per visitor is EUR 15.90. Calculated per city the budget of the exhibition is EUR 185 000 on average.

The main budget items are linked to logistics and communication (68.7%), the infrastructure (14.5%), external support (11.8%) and translation (3.8%). Staff members' mission expenses account for 1.2%.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011289/12

to the Commission

Ashley Fox (ECR)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Live plucking of geese

A constituent of mine has recently drawn my attention to the issue of the live plucking of goose feathers, most notably in Hungary, for use in down clothing and bedding. Birds experience pain when their feathers are plucked from them whilst they are still alive, leaving open wounds. When the feathers grow back, the birds often face further rounds of plucking.

1.

To what extent is this practice banned under EU legislation?

2.

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that Hungary complies with its animal welfare responsibilities under Directive 98/58/EC?

3.

What action has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, with regard to the practice of live plucking in the EU in response to the 2010 Scientific Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the practice of harvesting (collecting) feathers from live geese for down production?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2013)

Plucking feathers from live geese is forbidden by EU legislation on animal welfare. Article 23 (3) of the recommendation of the Council of Europe on geese (196) states that ‘feathers, including down, shall not be plucked from live birds’. However, the practice of harvesting feathers from live geese during the moulting period is allowed in the EU.

Upon request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (197) issued a scientific opinion on the practice of harvesting feathers from live geese for down production. The opinion concludes that removing feathers from live geese can be carried out without causing pain, suffering or injury to the birds, if feathers are gathered. In addition, the opinion provides for several animal-based indicators that can be used by official inspectors and producers to monitor and minimise the potential negative impact of harvesting feathers from live birds.

Member States are primarily responsible for the implementation of EU welfare legislation. The Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission’s Health and Consumers Directorate General carries out on-the-spot audits in the Member States regarding the implementation of EU welfare legislation. An audit carried out in Hungary in September 2011 examined the system of welfare controls in farms keeping geese, including the aspects of feathers' harvesting. The report and the action plan of the Hungarian competent authorities to address its recommendations are available at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2802.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011290/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 décembre 2012)

Objet: La Commission néglige-t-elle l'influence des politiques budgétaires?

Quelle est la réaction de la Commission face au récent rapport de l'OFCE qui estime que les efforts budgétaires demandés aux pays européens sont trop élevés et leurs conséquences sous-estimées? Dans ce texte, la Commission est clairement accusée de sous-estimer les effets multiplicateurs des coupes budgétaires.

Réponse donnée par M. Rehn au nom de la Commission

(27 février 2013)

La validité des études récentes sur le multiplicateur budgétaire est limitée par le manque de recul et par le fait qu'on ne peut exclure que d'autres facteurs aient eu un impact sur la croissance par rapport à ce qui était attendu. Ces autres facteurs comprennent, en particulier, les effets de la confiance, qui se manifestent aujourd'hui du fait de nos politiques et dont profitent les pays vulnérables. En effet, en prenant en considération la détérioration de la confiance des investisseurs illustrée par la hausse des rendements des emprunts d'État, on a pu montrer (198) que les données ne sont pas incompatibles avec un multiplicateur moyen inférieur à un, tel que celui utilisé dans les modèles macroéconomiques classiques.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011290/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Is the Commission neglecting the impact of fiscal policies?

What is the Commission’s reaction to the recent French Economic Policy Institute report which states that the fiscal efforts required of European countries are too great and that their consequences are underestimated? In this report, the Commission is clearly accused of underestimating the multiplier effects of budget cuts.

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The robustness of recent studies on the fiscal multiplier is limited by their short time horizon and the fact that it cannot be excluded that other factors impacted on growth compared with what was expected. Such other factors include, in particular, the confidence effects that are materialising now due to our policies and from which the vulnerable countries are benefiting. Indeed, if one takes into account the deterioration of investor confidence expressed by rising government bond yields, it has been shown (199) that the evidence is not inconsistent with an average multiplier smaller than one, as used in common macroeconomic model.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011291/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 décembre 2012)

Objet: Retour d'informations sur REACH

Grâce à REACH, le consommateur bénéficie d'un droit nouveau: celui de demander au fabricant ou au distributeur d'un bien de consommation si l'article qu'il désire acheter contient ou non des substances figurant dans la liste ECHA. Si tel est le cas, le fabricant est tenu de répondre dans les 45 jours.

En Espagne et en Belgique, deux associations de défense du consommateur ont mené une enquête afin de savoir si les entreprises «jouaient le jeu». 50 % des entreprises ont répondu à l'association espagnole et 62,5 % à l'association belge. Les chiffres semblent être en augmentation par rapport à ceux collectés en 2010 par la BEE (22 %).

Néanmoins, même si le nombre de réponses augmente, force est de constater, d'une part, que près d'un distributeur ou fabricant sur deux ne répond toujours pas et, d'autre part, que 20 % des réponses reçues ne sont pas du tout conformes car beaucoup trop vagues.

En tant que député européen en charge de la protection des consommateurs, je souhaiterais poser les questions suivantes:

La Commission possède-t-elle une estimation du nombre de demandes émanant des consommateurs en direction des fabricants et des distributeurs? Si oui, quelle est-elle? Si non, comptez-vous en ordonner une?

La Commission compte-t-elle faire tester à nouveau le système pour disposer d'une statistique plus récente du pourcentage de fabricants et de distributeurs qui remplissent leurs obligations à cet égard?

Des sanctions sont-elles prévues pour les entreprises qui continueraient à ne pas répondre aux consommateurs européens?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(25 février 2013)

La Commission ne dispose pas d'une estimation du nombre de demandes émanant de consommateurs et soumises aux fabricants et aux distributeurs. Parmi d'autres études, le rapport de synthèse REACH donne un aperçu des résultats d'une enquête Eurobaromètre sur l'information des consommateurs sur les produits chimiques contenus dans les produits courants.

L'obligation visée à l'article 33 du règlement REACH (200) incombe au secteur et principalement aux détaillants. La Commission ne dispose pas des moyens nécessaires pour obtenir des données chiffrées sur le nombre de demandes envoyées dans l'Union européenne. Toutefois, la Commission entretient des contacts avec des organisations européennes de consommateurs et assurera le suivi auprès des États membres si de nouvelles données deviennent disponibles.

Conformément au règlement REACH, c'est aux États membres qu'incombe la responsabilité d'imposer des sanctions aux entreprises qui ne répondent pas aux consommateurs européens. Ces sanctions peuvent donc varier d'un pays à l'autre. Une étude sur les différentes sanctions en vigueur dans les États membres a été menée pour la Commission en 2010 et peut être consultée à l'adresse suivante:

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/enforcement_en.htm).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011291/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Feedback on REACH

Thanks to REACH, consumers have a new right — the right to ask the manufacturer or the distributor of a consumer product whether the item they wish to buy contains any of the substances on the ECHA list. Manufacturers must respond within 45 days.

In Spain and Belgium, two consumer protection associations conducted an investigation to find out whether businesses have been ‘playing the game’. 50% of the businesses replied to the Spanish association and 62.5% to the Belgian association. The figures seem to have increased compared to those collected in 2010 by the EEB (22%).

However, despite the increase in the number of responses, almost one in two distributors or manufacturers are still not replying and 20% of the responses received fail to comply as they are too vague.

As the MEP responsible for consumer protection, I would like to ask the following questions:

Does the Commission have an estimate on the number of requests from consumers submitted to manufacturers and distributors? If so, what is this estimate? If not, does it intend to call for one?

Does the Commission intend to test the system again to obtain more recent statistics on the percentage of manufacturers and distributors who are fulfilling their obligations in this respect?

Are there any sanctions established for businesses that fail to respond to European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

The Commission does not have an estimate on the number of requests from consumers submitted to manufacturers and distributors. The REACH Review outlines, amongst other studies, the results of a Eurobarometer survey on the awareness of consumers about chemicals in everyday products.

The obligation set out in Article 33 of the REACH regulation (201) rests upon the industry and mainly retailers. The Commission does not have the means necessary to obtain figures about the number of requests sent out in the European Union. However, the Commission maintains contact with European consumer organisations and will be following up with Member States if new figures become available.

In line with REACH, sanctions for businesses that fail to respond to European consumers are the responsibility of Member States. They can thus vary from one country to the other. A study of the different sanctions in place in Member States was carried out for the Commission in 2010 and can be consulted at this address: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/enforcement_en.htm

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011292/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 décembre 2012)

Objet: Réforme du droit d'auteur: composition du groupe de réflexion et programme des travaux

Une réforme profonde du droit d'auteur est indispensable. La récente actualité et les débats tumultueux autour de l'accord ACTA nous l'ont amplement rappelé.

La Commission vient de rendre public un plan d'action en deux temps pour un toilettage du droit d'auteur, dont le modèle traditionnel est mis à mal par la diffusion des technologies de l'information et de la communication.

Les problèmes à traiter à court terme se regroupent dans six domaines, selon la Commission: la portabilité transfrontalière des contenus, les contenus créés par les utilisateurs, l'utilisation d'instruments de fouille de données, la redevance pour copie privée, l'accès aux œuvres audiovisuelles et le patrimoine culturel.

La communication de la Commission indique qu'une phase de réflexion précèdera les phases des études d'incidence, des études de marché et de la rédaction législative.

Mes premières questions sur cette thématique qui me tient à cœur sont les suivantes:

Qui fera partie du groupe qui sera mis en place durant la phase de réflexion?

La Commission lancera-t-elle elle-même les invitations et, si oui, quels sont ses critères?

La Commission acceptera-t-elle les candidatures spontanées?

La composition du groupe de réflexion ou la liste des interlocuteurs seront-elles rendues publiques?

Quel est le programme des différentes phases?

Réponse donnée par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission

(22 février 2013)

Conformément au débat d'orientation tenu au sein du collège des commissaires, le 5 décembre 2012, les travaux visant à mettre en place un marché unique efficace dans le domaine des droits d'auteur se dérouleront selon deux axes parallèles. D'une part, la Commission conduira à son terme l'effort qu'elle a engagé pour revoir et moderniser le cadre législatif de l'UE sur le droit d'auteur. D'autre part, elle s'attaquera à un certain nombre de problèmes dans le cadre du dialogue «Des licences pour l'Europe (202)» avec les parties prenantes. Dans la communication sur le contenu dans le marché unique numérique (203), la Commission a recensé quatre domaines de travail (204).

1.

Chaque groupe de travail sera composé de représentants de différentes parties prenantes, issus de tous les secteurs concernés

1.

Chaque groupe de travail sera composé de représentants de différentes parties prenantes, issus de tous les secteurs concernés

 (205). Les participants devraient être en mesure, par une approche constructive, d'identifier les problèmes dans chacun des domaines, de partager leurs expériences, de participer au dialogue et de proposer des solutions adaptées.

2.

Le 21 décembre 2012, la Commission a invité des associations représentant différents groupes de parties prenantes. Les membres des groupes de travail ont été sélectionnés sur la base des critères précités, dans la réponse à la question n

o

 1.

3.

Lorsqu'elles reçoivent des candidatures spontanées, les trois directions générales responsables de l'organisation de l'initiative

«Des licences pour l'Europe» décident d'un commun accord de l'opportunité d'inclure ou non un candidat dans un ou plusieurs groupe(s) de travail. La Commission a déjà accepté des candidatures spontanées.

4.

Un site internet permettant de rendre publiques les informations concernant l'initiative

«Des licences pour l'Europe» sera créé.

5.

Selon le calendrier préliminaire, le dialogue aura lieu dans le courant de 2013. Une séance plénière et les premières réunions des groupes de travail ont eu lieu le 4 février

5.

Selon le calendrier préliminaire, le dialogue aura lieu dans le courant de 2013. Une séance plénière et les premières réunions des groupes de travail ont eu lieu le 4 février

 (206).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011292/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Copyright reform: makeup of the focus group and work programme

A radical reform of copyright is needed. Recent events and heated discussions concerning the ACTA agreement have been a sharp reminder of this.

The Commission has just released a two-stage action plan for revising copyright law, the conventional model of which is being undermined by the dissemination of information and communication technologies.

According to the Commission, the issues to be dealt with in the short term can be divided into six areas — the cross-border portability of content, content created by users, the use of data mining tools, private copying levy, access to audiovisual works and cultural property.

The Commission’s Communication indicates that there will be a phase of reflection before the impact assessment, market research and legislative drafting phases.

My initial questions on this subject, which is particularly important to me, are the following:

Who will be part of the group set up during the reflection phase?

Will the Commission send out invitations itself and, if so, what are its criteria?

Will the Commission accept unsolicited applications?

Will the members of the focus group or the list of speakers be made public?

What is the schedule for the different phases?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

From the orientation debate held by the College of Commissioners on 5 December 2012 follows that the work to ensure an effective single market in the area of copyright will proceed along two parallel tracks. On the one hand, it will complete its ongoing effort to review and to modernise the EU copyright legislative framework. On the other hand a number of issues will also be addressed through a stakeholder dialogue, ‘Licenses for Europe’ (207). In the communication on content in the Digital Single Market (208), the Commission identified those issues along 4 work strands (209).

1.

Each working group will consist of representatives of different stakeholders, from all sectors

1.

Each working group will consist of representatives of different stakeholders, from all sectors

 (210). The participant should be able to, in a constructive way, identify problems within each topic, share experiences, participate in the dialogue and propose appropriate solutions.

2.

The Commission sent out invitations to associations representing different groups of stakeholders on 21 December 2012. The participants of the working groups were selected in accordance with the criteria indicated above in the reply to question 1.

3.

When receiving unsolicited applications, the 3 Directorates-General responsible for the organisation of

‘Licenses for Europe’ decide with a common agreement whether to include or not a certain applicant in one or several of the working groups. The Commission has already accepted unsolicited applications.

4.

A website will be created where information concerning

‘Licenses for Europe’ will be published.

5.

According to the preliminary timeframe, the dialogue will be held throughout 2013. On 4 February a plenary session and kick-off meetings of the working groups took place

5.

According to the preliminary timeframe, the dialogue will be held throughout 2013. On 4 February a plenary session and kick-off meetings of the working groups took place

 (211).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011293/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 décembre 2012)

Objet: Discrimination via les droits d'accise sur la bière

Les députés français viennent d'adopter le projet de loi de finance de la sécurité sociale, qui prévoit une augmentation de 160 % des droits d'accise sur la bière. Cette augmentation devrait initialement rapporter 280 millions d'euros par an à l'État français, dont 95 millions proviendraient de la filière brassicole belge (pour qui la France est le premier marché d'exportation, avec 32 % du volume).

Les conséquences pour les brasseurs belges seraient bien sûr désastreuses.

En tant qu'eurodéputé en charge de la protection des consommateurs et en tant que Belge de surcroît, j'en appelle à la Commission:

Comment la Commission se positionne-t-elle dans ce dossier? Compte-t-elle faire annuler la décision de l'État français, ou à tout le moins ouvrir une enquête? Souvenons-nous que la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne a, par le passé, annulé la décision du Royaume-Uni d'augmenter les taxes sur le vin pour privilégier la production nationale de bière!

La Commission estime-t-elle que la politique fiscale d'un État membre peut influer sur les habitudes de consommation existantes afin de privilégier les industries nationales?

Ce dossier est-il en parfaite concordance avec la définition européenne et l'esprit du marché unique?

Réponse donnée par M. Šemeta au nom de la Commission

(25 janvier 2013)

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à prendre connaissance de sa réponse à la question écrite E-010183/2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011293/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Discrimination through excise duties on beer

French MPs have just adopted a Finance Bill on social security which provides for an increase of 160% in excise duties on beer. This increase should initially bring in EUR 280 million per year to the French State, EUR 95 million of which would come from the Belgian brewing industry (for which France is the main export market with 32% of the amount of exports).

The consequences for Belgian breweries would of course be disastrous.

As the MEP responsible for consumer protection and as a Belgian, I would like to ask the Commission the following:

What is its position on this matter? Does it intend to overturn the decision by the French State or, at the very least, initiate an investigation? It is worth remembering that the Court of Justice of the European Union has in the past overturned a decision by the United Kingdom to increase taxes on wine to favour domestic beer production.

Does the Commission believe that a Member State’s fiscal policy could influence existing patterns of consumption, favouring national industries?

Is this matter fully consistent with the EU definition of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer given to Written Question E-010183/2012 (212).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011295/12

to the Commission

Seán Kelly (PPE)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Grading practices on factory ships

Does the Commission have any plans to bring forward legislation to prohibit the use of mincing equipment on factory fishing vessels operating in European waters?

It has come to my attention that a practice has developed whereby factory ships use mincing equipment which enables the practice of high grading. This involves the selection of smaller‐ sized, less valuable fish, mincing them, and dumping them back into the sea.

It in effect enables these ships to dump small fish almost undetectably. This results in these ships being able only to declare the catch that they land at port and not what is actually caught by the ships concerned, to the detriment of the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen and the sustainability of fish stocks.

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

Addressing the issue of discards is central in reforming the common fisheries policy (CFP) and moving towards sustainable fisheries. The Commission recognises the practice highlighted by the Honourable Member is contrary to this objective.

The mincing of fish on board vessels for use in the preparation of imitation seafood is allowed under Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (213). However, the clear intention of this article is that such products are retained on board and not discarded. Moreover, under Article 32 of the same Regulation, the carrying on board of automatic grading equipment for the size sorting of certain species is prohibited. The practice described would seem to constitute a breach of this provision.

Such discarding of fish would also be contrary to the general ban on high-grading (i.e. discarding fish of low value to keep space on board for higher value fish) in EU waters previously contained on a temporary basis in Regulation (EU) No 579/2011 (214). The Commission proposes to make this measure permanent under a proposed amendment to Regulation (EC) No 850/98. This proposal is currently awaiting formal adoption by Council and the European Parliament.

Given these existing provisions that outlaws the practice described, the Commission does not see the need to introduce any specific legislation at this time. It is the responsibility of the control authorities of the relevant Member States to enforce these provisions in waters under their jurisdiction.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011570/12

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Modificaciones al Decreto legislativo 31/2001, relativo a la calidad del agua destinada al consumo humano

El proyecto de Decreto interministerial que propone la introducción de varias modificaciones en el Decreto legislativo 31/2001 relativo a la calidad del agua destinada al consumo humano (n° 2012/0534/I — C50A, título «Proyecto de Decreto interministerial para la introducción, en el anexo I, parte B, del Decreto legislativo n° 31 de 2 de febrero de 2001, del parámetro “Microcistina-LR” y su relativo valor de parámetro») podría ir en contra de la legislación comunitaria y, en concreto, de la Directiva 98/83/CE del Consejo, de 3 de noviembre de 1998, relativa a la calidad de las aguas destinadas al consumo humano, que Italia ha transpuesto a su ordenamiento mediante el Decreto 31/2001.

Esta modificación difiere de la opinión científica de la Asociación italiana de médicos por el medio ambiente (ISDE) y de los expertos del Instituto Superior de Sanidad (Italia), entre otros, y va en perjuicio del principio de cautela. De acuerdo con dichas instituciones, si se aprueban las modificaciones propuestas, aunque se respeten determinados valores paramétricos, se posibilitaría el suministro de agua contaminada destinada al consumo humano con presencia de cianobacterias y de toxinas que estas producen, tales como microcistinas, que han sido clasificadas como posibles cancerígenos para el ser humano (grupo 2B) por el Centro Internacional de Investigación sobre el Cáncer (CIIC).

El 20 de noviembre de 2012, la Asociación italiana de médicos por el medio ambiente (ISDE) ha proporcionado información y evidencias específicas a los responsables de la Comisión Europea en relación con la Directiva 98/34/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 22 de junio de 1998, por la que se establece un procedimiento de información en materia de las normas y reglamentaciones técnicas.

A la luz de lo anterior, ¿tiene la Comisión la intención de rechazar las modificaciones propuestas al Decreto legislativo 31/2001 en el proyecto de Decreto interministerial (2012/0534/I — C50A) y garantizar que toda modificación en la transposición de la Directiva 98/83/CE relativa a la calidad de las aguas destinadas al consumo humano tendrá el único objeto de asegurar unos niveles de calidad más elevados?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(25 de febrero de 2013)

En su respuesta a la pregunta E-10723/12, la Comisión explicó los procedimientos del proceso de notificación y sus implicaciones en el marco de la Directiva sobre la calidad de las aguas destinadas al consumo humano (215).

Las autoridades italianas notificaron a la Comisión la propuesta de decreto interministerial 2012/0534/I-C50A, que modifica el Decreto 31/2001. La Comisión acaba de examinar esa notificación y no ha detectado ninguna infracción de la legislación de la UE.

El valor propuesto en la notificación para el parámetro «Microcystin-LR» (1.0 µg/l) se ajusta a los valores orientativos provisionales de la OMS, en los que se basan por lo general las normas de la Directiva sobre la calidad de las aguas destinadas al consumo humano (considerando 16).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011298/12

alla Commissione

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Introduzione della sostanza microcistina LR (e relativo valore di parametro) nel decreto ministeriale 31/2001

Il governo italiano ha recentemente presentato alla Commissione uno schema di decreto interministeriale con il quale viene proposta l'introduzione del parametro «microcistina LR» nell'allegato I, parte B del decreto legislativo 31/2001, con cui l'Italia ha recepito nel proprio ordinamento la direttiva 98/83/CE relativa ai requisiti di potabilità dell'acqua destinata al consumo umano.

Tali modifiche, se approvate, permetterebbero, anche se con determinati valori di parametro, l'erogazione di acque potabili contaminate da cianobatteri e microcistine da essi prodotte, sostanze quest'ultime classificate dalla Iarc (Agenzia internazionale di ricerca sul cancro) come elementi cancerogeni di classe 2 b.

Considerato che:

l'elevata potenzialità tossica, epigenetica e oncogena di alcuni tipi di microcistine presenti nelle acque, nonché la loro mutevole e imprevedibile risposta a diverse condizioni climatiche e ambientali, sono scientificamente documentate e rappresentano un concreto rischio per la salute umana;

su tutto il territorio italiano manca un efficace sistema di sorveglianza e gestione delle acque che presentano tali criticità e che una potabilizzazione sicura in molte regioni italiane non è quindi tuttora garantita;

l'introduzione nel decreto legislativo 31/2001 di nuovi valori di parametro relativi a sostanze palesemente cancerogene determinerebbe il venir meno della capacità di tutela della salute pubblica a cui sono demandati sia il decreto summenzionato sia la direttiva 98/83/CE dal medesimo recepita;

può la Commissione specificare come intende operare rispetto alla proposta di modifica del decreto legislativo 31/2001 presentata dal governo italiano (notifica n. 2012/0534/I — C50, «Schema di decreto legislativo per l'introduzione, nell'allegato I, parte B del decreto legislativo 2 febbraio 2001 n. 31 del parametro microcistina LR e relativo valore di parametro)»?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-011528/12

alla Commissione

Rita Borsellino (S&D)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Decreto sui requisiti di potabilità dell'acqua

Il decreto interministeriale n. 2012/0534/I — C50A, che propone modifiche al decreto legislativo n. 31/2001 relativo ai requisiti di potabilità dell'acqua destinata al consumo umano, è ora all'esame della Commissione europea (DG ENTR). Questo decreto interministeriale permette di erogare — come potabile per il consumo umano — acqua proveniente da corpi idrici inquinati da sostanze tossiche e cancerogene, come cianobatteri e relative microcistine.

Considerato che:

il decreto legislativo n. 31/2011, che ha recepito la direttiva europea 98/83/CE, può essere modificato solo per introdurre criteri più stringenti, e non più permissivi come è avvenuto nel caso specifico;

l'approvazione di questo decreto comporta un rischio documentato e concreto per la salute umana e che è necessario, invece, rispettare pienamente il principio di precauzione;

l'Associazione italiana medici per l'ambiente — Isde (International Society of Doctors for the Environment — Italy) ha inviato al responsabile per la direttiva 98/34/CE della Commissione europea un documento recante una serie di osservazioni volte a sostenere la richiesta di rigetto del suddetto decreto;

la Commissione non ritiene sia necessario intervenire per valutare eventuali violazioni del diritto comunitario ed eventualmente chiedere il ritiro alle autorità italiane di tale decreto?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011570/12

alla Commissione

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Modifiche al decreto legislativo 31/2001 relativo ai requisiti di potabilità

Lo schema di decreto interministeriale che propone l'introduzione di alcune modifiche al decreto legislativo 31/2001 relativo ai requisiti di potabilità (n. 2012/0534/I — C50A, titolo «Schema di decreto interministeriale per l'introduzione, nell'allegato I, parte B, del decreto legislativo 2 febbraio 2001 n. 31, del parametro “Microcistina-LR” e relativo valore di parametro») potrebbe essere contrario alla legislazione europea con specifico riferimento alla direttiva 98/83/CE del Consiglio, del 3 novembre 1998, concernente la qualità delle acque destinate al consumo umano, di cui il decreto 31/2001 ne è la trasposizione.

Questa modificazione è stata realizzata contro l'opinione scientifica dell'Associazione italiana medici per l’ambiente (ISDE) e di specialisti dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità, fra altri, e sarebbe contraria al principio di precauzione. A loro avviso queste modifiche, se approvate, permetterebbero, anche se con determinati valori di parametro, l’erogazione di acque a uso umano anche in presenza di contaminazione da cianobatteri e delle loro microcistine classificate dalla IARC (Agenzia internazionale di ricerca sul cancro) come cancerogeni di classe 2 b.

Il 20 novembre 2012 l'ISDE ha inviato documentazione e evidenze specifiche ai responsabili della Commissione europea in relazione alla direttiva 98/34/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 22 giugno 1998, che prevede una procedura d'informazione nel settore delle norme e delle regolamentazioni tecniche.

Alla luce di quanto precede, intende la Commissione rigettare le modifiche proposte al decreto legislativo 31/2001 per lo schema di decreto interministeriale (2012/0534/I — C50A) e far sì che qualsiasi modifica nella trasposizione della direttiva 98/83/CE sulla qualità dell'acqua sia solo diretta ad assicurare livelli di qualità più elevati?

Risposta congiunta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(25 febbraio 2013)

Nella risposta all’interrogazione parlamentare E-10723/12 la Commissione ha specificato le procedure connesse al processo di notifica e le relative implicazioni che derivano dalla direttiva sull’acqua potabile (216).

Le autorità italiane hanno notificato alla Commissione lo schema di decreto interministeriale n. 2012/0534/I-C50A che modifica il decreto 31/2001. La Commissione ha preso in esame tale notifica e non ha individuato nessun elemento che provi una violazione del diritto dell’UE.

Il valore proposto nella notifica per il parametro «microcistina LR» (1.0 µg/l) è in linea con i valori degli orientamenti stabiliti dall’OMS, su cui sono in genere fondate le norme stabilite nella direttiva sull’acqua potabile (considerando 16).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011298/12

to the Commission

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Addition of the substance microcystin-LR (and the relative parametric value) to Ministerial Decree 31/2001

The Italian Government recently presented a draft interministerial decree to the Commission proposing to add the ‘microcystin-LR’ parameter to Annex I, part B of Legislative Decree 31/2001, with which Italy transposed Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

If approved, albeit subject to specific parameters, this amendment would enable the supply of drinking water contaminated with cyanobacteria and the microcystins they produce, the latter being classified by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as a class 2 b carcinogenic elements.

Given that:

the high toxic, epigenetic and oncogenic potential of certain types of microcystin present in water, as well as their changeable and unpredictable responses to different climatic and environmental conditions, have been scientifically documented and present a concrete risk to human health;

Italy lacks an effective national surveillance and management system for water containing such critical hazards and therefore safe drinking water cannot yet be guaranteed in many Italian regions;

the addition to Legislative Decree 31/2001 of new parametric values for clearly carcinogenic substances would make it impossible for the aforementioned Decree and Directive 98/83/EC, adopted by the said Decree, to safeguard public health;

Can the Commission state how it intends to act concerning the proposal to amend Legislative Decree 31/2001 presented by the Italian Government (notification no. 2012/0534/I‐ C50, ‘Draft legislative decree for the addition to Annex I, part B of Legislative Decree No 31 of 2 February 2001 of the “microcystin-LR” parameter and the relative parametric value’)?

Question for written answer P-011528/12

to the Commission

Rita Borsellino (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Decree on drinking water quality standards

Interministerial Decree No 2012/0534/I — C50A amending Legislative Decree No 31/2001 on the quality of water intended for human consumption is currently being considered by the Commission (DG ENTR). This interministerial decree would make it possible to declare as suitable for human consumption water drawn from bodies of water contaminated with toxic and carcinogenic substances, such as cyanobacteria and their microcystins.

Legislative Decree No 31/2001, implementing Directive 98/83/EC, can be amended only in order to introduce more stringent criteria, but not laxer criteria, as would be the case here.

The adoption of this decree would create a specific, well-documented risk to human health, in blatant disregard of the precautionary principle.

The International Society of Doctors for the Environment — Italy (ISDE) has forwarded to the official responsible for monitoring the application of Directive 98/34/EC at the Commission a document setting out a range of observations in support of this call to reject the decree.

Does the Commission not take the view that it should intervene in order to determine whether EC law is being breached and, if necessary, call on the Italian authorities to withdraw the decree?

Question for written answer E-011570/12

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Amendments to Legislative Decree 31/2001 concerning drinking water requirements

The draft inter-ministerial decree which is seeking to make some changes to Legislative Decree 31/2001 concerning drinking water requirements (No 2012/0534/I — C50A, entitled ‘Draft Inter-Ministerial Decree for the introduction, in Annex I, part B to Legislative Decree No 31 of 2 February 2001, of the parameter “Microcystin-LR” and its relevant parameter value’) may be in breach of EU legislation, with specific reference to Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, which Decree 31/2001 incorporates into Italian law.

This amendment has been made against the scientific opinion of the Italian Association of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) and specialists from the Institute of Health, amongst others, and runs counter to the precautionary principle. In their view, these changes, if approved, would allow (albeit in accordance with certain parameter values) water to be supplied for human use even when that water is contaminated by cyanobacteria and their microcystins, which are classified by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as Class 2B carcinogens.

On 20 November 2012, the ISDE sent documentation and specific evidence to the people responsible at the Commission with regard to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards.

In the light of the above, will the Commission reject the proposed changes to Legislative Decree 31/2001 in relation to the draft inter-ministerial decree (2012/0534/I — C50A) and will it ensure that any amendments made during the transposition of Directive 98/83/EC on water quality aim solely to ensure higher quality levels?

Joint answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

In its reply to Question E-10723/12, the Commission clarified the procedures related to the notification process and its implications under the Drinking Water Directive (DWD) (217).

The Italian authorities have notified the Commission of the proposed Interministerial Decree No 2012/0534/I-C50A amending Decree 31/2001 to the Commission. The Commission has now examined this notification and found no evidence of any infringement to EC law.

The value proposed in the notification for the parameter ‘Microcystin-LR’ (1.0 µg/l) is in line with the WHO provisional guideline values, on which the DWD standards are generally based (Recital 16).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011299/12

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Scioperi nella fabbrica cinese della Foxconn International Holdings Ltd: possibile violazione delle norme a tutela dei lavoratori

Nei mesi scorsi nella provincia cinese di Guangdong si sono verificati diversi scioperi nella fabbrica della Foxconn, l'azienda alla quale la Apple ha affidato la produzione di alcuni dei pezzi più delicati del noto prodotto Iphone5. I circa 4.000 operai in sciopero lamentano di non essere in grado di rispettare i rigidi controlli di qualità imposti dalla casa madre Apple, senza avere prima effettuato un periodo di addestramento adeguato. Nei nuovi apparecchi Iphone5 è stata infatti rilevata un'imprecisione macroscopica delle nuove mappe stradali e geografiche oltre ad altri problemi tecnici.

Ma il fatto ancor più grave sono le condizioni di lavoro che gli operai della Foxconn hanno denunciato. Infatti, nel 2010 tale azienda è salita alla ribalta a causa dei diciotto dipendenti che si sono tolti la vita per le dure condizioni di lavoro e dei turni massacranti, il che le ha fatto acquisire il soprannome di «fabbrica di suicidi».

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere:

se è a conoscenza della situazione suesposta;

come intende far rispettare il protocollo relativo alla Convenzione OIL sulla sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori e quella sul riposo settimanale negli stabilimenti industriali;

quali sono i vincoli all'accordo di cooperazione economica e commerciale tra l'UE e Cina?

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

(11 febbraio 2013)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza delle denunce contro le pessime condizioni di lavoro nella fabbrica della Foxconn a Taiyuan (nella provincia dello Shanxi), che hanno provocato proteste e suicidi. In seguito a questi ultimi avvenimenti Foxconn ha concesso di recente una riduzione dei turni di lavoro, un salario minimo e un miglioramento della rappresentanza del personale.

La Commissione ha formalizzato la propria strategia in materia di RSI (218) in una comunicazione del 2011 (219) che esorta al massimo rispetto delle linee direttrici e dei principi riconosciuti a livello internazionale in materia di responsabilità sociale delle imprese, tra cui figurano la dichiarazione tripartita di principi sulle imprese multinazionali e la politica sociale dell'OIL (220), gli orientamenti dell'OCSE (221) sulle imprese multinazionali e i principi guida delle Nazioni Unite sulle imprese e sui diritti umani.

I punti di contatto nazionali, istituiti dai governi che aderiscono agli orientamenti dell'OCSE, dovrebbero indagare sui casi presunti di mancato rispetto di tali linee direttrici e cercare di mediare tra le parti interessate.

Inoltre, l'UE si sta adoperando per proseguire l'attuazione dei principi guida delle Nazioni Unite sulle imprese e sui diritti umani. Le misure adottate prevedono anche l'elaborazione di orientamenti in materia di diritti umani per le imprese del settore delle TIC (222)/telecomunicazioni, che dovrebbero essere pubblicati nel primo semestre del 2013.

Infine, la Commissione si impegna a promuovere condizioni di lavoro dignitose nell'ambito delle relazioni bilaterali e regionali con i suoi partner, nonché a livello multilaterale nei consessi internazionali pertinenti, in particolare con l'OIL che è l'organo di riferimento per la definizione e la sorveglianza delle norme internazionali sul lavoro. L'azione svolta dall'UE per promuovere condizioni di lavoro dignitose in tutto il mondo rientra nel suo impegno volto a rafforzare la dimensione sociale della globalizzazione, sia all'interno che all'esterno dell'Unione. Essa è incoraggiata dal rafforzamento reciproco delle politiche economiche, occupazionali, sociali e ambientali, in linea con la strategia UE 2020 per una crescita intelligente, sostenibile e inclusiva.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011299/12

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Strikes in the Chinese factory of Foxconn International Holdings Ltd: possible violation of the laws protecting workers

Over the last few months, several strikes have taken place at the Foxconn factory in the Chinese province of Guangdong. Foxconn has been contracted by Apple to produce some of the most delicate parts of the famous iPhone 5. The 4 000 or so workers on strike are protesting that they are unable to meet the strict quality controls imposed by the parent company, Apple, without first undergoing a suitable training period. Along with other technical problems, gross inaccuracies have in fact been found in the new street and geographical maps on the new iPhone 5 devices.

However, the working conditions revealed by the Foxconn workers are an even more serious concern. In 2010, the same company rose to prominence after eighteen employees took their lives owing to the harsh working conditions and exhausting shifts, which earned it the nickname of ‘the suicide factory’.

In view of this, can the Commission state:

Whether it is aware of the abovementioned situation?

How it intends to ensure that the protocol relating to the ILO Occupational Safety and Health Convention and Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention is adhered to?

What obligations are contained in the Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation between the European Union and China?

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

(11 February 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of allegations of harsh working conditions in the Foxconn Factory in Taiyuan (Shanxi province), and recent protests and suicides in response, in reaction of which, Foxconn has recently agreed to reduce hours, protect pay and improve staff representation.

The Commission has a policy on CSR (223) which the Commission formalised in a communication in 2011 (224). This calls for the utmost respect for internationally recognised CSR guidelines and principles, including the ILO (225) Tri-Partite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, the OECD (226) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

National Contact Points, established by Governments that adhere to the OECD Guidelines, should investigate allegations of non-respect of the Guidelines and seek to mediate between concerned parties.

Furthermore, the EU is taking steps to further implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This includes the development of human rights guidance for ICT (227)/telecommunications companies, which is due to be published in the first half of 2013.

Finally, the Commission is committed to promoting decent work in bilateral and regional relations with its partners, and within the relevant international fora at multilateral level, notably the ILO as the key body for setting and monitoring international labour standards. The EU contribution to decent work throughout the world is part of its efforts to strengthen the social dimension of globalisation, both in the EU and abroad. It is driven by mutually reinforcing economic, employment, social and environmental policies, in line with the EU 2020 strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011300/12

alla Commissione

Debora Serracchiani (S&D)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Accesso negato alla nave Grimaldi in Tunisia

Lo scorso 6 novembre, il Ministero dei trasporti e l'Office de la marine marchande et des ports (OMMP) della Tunisia hanno autorizzato il Gruppo Grimaldi e la odierna ricorrente Atlantica a prestare il servizio di trasporto ro/ro dall'Italia (Genova, Livorno, Palermo) al porto di La Goulette (Tunisi) consentendo con ciò al Gruppo Grimaldi di accedere al mercato dell'autostrada del mare Genova-Tunisi secondo quanto previsto dalle vigenti norme europee.

In data 23 novembre 2012, l'ufficio di Tunisi della Atlantica ha ricevuto una comunicazione da parte dell'OMMP che negava alla nave Eurocargo Bari l'accesso al porto di La Goulette per problemi di congestione nel porto. Nonostante siano passati 10 giorni, l'OMMP continua inspiegabilmente a negare l'accesso lasciando così la nave in rada e arrecando un ingente danno.

Dall'accertamento effettuato anche con la presenza di diplomatici italiani, emerge che le autorità tunisine impediscono l'accesso del Gruppo Grimaldi al mercato della linea Genova-Tunisi per sostenere la compagnia marittima nazionale (Cotunav) e che quindi abusano della loro posizione dominante attraverso il diritto esclusivo sulla linea/mercato Genova-Tunisi.

1.

Considerato che dal 1° gennaio 2008 la Tunisia è entrata nella zona di libero scambio con l'Europa, dopo un periodo transitorio di dodici anni iniziato nel 1995 con la firma dell'accordo di associazione tra Tunisia e Unione europea, ritiene la Commissione che con tale comportamento siano state infrante le norme che regolano i rapporti commerciali tra UE e Tunisia?

2.

Se sì, quali azioni intende intraprendere per far sì che sia assicurato il rispetto delle norme vigenti, inclusa la legislazione del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea in materia di concorrenza (articoli 101 e 102)?

Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione

(5 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione è al corrente delle difficoltà incontrate dalla compagnia in questione.

L'accordo di associazione UE-Tunisia non comprende una base giuridica per affrontare una simile situazione. Pertanto, in assenza di mezzi giuridici, la Commissione continua a trattare tali questioni, ove possibile, nell'ambito dei contatti e degli incontri bilaterali.

Inoltre, gli eventuali futuri negoziati in merito a una Zona di libero scambio globale e approfondito svilupperanno disposizioni per la liberalizzazione degli scambi di servizi con una sostanziale copertura settoriale. Si potranno sviluppare disposizioni normative specifiche per determinati settori dei servizi, in particolare quello dei trasporti marittimi internazionali.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011300/12

to the Commission

Debora Serracchiani (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Grimaldi vessel refused access in Tunisia

On 6 November this year, the Tunisian Ministry of Transport and the country’s Merchant Navy and Ports Authority (OMMP) authorised the Grimaldi Group and this claimant, Atlantica, to provide a RORO transport service from Italy (Genoa, Livorno, Palermo) to the port of La Goulette (Tunis), thus allowing the Grimaldi Group access to the Genoa-Tunis Motorway of the Sea market in accordance with the provisions of current European legislation.

On 23 November 2012, the Tunis office of Atlantica received notification from the OMMP denying the Eurocargo Bari vessel access to the port of La Goulette owing to congestion problems inside the port. 10 days have passed since then but the OMMP is inexplicably continuing to refuse access, thus leaving the vessel in the roadsteads and causing huge losses.

An investigation carried out in the presence of Italian diplomats has revealed that the Tunisian authorities are preventing the Grimaldi Group from accessing the market for the Genoa-Tunis route in order to support the national shipping line (Cotunav) and thus abusing their dominant position through the exclusive right to the Genoa-Tunis market.

1.

Considering that, on 1 January 2008, Tunisia entered the free trade zone with Europe, after a transitional period of twelve years which began in 1995 with the signature of the association agreement between Tunisia and the European Union, does the Commission judge that such behaviour marks an infringement of the regulations which govern the trade relationship between the EU and Tunisia?

2.

If so, which measures does it intend to take to ensure that the prevailing laws, including the terms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding competition (Articles 101 and 102) are adhered to?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by the company in question.

The EU-Tunisia Association Agreement does not include a legal basis in order to tackle such a situation. Thus, due to the absence of legal means, the Commission continues to address the issues whenever possible during bilateral contacts and meetings.

Furthermore, any future negotiations on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area would develop provisions on liberalisation of trade in services with a substantial sectoral coverage. Specific regulatory provisions may be developed for selected services sectors in particular in the area of international maritime transport services.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011301/12

ao Conselho

Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) e Ana Gomes (S&D)

(11 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira

— Considerando que, na reunião do Eurogrupo de 26 de novembro de 2012, foi decidido conceder condições mais flexíveis à Grécia para cumprir o programa de ajustamento económico;

— Considerando as declarações à imprensa de 26 de novembro do Presidente do Eurogrupo, Jean‐Claude Juncker, em relação à Grécia, segundo as quais «tomámos a decisão há meses, ou mesmo há mais de um ano, de que temos que aplicar as mesmas regras aos países do programa»;

— Considerando que, na sequência destas declarações, o Ministro das Finanças português, Vítor Gaspar, afirmou, em 27 de novembro, que «Portugal e a Irlanda, países do programa, serão, de acordo com o princípio de igualdade de tratamento adotado na cimeira da área do euro, em julho de 2011, beneficiados pelas condições abertas no quadro do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira»;

— Considerando que, na última reunião do Eurogrupo, o Presidente Jean-Claude Juncker rejeitou, em 3 de dezembro, a possibilidade de tratamento equivalente ao da Grécia para Portugal e para a Irlanda;

— Considerando que o Ministro da Finanças português, Vítor Gaspar, veio de imediato contrariar, na mesma data e de forma pouco clara, o que antes afirmara, declarando que «a simplificação excessiva de assuntos complexos conduz, inevitavelmente, a mal‐entendidos, que, infelizmente, tendem a persistir, ao ponto de serem considerados verdades demonstradas»;

— Considerando que as condições económicas e sociais em Portugal se degradam dia após dia em consequência das medidas de austeridade, o que se comprova, quer pela subida da taxa de desemprego (de 13,7 % para 16,3 % no período homólogo de 2012), quer pela contração da economia, que, de acordo com as previsões da OCDE, atingirá 1,8 % em 2013, quase o dobro do que o governo e a «troika» esperam (1 %);

Perguntamos ao Conselho:

Tendo o Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira como objetivo a salvaguarda da estabilidade financeira da zona euro através da assistência financeira temporária aos seus Estados-Membros, poderá Portugal beneficiar das novas condições estabelecidas para a Grécia? No caso de a resposta ser negativa, qual a razão?

Resposta

(15 de abril de 2013)

A assistência financeira a Portugal é concedida através do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilização Financeira (MEEF) e do Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira (FEEF).

Enquanto que o MEEF foi estabelecido pelo Regulamento (UE) n.° 407/2010 do Conselho, de 11 de maio de 2010, que cria um mecanismo europeu de estabilização financeira, o FEEF é uma sociedade de responsabilidade limitada, criada pelos Estados‐Membros da área do euro, fora da alçada da UE.

No que diz respeito ao MEEF, o Conselho facilitou as condições de concessão de empréstimos a Portugal em 11 de outubro de 2011 tendo adotado a Decisão de Execução que altera a Decisão de Execução 2011/344/UE relativa à concessão de assistência financeira da União a Portugal. Em 5 de março de 2013, os Ministros das Finanças dos Estados‐Membros da UE debateram a questão de saber se estariam prontos, em princípio, a ponderar um ajustamento dos prazos de vencimento dos empréstimos do FEEF e do MEEF a Portugal para suavizar o perfil de reembolso da dívida do país. Os Ministros acordaram em solicitar à Troika que apresentasse uma proposta com a melhor opção possível para Portugal no que diz respeito aos empréstimos do MEEF.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011301/12

to the Council

Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) and Ana Gomes (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: European Financial Stability Fund

At the Eurogroup meeting of 26 November 2012, it was decided that Greece would be granted more flexible terms of compliance with the economic adjustment programme.

At a press conference on 26 November 2012, the Eurogroup President, Jean-Claude Juncker said in relation to Greece that it had been decided months earlier, over a year ago, that the same rules had to be applied to the countries in the programme.

Following these declarations, the Portuguese Finance Minister, Vítor Gaspar, said on 27 November that ‘Portugal and Ireland, which both belong to the programme, will be able to benefit from the conditions made available within the framework of the European Financial Stability Mechanism, in line with the principle of equal treatment adopted by the euro area summit in July 2011’.

At the latest Eurogroup meeting on 3 December, its President Jean-Claude Juncker rejected the possibility of giving Portugal and Ireland equivalent treatment to Greece.

On the same day, the Portuguese Finance Minister, Vítor Gaspar, immediately contradicted his previous statements, rather unclearly, by saying that ‘oversimplification of complex issues inevitably leads to misunderstandings, which unfortunately tend to persist, to the point of being considered established truths’.

Economic and social conditions in Portugal are deteriorating on a daily basis as a result of the austerity measures, as is borne out by the rising unemployment rate (from 13.7% to 16.3% during the same period in 2012) and economic recession, which the OECD estimates will reach 1.8% in 2013, almost twice the figure hoped for by the Portuguese Government and the Troika (1%)

Can the Council answer the following:

In view of the fact that the aim of the European Financial Stability Fund is to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area by providing temporary financial aid to its Member States, will Portugal be able to benefit from the new conditions set for Greece? If not, why not?

Reply

(15 April 2013)

Financial assistance to Portugal is provided by the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

While the EFSM was established by Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (228), EFSF is a limited liability company, established by the euro area Member States, outside the remit of the EU.

As regards the EFSM, the Council eased lending conditions regarding loans to Portugal on 11 October 2011 by adopting the Implementing Decision amending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal (229). On 5 March 2013, Finance Ministers of the EU Member States discussed whether they would be ready in principle to consider an adjustment of the maturities on the EFSF and EFSM loans to Portugal in order to smooth the debt redemption profile of the country. Ministers agreed to ask the Troika to come forward with a proposal for their best possible option for Portugal for EFSM loans.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011302/12

à Comissão

Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) e Ana Gomes (S&D)

(11 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira

— Considerando que, na reunião do Eurogrupo de 26 de novembro de 2012, foi decidido conceder condições mais flexíveis à Grécia para cumprir o programa de ajustamento económico;

— Considerando as declarações à imprensa de 26 de novembro do Presidente do Eurogrupo, Jean‐Claude Juncker, em relação à Grécia, segundo as quais «tomámos a decisão há meses, ou mesmo há mais de um ano, de que temos que aplicar as mesmas regras aos países do programa»;

— Considerando que, na sequência destas declarações, o Ministro das Finanças português, Vítor Gaspar, afirmou, em 27 de novembro, que «Portugal e a Irlanda, países do programa, serão, de acordo com o princípio de igualdade de tratamento adotado na cimeira da área do euro, em julho de 2011, beneficiados pelas condições abertas no quadro do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira»;

— Considerando que, na última reunião do Eurogrupo, o Presidente Jean-Claude Juncker rejeitou, em 3 de dezembro, a possibilidade de tratamento equivalente ao da Grécia para Portugal e para a Irlanda;

— Considerando que o Ministro da Finanças português, Vítor Gaspar, veio de imediato contrariar, na mesma data e de forma pouco clara, o que antes afirmara, declarando que «a simplificação excessiva de assuntos complexos conduz, inevitavelmente, a mal‐entendidos, que, infelizmente, tendem a persistir, ao ponto de serem considerados verdades demonstradas»;

— Considerando que as condições económicas e sociais em Portugal se degradam dia após dia em consequência das medidas de austeridade, o que se comprova, quer pela subida da taxa de desemprego (de 13,7 % para 16,3 % no período homólogo de 2012), quer pela contração da economia, que, de acordo com as previsões da OCDE, atingirá 1,8 % em 2013, quase o dobro do que o governo e a «troika» esperam (1 %);

Perguntamos à Comissão:

Serão as condições de que passou a beneficiar a Grécia na utilização do Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira extensíveis a Portugal? No caso de a resposta ser negativa, qual a razão?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Na sequência da decisão do Eurogrupo tomada em 13 de dezembro de 2012, a Grécia irá pagar juros mais baixos sobre os empréstimos concedidos ao abrigo do mecanismo de concessão de empréstimos à Grécia, um acordo bilateral entre a Grécia e outros Estados‐Membros da zona euro, uma vez que a margem aplicada a estes empréstimos relativamente à taxa Euribor, foi reduzida de 150 para 50 pontos de base. Não existe um mecanismo semelhante para Portugal.

As taxas de juro do Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira (FEEF) permanecerão inalteradas para a Grécia. Tanto a Grécia como Portugal (assim como a Irlanda), pagam ao FEEF uma taxa de juro igual à taxa média anual a que o FEEF contrai empréstimos no mercado. No caso de Portugal, esta taxa encontra-se atualmente ligeiramente acima dos 3 %.

Os Estados-Membros da zona euro decidiram igualmente adiar 10 anos o pagamento dos juros sobre os empréstimos concedidos pelo EFSF e alargar os prazos de vencimento dos empréstimos do EFSF concedidos à Grécia. O adiamento no pagamento dos juros implica que, durante a presente década, a carga de juros será menor, no entanto esta carga será mais pesada durante a década seguinte; trata-se sobretudo de uma transferência temporária dos custos de financiamento e a Grécia terá de pagar juros sobre este diferimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011302/12

to the Commission

Edite Estrela (S&D), Vital Moreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) and Ana Gomes (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: European Financial Stability Fund

At the Eurogroup meeting of 26 November 2012, it was decided that Greece would be granted more flexible terms of compliance with the economic adjustment programme.

At a press conference on 26 November 2012, the Eurogroup President, Jean-Claude Juncker said in relation to Greece that it had been decided months earlier, over a year ago, that the same rules had to be applied to the countries in the programme.

Following these declarations, the Portuguese Finance Minister, Vítor Gaspar, said on 27 November that ‘Portugal and Ireland, which both belong to the programme, will be able to benefit from the conditions made available within the framework of the European Financial Stability Mechanism, in line with the principle of equal treatment adopted by the euro area summit in July 2011’.

At the latest Eurogroup meeting on 3 December, its President Jean-Claude Juncker rejected the possibility of giving Portugal and Ireland equivalent treatment to Greece.

On the same day, the Portuguese Finance Minister, Vítor Gaspar, immediately contradicted his previous statements, rather unclearly, by saying that ‘oversimplification of complex issues inevitably leads to misunderstandings, which unfortunately tend to persist, to the point of being considered established truths’.

Economic and social conditions in Portugal are deteriorating on a daily basis as a result of the austerity measures, as is borne out by the rising unemployment rate (from 13.7% to 16.3% during the same period in 2012) and economic recession, which the OECD estimates will reach 1.8% in 2013, almost twice the figure hoped for by the Portuguese Government and the Troika (1%).

Can the Commission say whether Portugal will be able to benefit from the same conditions applied to Greece when it comes to using the European Financial Stability Fund? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2013)

Following the decision of the Eurogroup on 13 December 2012, Greece will pay lower interest charges on loans granted under the Greek Loan Facility, a bilateral agreement between Greece and other Euro Area Member States, since the margin on these loans, on top of the Euribor interest rate, has been reduced from 150 bps to 50bps. There is no similar facility for Portugal.

European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) interest rates will remain unchanged for Greece. Both Greece and Portugal (like Ireland) pay interest rate charges to the EFSF equal to the annual average interest rate at which the EFSF borrows in the market. For Portugal, this rate is currently slightly above 3%.

Euro Area Member States also decided to postpone interest payments by 10 years on EFSF loans and to extend the maturities of EFSF loans to Greece. The postponement of interest payments implies a lighter interest burden for Greece during this decade but heavier one in the next decade; it is mainly a temporary shift in financing cost and Greece will have to pay interest charges on its deferred interest payments.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011303/12

alla Commissione

Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Regolamento (UE) n. 432/2012: periodo transitorio di sei mesi

Il regolamento (UE) n. 432/2012 della Commissione, con il quale sono stati autorizzate 222 dichiarazioni sulla salute applicabili agli alimenti (tra le circa 4000 domande inoltrate alla Commissione, già preselezionate rispetto alle 44mila iniziali), ha previsto un periodo transitorio di sei mesi.

Gli operatori del settore hanno dovuto affrontare le nuove regole in condizioni di assoluta emergenza, senza neppure il tempo di programmare la revisione di etichette e confezioni né di gestire le loro scorte.

Il paradosso è ora quello della ipotetica messa al bando, distruzione e spreco di alimenti sani e sicuri, confezionati nel rispetto delle regole previgenti, con grave e ingiustificato danno all'intera filiera alimentare in un periodo non proprio roseo, tra l'altro, per l'economia della zona dell'euro.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione dare un'eventuale valutazione in merito all'impatto di un periodo transitorio così breve sulle imprese alimentari europee, che nella stragrande maggioranza sono piccole e micro-imprese?

Può verificare la compatibilità di una transizione così immediata con i criteri introdotti dal regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 e in generale con il principio del legittimo affidamento,

Può inoltre far conoscere come abbia previsto di limitare le gravi conseguenze socio-economiche che le imprese e i loro lavoratori rischiano di subire in relazione a prodotti legittimamente etichettati nel rispetto delle norme coeve e tuttora presenti sul mercato?

Può infine precisare come intende limitare l'eventuale spreco di alimenti commestibili che risulterebbe motivato solo da una repentina riforma delle norme in materia di informazione commerciale?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(22 gennaio 2013)

Il regolamento (CE) n. 1924/2006 (230) relativo alle indicazioni nutrizionali e sulla salute fornite sui prodotti alimentari, adottato dal Parlamento europeo e dal Consiglio, prevede un periodo di transizione di sei mesi per le indicazioni sulle salute non autorizzate.

Le valutazioni delle indicazioni sulle salute, in base alle quali la Commissione adotta la decisione se autorizzare o meno un'indicazione in forza del regolamento (UE) n. 432/2012 relativo alla compilazione di un elenco di indicazioni sulla salute consentite sui prodotti alimentari, diverse da quelle facenti riferimento alla riduzione dei rischi di malattia e allo sviluppo e alla salute dei bambini (231), sono state presentate dall'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare tra l'ottobre 2009 e il luglio 2011. Il progetto di misure della Commissione è stato sottoposto al Comitato permanente per la catena alimentare e la salute degli animali nel novembre 2011. Pertanto gli operatori erano a conoscenza della situazione ben prima dell'adozione del regolamento (UE) n. 432/2012.

Si noti inoltre che le nuove regole riguardano eventuali cambiamenti dell'etichettatura, della presentazione e della pubblicità dei prodotti in questione. I prodotti stessi non sono vietati.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011303/12

to the Commission

Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Regulation (EU) No 432/2012: six-month transitional period

Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 authorising 222 out of around 4 000 food health claims forwarded to the Commission (which had in turn been selected from 44 000 initial claims ) stipulates a six-month transitional period.

Operators in this sector have had to comply with the new rules without a moment to spare, having no time even to organise the modification of labels and packaging or for stock management.

Paradoxically, this could involve the banning, destruction and waste of safe and healthy foods manufactured in accordance with the rules applicable to date, thereby causing serious and unjustified harm to the entire food chain in a period which is, to say the least, not exactly favourable as far as the euro area economy is concerned.

In view of this, can the Commission assess the impact of such a brief transitional period on European food companies, the overwhelming majority of which are small enterprises or microenterprises?

Can it indicate whether such a brief transitional period is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and in general with the principle of legitimate expectation?

Can it indicate what measures it has envisaged to contain the serious social and economic consequences for enterprises and their workforces in respect of products properly labelled in accordance with the rules applicable to date and currently present on the market?

Finally, can it indicate how it intends to limit the possible waste of edible food resulting from nothing more than an unexpected amendment to trade information rules?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2013)

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (232) on nutrition and health claims made on foods, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council foresees a six months transitional period for non-authorised claims.

The evaluations of health claims, on the basis of which the Commission takes a decision whether to authorise a claim or not, which are subject to Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (233), were delivered by the European Food Safety Authority between October 2009 and July 2011. The draft Commission measure was tabled to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in November 2011. Therefore, operators were aware of the situation well before the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012.

It should also be noted that the new rules concern possible changes to the labelling, presentation and advertising of products concerned. The products themselves are not banned.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011304/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(11 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: 18a Conferencia de las Partes (CP) en Doha: falta total de acuerdo internacional

Del 26 de noviembre al 7 de diciembre de  2012 se celebraron en Doha, Qatar, la 18 a Conferencia de las Partes (CP) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC) y la 8 a Reunión de las Partes del Protocolo de Kioto y, pese al incremento de la preocupación social por un cambio climático que comienza a pasar factura en muchas zonas del planeta, ninguna de estas reuniones ha conllevado la adopción de decisión firme alguna.

De nuevo, tal y como viene ocurriendo desde la Cumbre de Copenhague de 2009, ante la necesidad de adoptar con urgencia decisiones, se van sucediendo costosísimas cumbres (Cancún, Durban y ahora Doha) donde se reúnen los cuerpos diplomáticos para, básicamente, convocar la siguiente cumbre. En este contexto, resulta sorprendente cómo la Comisaria Connie Hedegaard se regodea en ello, sosteniendo que « we are now on our way to the 2015 global deal », como si fuese un éxito el aplazamiento de las decisiones de calado para enfrentarse al cambio climático y fuese esta la fecha original propuesta para alcanzar el acuerdo.

Los « acuerdos » alcanzados en Doha contienen intencionadamente numerosas páginas en blanco en las áreas más importantes por la falta de voluntad política, encontrándose entre estas todas aquellas que afectan más de pleno al desarrollo y la vida en los países más empobrecidos: medidas para la adaptación, desarrollo tecnológico, finanzas, etc.

Sin embargo, en estas cumbres, caracterizadas por el desacuerdo generalizado para llegar a compromisos transcendentales en la lucha contra el cambio climático, sí surgen acuerdos e iniciativas de negocios para los grandes capitales a costa mayoritariamente de los recursos naturales de los países empobrecidos.

Así, la reducción del carbono se ha convertido en un ridículo mercado, actualmente en cuestión incluso por la propia Comisión, que convocó una consulta pública para la « reforma estructural del Sistema Europeo de Comercio de Emisiones » , y programas como el REDD o el REDD+ se han convertido en instrumentos para el acaparamiento de tierras. En esta nueva ronda se ha comenzado a hablar, sin mencionar su contribución a la seguridad alimentaria, de la agricultura y de su posible contribución al cambio climático lo que, viendo los antecedentes, puede llevar a convertirla en un nuevo recurso meramente especulativo.

1.

¿Cuál es el papel que la Comisión pretende dar a la agricultura en las negociaciones sobre el cambio climático?

2.

¿Qué medidas piensa implementar ante la no ratificación del protocolo de Kioto por parte de los países más contaminantes?

3.

¿Piensa revisar los límites de emisiones para las empresas europeas

, de manera que en Europa se produzcan reducciones de emisiones de acuerdo con el límite de los 2° C que establece la comunidad científica para evitar el « caos climático » ?

Respuesta de la Sra. Hedegaard en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de febrero de 2013)

1.

La agricultura puede contribuir a la reducción del volumen de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera y figura incluida en las

obligaciones internacionales de reducción de emisiones en todas las actividades económicas asumidas por los países desarrollados. Tal como se acordó en Durban, el Órgano Subsidiario de Asesoramiento Científico y Técnico (OSACT) es el marco en el que se están desarrollando los debates sobre un programa de trabajo para la agricultura. En este contexto, la UE apoya todas las actuaciones orientadas a impulsar la capacidad de la agricultura para contribuir tanto a la mitigación como a la adaptación al cambio climático, fortaleciendo al mismo tiempo su contribución a la seguridad alimentaria, el desarrollo sostenible y la protección del medio ambiente; a este respecto, lamenta que no fuese posible alcanzar en Doha una decisión, dado que cierto número de países en desarrollo deseaban limitar el programa de trabajo de la agricultura a la adaptación a dicho cambio.

2.

La UE dio su acuerdo a un segundo periodo de compromiso del Protocolo de Kyoto como parte de un conjunto de medidas que incluyen asimismo unos compromisos y acuerdos de reducción de emisiones contraídos por más de 60 países que no están cubiertos por el segundo periodo de compromiso, entre los que figuran los Estados Unidos, China, Brasil, Sudáfrica e India. Estos compromisos suponen conjuntamente más del 83 % de las emisiones mundiales de gases de efecto invernadero. Además, se acordó alcanzar un nuevo acuerdo aplicable a todos los países para el año 2015, y reducir la diferencia de aspiraciones antes de 2020.

3.

La UE ha propuesto, en el caso de los países desarrollados en su conjunto, una reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del 80-95 % en 2050 respecto de los niveles de 1990. La

«Hoja de ruta hacia una economía hipocarbónica competitiva en 2050» señala que unas reducciones de las emisiones internas del orden del 40 % y el 60 % por debajo de los niveles de 1990 en 2030 y 2040, respectivamente, serían la vía más rentable para alcanzar una economía baja en carbono en 2050. En la actualidad, la Comisión está trabajando en la preparación de un marco de medidas en materia de clima y energía para el periodo que se extiende hasta 2030.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011304/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Doha: failure to reach international agreement

The 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 8th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol took place in Doha, Qatar from 26 November to 7 December 2012. Despite increased social concern regarding climate change, which is beginning to take its toll in many parts of the world, none of these meetings have led to the adoption of a final decision.

Once again, as has been the case since the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the need to adopt urgent decisions has resulted in very expensive summits (Cancun, Durban and now Doha) where diplomats essentially meet to call the next summit. It is therefore surprising that Commissioner Connie Hedegaard is feeling so smug. She claims that ‘we are now on our way to the 2015 global deal’, as if postponing important decisions on tackling climate change were an indication of success and this were the original date proposed to reach an agreement.

The ‘agreements’ reached in Doha deliberately contain numerous blank pages in the most important areas due to a lack of political will. Among them are those areas most profoundly affecting development and life in the poorest countries, inter alia: adaptation measures, technological development and finance.

In these summits, however, which are characterised by widespread disagreement in reaching transcendental commitments to fight climate change, business agreements and initiatives for big capital arise, mainly at the expense of natural resources in poor countries.

Carbon reduction has therefore become a ridiculous market, and is even currently under threat from the Commission itself, which held a public consultation on the ‘structural reform of the European Emissions Trading System’. Furthermore, programmes such as REDD and REDD + have become instruments for land grabbing. This new round of talks has seen discussions on agriculture and its potential contribution to climate change, without mentioning its contribution to food security, which, given the background, may turn it into a new purely speculative resource.

1.

What role will agriculture play in the Commission’s negotiations on climate change?

2.

What measures will the Commission implement given that the Kyoto Protocol was not ratified by the most polluting countries?

3.

Will it revise emissions limits for European companies so that EU emissions reductions comply with the 2°C limit established by the scientific community to prevent

‘climate chaos’?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

1.

Agriculture can play a role to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is included in the international economy-wide emission reduction obligations of developed countries. As agreed in Durban, discussions on a work programme for agriculture are pursued in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA). In this context, the EU supports work addressing the capacity of agriculture to contribute both to mitigation and to adapting to climate change while enhancing its contribution to food security, sustainable development and environmental protection and regrets that it was not possible to reach a decision in Doha where a number of developing countries wanted to limit the work programme in agriculture to adaptation.

2.

The EU agreed to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as part of a package which also includes emission reduction commitments pledges by more than 60 countries that are not covered under the second commitment period, including the US, China, Brazil, South Africa and India. Together, these commitments cover more than 83% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it was agreed to reach a new agreement applicable to all countries by 2015, and to narrow the ambitions gap before 2020.

3.

The EU has proposed for developed countries as a group to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The Roadmap for moving to an EU low carbon economy by 2050 has indicated that domestic emissions reductions in the order of 40% and 60% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 2040 respectively, would represent a cost-effective pathway to achieve a low carbon economy by 2050. Currently the Commission is working on preparations for a climate and energy framework for the period up to 2030.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011305/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Un detenuto minorenne yemenita in Iraq è in attesa dell'esecuzione della pena capitale

Il 9 dicembre 2012, Human Rights Watch ha riferito che un cittadino yemenita in Iraq è in attesa dell'esecuzione capitale sebbene avesse solo 16 anni al momento di commettere il suo presunto reato. Saleh al-Ahmed Moussa Baidany aveva ancora 16 anni quando è stato preso in custodia dalle forze armate americane in Iraq nel 2009, e questo è confermato dal certificato di nascita presentato dalla famiglia.

Il padre di al-Baidany dice che suo figlio è stato fermato sul confine tra Siria e Iraq nell'agosto 2009. Detenuto per un certo tempo nella prigione di Abu Ghraib, è stato poi trasferito in un carcere nel centro di Baghdad, dove è stato costretto a firmare una confessione mentre aveva gli occhi bendati. Successivamente è stato detenuto in una serie di carceri, e si trova ora in una struttura penitenziaria chiamata Camp Justice, nota anche come al-Sha'ba al-Khamsa, dove sono detenuti i condannati a morte e vengono eseguite le sentenze capitali.

Sia il signor al-Baidany padre sia l'avvocato yemenita che lavora sul caso, Hamid al-Houjaili, hanno informato Human Rights Watch che le autorità irachene hanno mancato di dar loro informazioni sull'attuale luogo di detenzione del giovane, sulle accuse contro di lui o sui dettagli del processo.

L'Iraq ha ratificato sia la convenzione internazionale sui diritti civili e politici (ICCPR) sia la convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo (CRC).

1.

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è a conoscenza del caso di Saleh al-Ahmed Moussa Baidany?

2.

La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è disposta a chiedere alle autorità irachene del suo caso, e a chiedere anche la sospensione dell'esecuzione?

3.

Quali passi ha effettuato la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in passato per affrontare il problema di esecuzioni capitali di minori in Iraq?

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

(26 febbraio 2013)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è molto preoccupata per l'aumento delle esecuzioni capitali in Iraq nel corso dell'ultimo anno ed è a conoscenza del caso Al Baidany.

L'Unione europea si è impegnata costantemente sul fronte della pena di morte e ha continuato a sollecitare le autorità irachene, sia pubblicamente che attraverso i canali diplomatici, affinché cessino le esecuzioni e sia introdotta una moratoria, in attesa che la pena capitale venga abolita. L'UE ha altresì attirato l'attenzione delle autorità sui singoli casi, compreso il caso Al Baidany.

L'Unione europea, in particolare tramite la sua delegazione, è impegnata anche in un dialogo più generale sulla questione con le autorità irachene, tra cui il presidente della Corte suprema, i ministri competenti per i diritti umani e la giustizia, nonché il Parlamento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011305/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Pending execution for Yemeni juvenile offender in Iraq

On 9 December 2012, Human Rights Watch reported that a Yemeni national in Iraq is due to be executed, even though he was only 16 at the time of committing his alleged offence. Saleh Moussa Ahmed al-Baidany was still 16 when he was taken into custody by US armed forces in Iraq in 2009, and this is confirmed by his birth certificate which was provided by the family.

Mr al-Baidany’s father says that his son was apprehended on the Iraqi-Syrian border in August 2009. He was detained for a period of time in Abu Ghraib prison, but was then transferred to a prison in central Baghdad where he was forced to sign a confession while blindfolded. He was subsequently held in a string of prisons, and is now in a prison facility called Camp Justice, also known as al-Sha’ba al-Khamsa, where death row inmates are held and executions are carried out.

Both Mr al-Baidany’s father and Hamid al-Houjaili, the Yemeni lawyer working on the case, have informed Human Rights Watch that the Iraqi authorities have failed to provide them with information about the young man’s present location, the charges against him or the details of his trial.

Iraq has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the case of Saleh Moussa Ahmed al-Baidany?

2.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to ask the Iraqi authorities about his case, and in addition seek a stay of execution?

3.

What steps has the Vice-President/High Representative taken in the past to address the issue of juvenile executions in Iraq?

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

(26 February 2013)

The HR/VP has been following with concerns the increased use of the death penalty in Iraq during the last year. She is aware of the case of Mr Al Baidany.

The EU has been consistently engaged on the issue of the death penalty and has continued to urge the Iraqi authorities both publicly and through diplomatic channels to cease all executions and introduce a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, pending its abolition. The EU has also raised individual cases with the authorities, including the one of Mr Al Baidany.

The EU, in particular through the EU Delegation, also engages in a more comprehensive dialogue on this issue with the Iraqi authorities, including with the Chief Justice, the Ministers of Human Rights and Justice as well as the Parliament.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011306/12

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), David-Maria Sassoli (S&D), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Silvia Costa (S&D), Potito Salatto (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Francesco De Angelis (S&D), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Guido Milana (S&D) e Roberto Gualtieri (S&D)

(11 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Schneider Electric S.p.A. di Rieti: possibile violazione delle norme a tutela dei lavoratori e dei livelli occupazionali in caso di dismissioni

Nelle scorse settimane la società multinazionale francese Schneider Electric, che opera nella produzione di interruttori magnetotermici, ha annunciato la volontà di chiudere lo stabilimento di Rieti, licenziando ben 181 lavoratori diretti e mettendo a rischio l'occupazione di tutti coloro che sono impegnati nell'indotto. Già in passato lo stabilimento in questione era stato oggetto di una ristrutturazione che aveva portato alla riduzione del personale da 300 unità alle attuali 181. In Italia il gruppo conta circa 3 000 dipendenti distribuiti in 5 siti produttivi e 8 sedi commerciali (Rieti, Roma, Bastia Umbra, Firenze, Napoli, Pesaro, Castel Maggiore, Pieve di Cento, Cairo Montenotte, Pavia, Stezzano, Milano, Torino) oltre a un centro logistico integrato a Venaria, su un totale nel mondo di circa 110 000 lavoratori.

Eppure, lo stabilimento di Rieti, che è in attività da oltre 30 anni, è quello maggiormente automatizzato e ha standard qualitativi di altissimo livello. Per questo rappresenta un polo fondamentale in termini economici, sociali e occupazionali per tutto il territorio.

Nonostante la già dimostrata disponibilità delle organizzazioni sindacali e quella espressa dalle autorità locali a sostenere la produzione e ricercare soluzioni alternative, dal momento che anche per il 2013 sono previsti volumi produttivi sostenuti, la Schneider Electric nei giorni scorsi è rimasta sulle proprie posizioni, confermando la volontà di chiudere il sito di Rieti con il conseguente licenziamento di tutti i dipendenti. Tutto ciò porterà anche a un ridimensionamento della realtà produttiva di tutta l'area di Rieti, già duramente colpita da altre dismissioni aziendali avvenute negli ultimi anni a causa dell'attuale congiuntura economica sfavorevole.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere:

se la Schneider Electric ha rispettato le disposizioni della direttiva 98/59/CE in materia di licenziamenti collettivi, in particolare l'articolo 2;

se sono state rispettate le previsioni della direttiva 94/45/CE, modificata dalla direttiva 2009/38/CE, della direttiva 2002/14/CE relativa alla procedura d'informazione e di consultazione dei lavoratori, della direttiva 2001/23/CE sul mantenimento dei diritti dei lavoratori e della direttiva 2008/94/CE;

se la Schneider Electric ha rispettato le disposizioni della direttiva 2006/54/CE che vieta, tra le altre misure, le discriminazioni dirette e indirette tra uomini e donne per quanto riguarda le condizioni di licenziamento;

quali azioni possono essere intraprese a tutela e salvaguardia dei posti di lavoro oggi in pericolo;

qual è la strategia generale che la Commissione intende adottare nella prossima programmazione finanziaria 2014-2020 per fronteggiare tali situazioni?

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(21 febbraio 2013)

1.-3. La Commissione non è in condizione di accertare i fatti o di stabilire se un'impresa privata abbia o meno ottemperato alle disposizioni nazionali che recepiscono direttive dell'UE. Spetta alle autorità nazionali competenti, compresi i tribunali, assicurare che la legislazione nazionale di recepimento delle direttive UE cui fanno riferimento gli Onorevoli deputati venga applicata in modo corretto e efficace dal datore di lavoro in questione tenuto conto delle circostanze specifiche di ciascun caso.

4.

La Commissione sollecita le imprese e tutti gli stakeholder a gestire nei limiti del possibile in modo proattivo e socialmente responsabile le ristrutturazioni. A tal fine, a seguito della pubblicazione del suo Libro verde sulla ristrutturazione e la gestione proattiva del cambiamento, la Commissione esamina ora il modo migliore per incoraggiare e assicurare un'ampia applicazione delle migliori pratiche in tale ambito. Se i licenziamenti presso la Schneider Electric S.p.A. si sono verificati in seguito a trasformazioni rilevanti della struttura del commercio mondiale l'Italia potrebbe chiedere un sostegno al FEG

4.

La Commissione sollecita le imprese e tutti gli stakeholder a gestire nei limiti del possibile in modo proattivo e socialmente responsabile le ristrutturazioni. A tal fine, a seguito della pubblicazione del suo Libro verde sulla ristrutturazione e la gestione proattiva del cambiamento, la Commissione esamina ora il modo migliore per incoraggiare e assicurare un'ampia applicazione delle migliori pratiche in tale ambito. Se i licenziamenti presso la Schneider Electric S.p.A. si sono verificati in seguito a trasformazioni rilevanti della struttura del commercio mondiale l'Italia potrebbe chiedere un sostegno al FEG

 (234) tenendo conto dei criteri che presiedono alla sua attivazione.

5.

Il Fondo sociale europeo è il principale strumento finanziario dell'UE per sostenere le politiche dell'occupazione portate avanti dagli Stati membri e migliorare le competenze, comprese quelle dei lavoratori licenziati. La proposta della Commissione relativa a un regolamento del FSE per il periodo di programmazione 2014-20 intende continuare a promuovere l'occupazione e a sostenere la mobilità del lavoro, in particolare incoraggiando i lavoratori, le imprese e gli imprenditori ad essere aperti al cambiamento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011306/12

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), David-Maria Sassoli (S&D), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Silvia Costa (S&D), Potito Salatto (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Francesco De Angelis (S&D), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Guido Milana (S&D) and Roberto Gualtieri (S&D)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Schneider Electric S.p.A. in Rieti: possible violations of the regulations for protecting workers and employment levels in the event of closures

Over the last few weeks, the French multinational company Schneider Electric, which produces thermal magnetic circuit breakers, has announced its intention to close its plant in Rieti, making some 181 direct employees redundant and jeopardising the employment of all those working in satellite industries. The plant in question has already been restructured in the past, resulting in a reduction in the numbers of employees from 300 to the current 181. In Italy, the group has around 3 000 employees spread across 5 production sites and 8 commercial centres (Rieti, Rome, Bastia Umbra, Florence, Naples, Pesaro, Castel Maggiore, Pieve di Cento, Cairo Montenotte, Pavia, Stezzano, Milan, Turin) as well as an integrated logistics centre at Venaria, out of a worldwide total of approximately 110 000 employees.

Yet the factory in Rieti, which has been operating for over 30 years, is its most automated plant and has an extremely high standard of quality. This makes it a vital centre for the economy, society and employment of the whole region.

Despite the willingness already shown by trade unions and local authorities to sustain production and seek alternative solutions, given that production volumes are forecast to remain constant in 2013, Schneider Electric has stood firm in recent days, confirming its desire to close the Rieti site and lay off all its employees. All this will also lead to a downsizing of the production structure throughout the Rieti area, which has already been hit hard by other redundancies over the last few years because of the current unfavourable short-term economic prospects.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

Whether Schneider Electric has complied with the provisions of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies and with Article 2 in particular?

Whether the provisions of Directive 94/45/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/38/EC, Directive 2002/14/EC on information and consultation procedures for workers, Directive 2001/23/EC on safeguarding employees’ rights and Directive 2008/94/EC have been complied with?

Whether Schneider Electric has complied with the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC, which prohibit, amongst other things, direct and indirect discrimination between men and women in relation to terms of dismissal?

What measures are envisaged to protect and safeguard jobs which are under threat;

What general strategy the Commission intends to adopt in the 2014-2020 financial programme to tackle such situations?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

1-3. The Commission is not in a position to assess the facts or state whether a private company has or has not complied with national provisions implementing EU directives. It is for the competent national authorities, including the courts, to ensure that the national legislation transposing the EU Directives referred to by the Honourable Members is correctly and effectively applied by the employer concerned, having regard to the specific circumstances of each case.

4.

The Commission urges companies and all stakeholders to anticipate restructuring as far as possible and to manage it in a socially responsible way. To that end, following the publication of its Green Paper on restructuring and anticipation of change, the Commission is now considering how best to encourage and ensure wide observance of best practice in that field.

If redundancies in Schneider Electric S.p.A. occurred as a result of changing world trade patterns, Italy could apply for support from the EGF (235), taking its intervention criteria into account.

5.

The European Social Fund is the EU's main financial instrument for supporting Member States' employment policies and improving skills, including those of people made redundant. The Commission proposal for an ESF Regulation for the 2014-20 programming period seeks to continue promoting employment and supporting labour mobility, in particular through adaptation to change among workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011307/12

til Kommissionen

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(11. december 2012)

Om: Kommissionens godkendelse af bundfradraget ved særlig energiintensiv produktion

Den danske regering har anmodet Europa-Kommissionen om godkendelse af ændring af bundfradraget for NOx-afgiften efter reglerne for statsstøtte i forbindelse med en betydelig forhøjelse af NOx-afgiften.

NOx-afgiftsforhøjelsen blev allerede indført med virkning fra juli 2012, og bundfradraget i NOx-afgiften har væsentlig betydning for den berørte branches konkurrenceevne og beskæftigelse. Det er derfor væsentligt, at sagsbehandlingen af statsstøtteansøgningen gennemføres hurtigst muligt, idet den berørte branche siden afgiftsforhøjelsen i juli ikke har haft adgang til bundfradraget pga. den manglende statsstøttegodkendelse.

Kan Kommissionen vurdere, hvornår ansøgningen fra den danske regering vil være færdigbehandlet?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Joaquín Almunia

(15. februar 2013)

Kommissionen modtog anmeldelse af ændring af bundfradraget for NOx-afgiften, hvilket blev godkendt af Kommissionen i forbindelse med sag nr. 327/2008 på grund af en stigning i NOx-afgiften.

Kommissionen har forståelse for, at det er af stor betydning for den berørte branche med en ændring af bundfradraget for NOx-afgiften.

Imidlertid har Kommissionen anmodet de danske myndigheder om yderligere oplysninger vedrørende den anmeldte foranstaltning for at kunne afslutte sin vurdering af sagen. De danske myndigheder har arbejdet tæt sammen med Kommissionen gennem hele anmeldelsesproceduren og har leveret nyttige og relevante opklarende oplysninger og yderligere information i rette tid.

Kommissionen vedtager en afgørelse vedrørende anmeldelsen, så snart det står klart, at den anmeldte foranstaltning opfylder alle betingelserne i fællesskabsrammebestemmelserne for statsstøtte til miljøbeskyttelse (236).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011307/12

to the Commission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(11 December 2012)

Subject: Commission's approval of tax allowa