13.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 329/1


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 329 E/01)

Contents

P-009365/12 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Clearance of forest land inappropriately ordered by the Greek Environment Ministry for the purposes of open-pit gold mining in the Khalkidhiki

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009367/12 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Transnational bankruptcy of voluntary social security providers

Versión española

English version

E-009368/12 by Ivailo Kalfin to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of an energy grid access charge in Bulgaria

българска версия

English version

E-009369/12 by Martin Kastler to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against people with disabilities: accessibility for guide dogs

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009370/12 by Alyn Smith to the Commission

Subject: Mobile phone companies and ‘bill shock’

English version

E-009371/12 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Spinal cord removal in sheep

English version

E-009372/12 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: Superfast broadband

English version

E-009373/12 by Nicole Kiil-Nielsen to the Commission

Subject: Conflict in the mining areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Version française

English version

E-009374/12 by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz to the Commission

Subject: Allowances for families affected by food allergies

Magyar változat

English version

E-009375/12 by Marije Cornelissen to the Commission

Subject: Tackling safety problems and unfair competition in road haulage

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009376/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Financial issues regarding the WTO Boeing case

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009377/12 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: EU ProSun complaints of 25 July 2012 concerning dumping and of 25 September 2012 concerning unfair subsidies

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009378/12 by Christian Ehler to the Commission

Subject: Cybersecurity standardisation

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009379/12 by Georgios Toussas to the Council

Subject: Escalating aggression of the Israeli State towards the Palestinian people

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009380/12 by Erik Bánki to the Commission

Subject: Pilot projects on ragweed

Magyar változat

English version

E-009381/12 by Claudio Morganti to the Commission

Subject: Updating of list of medical devices

Versione italiana

English version

E-009382/12 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Council

Subject: Funds from the Nobel Peace Prize

Wersja polska

English version

E-009383/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Iranian cyber attacks on US and Persian Gulf targets

Versione italiana

English version

E-009384/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Thai teachers targeted by insurgents

Versione italiana

English version

E-009385/12 by Evelyn Regner, Richard Falbr, Zita Gurmai, Jutta Steinruck and Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission

Subject: Certification of personal caretakers

České znění

Deutsche Fassung

Magyar változat

English version

E-009386/12 by Iva Zanicchi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Sex crimes in Colombia: the consequences of armed conflict

Versione italiana

English version

E-009387/12 by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission

Subject: Sale of illegal waste by public authorities

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009388/12 by Dieter-Lebrecht Koch to the Commission

Subject: Financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (revision of guidelines)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009389/12 by Bendt Bendtsen to the Commission

Subject: Second and third energy liberalisation packages

Dansk udgave

English version

E-009390/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Deleting the origin of fish from labels: traceability and social and labour rights at the point of origin

Versión española

English version

E-009391/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: ‘Second Development Decree’: electromagnetic fields and the right to health

Versione italiana

English version

E-009392/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Preferred shares in CaixaGalicia and CaixaNova

Versión española

English version

E-009393/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Exit of Greek companies from Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009394/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Case involving bribery by DAIMLER AG and action taken by the Commission

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009395/12 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: National bans on the use of bisphenol A

English version

E-009397/12 by Bill Newton Dunn to the Commission

Subject: Access to vaccines in developing countries

English version

E-009398/12 by Willy Meyer to the Council

Subject: Nuclear weapons in Israel

Versión española

English version

E-009399/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Infringement by Turkey of Greek territorial waters

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009400/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Accession of former East Germany to the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009401/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Influx of immigrants from Syria

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009403/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: 2013 EU Citizenship Report and violence against women

Versión española

English version

E-009404/12 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Child soldiers in Mali

English version

E-009405/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Commissioner Kroes's involvement in the Dutch general election campaign

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009406/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: Kafkaesque treatment of air passengers

English version

E-009407/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: Motorway tolls and taxpayers

English version

E-009408/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: Born Free Foundation

English version

E-009409/12 by Charles Tannock and Ashley Fox to the Commission

Subject: Problems at the border between Gibraltar and Spain

English version

E-009410/12 by Bendt Bendtsen, Daniel Caspary and Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: New Norwegian duties on selected agricultural products

Dansk udgave

Deutsche Fassung

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009411/12 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Asbestos problem in Italy

Versione italiana

English version

E-009412/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Substantial excavation of gravel in the bed of the River Piave, near an SCI and SPA, with possible damage to the ecosystem

Versione italiana

English version

E-009413/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Funding for Task Force expenses

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009414/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Tax incentives to improve young people's access to the labour market

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009415/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Impact of EU youth strategy

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009416/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Number of Syrian refugees in Turkey and EU readiness to act

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009417/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Effectiveness of EU policy on EU data open to the public and the situation in Member States

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009419/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Council

Subject: Statements by Schäuble on reforming the eurozone

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009420/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Wolfgang Schäuble's remarks concerning the reform of the eurozone

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009421/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Draft law on civil liability for defamation in Macedonia could limit freedom of expression

Versione italiana

English version

E-009422/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: New human rights problems posed by Uzbekistan's cotton industry

Versione italiana

English version

E-009423/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Enlargement of the Yesa reservoir and police brutality against the residents of Artieda

Versión española

English version

E-009425/12 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Encouraging citizen involvement in separate waste collection

Versión española

English version

E-009426/12 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: European assessment reports on waste management

Versión española

English version

E-009427/12 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Communication of waste management and prevention plans

Versión española

English version

E-009428/12 by Olga Sehnalová to the Commission

Subject: Skylink and CS Link satellite TV cards and possible misleading of European consumers

České znění

English version

E-009429/12 by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission

Subject: Indebtedness of Spanish Football clubs

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009430/12 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Unjustifiable use of water from the river Aliakmonas to supply the Greek Electricity Board's lignite plants

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009431/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Google and personal data processing

Version française

English version

E-009432/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: EU-Guinea-Bissau fisheries agreement

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009433/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Campaign in the maritime and port sector against the revision of working arrangements

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009434/12 by Adrian Severin to the Commission

Subject: Request for clarification on the dismissal of Traian Băsescu, President of Romania — a parliamentary putsch?

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009435/12 by Angelika Niebler to the Commission

Subject: Merger control procedures

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009436/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Possibility of investment in Austrian airports

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009438/12 by Norbert Neuser to the Commission

Subject: Torture allegations in Rwanda

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009440/12 by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission

Subject: Incentives for SMEs to taken on new staff

Versione italiana

English version

E-009442/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Biofuels

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009444/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Animal rights

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009450/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Sustainability of the EU fishing industry

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009451/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: PCE/PEC — 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009452/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009453/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009454/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009455/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Financial aid to Cuba

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009457/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: PCE/PEC — Institutional changes to the European Union: necessary or counterproductive

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009458/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Cuba — Meetings with the opposition

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009459/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of religious minorities in Egypt

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009460/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of religious minorities in Iraq

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009461/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Cybersquatting — state of play

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009462/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Phishing — latest developments

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009463/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: PCE/PEC — 12th EU-India summit — practical results

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009464/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: 12th EU-India summit — practical results

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009465/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: 12th EU-India summit — practical results

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009466/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — 12th EU-India summit — practical results

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009467/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — European Union-Unesco partnership

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009468/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Union-Unesco partnership

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009471/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Croatia's accession to the European Union — state of play

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009472/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: Revitalising European industry

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009473/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Revitalising European industry

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009474/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Widespread, ongoing poaching and potential new derogations in Malta which breach the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

Versione italiana

English version

P-009475/12 by Olga Sehnalová to the Commission

Subject: Use on the EU internal market of Indian-made Aurolab intraocular lenses

České znění

English version

P-009476/12 by Nessa Childers to the Commission

Subject: Tax relief for microbreweries versus micro cider producers

English version

P-009477/12 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission

Subject: Negotiation of EU-Canada trade agreement and Canadian liquor boards

English version

E-009478/12 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Genetic technology companies are influencing US lawmaking — are consumers in the EU in danger?

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009480/12 by Werner Schulz and Rebecca Harms to the Council

Subject: Entry ban on two Belarusian civil society activists by Lithuanian authorities

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009481/12 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission

Subject: Timeshare selling in perpetuity

English version

E-009482/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Under-age interns in Chinese technology manufacturing companies

Versione italiana

English version

E-009483/12 by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission

Subject: Development of motorways of the sea between the two shores of the Mediterranean

Version française

English version

E-009484/12 by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission

Subject: Objective criteria to define motorways of the sea

Version française

English version

P-009485/12 by Tiziano Motti to the Commission

Subject: Review of Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data

Versione italiana

English version

E-009486/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Negotiations between Columbia and the FARC

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009487/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: Cuba — Abolition of exit permits — Sakharov Prize winners

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009488/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Cuba's abolition of the exit permit — Sakharov Prizes

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009489/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Cuba's abolition of the exit permit — Sakharov Prizes

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009490/12 by Iva Zanicchi to the Commission

Subject: Vaccination against maternal and neonatal tetanus in developing countries

Versione italiana

English version

E-009491/12 by Debora Serracchiani to the Commission

Subject: Presumed irregularities in the hiring of Ryanair staff

Versione italiana

English version

E-009492/12 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission

Subject: Ebook availability in Member States

English version

E-009493/12 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission

Subject: State of implementation of the directive on the welfare of laying hens

English version

E-009494/12 by Norbert Neuser to the Commission

Subject: Reducing rail noise — Environmental Noise Directive and the use of LL brake-shoe inserts

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009495/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Reintroduction of a visa requirement for nationals of the countries of the western Balkans

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009496/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Sharp increase in the number of people living below the poverty line in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-009497/12 by Marta Andreasen to the Commission

Subject: List of Commission Chief Accounting Officers, with dates

English version

E-009498/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Use of hydraulic fracturing for extracting shale gas in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-009499/12 by Martin Callanan to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of journalists in Eritrea

English version

E-009500/12 by Marta Andreasen to the Commission

Subject: Centralised publication of grants per programme

English version

E-009501/12 by Claudio Morganti to the Commission

Subject: Purchase of trains — Region of Tuscany

Versione italiana

English version

E-009502/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Chile's respect for international law in the case of the Mapuches

Versión española

English version

E-009503/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Blacklist for companies

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009505/12 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Interventions to safeguard Sepino and the Italic sanctuary of Pietrabbondante

Versione italiana

English version

E-009506/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Crisis in the construction industry in Puglia

Versione italiana

English version

E-009507/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New European regulation on tyres

Versione italiana

English version

E-009508/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: The dangers of passive smoking in cars

Versione italiana

English version

E-009509/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Fall in purchasing power

Versione italiana

English version

E-009510/12 by Claude Moraes and Glenis Willmott to the Council

Subject: The UK's ability to opt back into pre-Lisbon measures once formal notification of the block opt-out has been given

English version

E-009511/12 by Marita Ulvskog to the Commission

Subject: Cabotage

Svensk version

English version

P-009512/12 by Alda Sousa to the Commission

Subject: Outbreak of dengue fever in Madeira

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-009513/12 by Marisa Matias to the Commission

Subject: Outbreak of dengue fever in Madeira

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-009514/12 by Olle Schmidt to the Commission

Subject: Anti-fraud inquiry and the new tobacco products directive

Svensk version

English version

E-009515/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Necessity and consequences of withdrawing GM crops from the EU

Versión española

English version

E-009516/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Growing inequality in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-009517/12 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Allergenic fragrances

Dansk udgave

English version

E-009518/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Risk rating for corporate bonds

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009519/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: European Arrest Warrant

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009520/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Support for the children of people with mental illnesses

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009521/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Glaciers are increasingly melting

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009522/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Affordable mixed generation housing models?

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009523/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The attack on 14-year-old Malala

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009524/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Baumgartner's jump from the stratosphere

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009525/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: More women in the world of work

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009526/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: More women in employment increase GDP

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009527/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Another special arrangement for the UK

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009528/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Biodiversity targets not met

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009529/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Biodiversity targets not met — situation in Cyprus

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009530/12 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkish pianist charged with ‘insulting’ Islam

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009531/12 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Promotion by Lukoil of cheap and ‘environmentally friendly’ fuels

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009532/12 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Solidarity system for football transfers

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009533/12 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Kallas: ‘Member States should be fined for reforming their aviation policies too slowly’

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-009534/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Cuts in the salaries of Greek judges

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-009535/12 by Marta Andreasen to the Commission

Subject: Third follow-up question on Structural Fund assistance to Liverpool City Council

English version

E-009536/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Air travel costs

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009537/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Demographic balance in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009538/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: POSEI — Azores — aid for exports

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009539/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Cork — current situation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009540/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: REACH — current situation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009541/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: EU — Public health

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009542/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the recruitment of Researchers

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009543/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: EU legislative acquis — quantitative assessment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009544/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Measles and rubella in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009545/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Combating the obsolescence of computers and other devices

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009546/12 by Diogo Feio to the Council

Subject: India, Australia and the European Union

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009547/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — India, Australia and the European Union

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009548/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Standing of victims

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009549/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: ATM machines — cards and cash

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009550/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Rare diseases

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009551/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Online addiction and possible new treatments

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009552/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: The ‘E65 Central Greece Axis’ road project

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009553/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Increase in unemployment with a simultaneous decrease in the number of unemployed persons receiving unemployment allowances

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009554/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Large road construction projects in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009555/12 by Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Inheritance laws

English version

E-009556/12 by Rebecca Taylor to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the United Kingdom

English version

E-009557/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possible funding for the ‘Mechapa Integrated System’ project

Versione italiana

English version

E-009558/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Integrated therapies for the treatment of child and adolescent mental disorders: new guidelines?

Versione italiana

English version

E-009559/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Digital Agenda: revitalisation initiatives and new perspectives for the rights of digital users

Versione italiana

English version

E-009560/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Reference Centres for Organic Farming in Italy — between the promotion of organic research and financial disaster: new funding channels?

Versione italiana

English version

E-009561/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Collective traumatic events repeated over time: what are the psychological consequences and what measures can be applied to cope with them?

Versione italiana

English version

E-009562/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Reproductive health and family planning: Rio +20 Earth Summit — a step backwards in the battle for sex education for young people?

Versione italiana

English version

E-009563/12 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Financing problem — cost of dismantling nuclear power plants

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009564/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Undue use of asylum procedures in the Balkans

Versione italiana

English version

E-009565/12 by Ana Miranda and François Alfonsi to the Commission

Subject: Extradition procedure against Firat Demirkiran

Versión española

Version française

English version

E-009566/12 by Nigel Farage to the Commission

Subject: EU-Guinea-Bissau Fisheries Partnership Agreement

English version

E-009567/12 by Claude Moraes to the Commission

Subject: Ability of the UK to opt back into pre-Lisbon measures once formal notification of the block opt-out has been given

English version

E-009568/12 by Matthias Groote and Peter Liese to the Commission

Subject: Future timetable for the EU sustainability strategy

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009569/12 by Pablo Zalba Bidegain to the Commission

Subject: EIB support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

Versión española

English version

E-009570/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Establishment of protected feeding zones for necrophagous species

Versión española

English version

E-009571/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Electoral law in Kosovo

English version

E-009572/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: ‘Smartshops’ — a danger to public health

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009573/12 by Matthias Groote to the Commission

Subject: Oil fumes in aircraft cabins

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009574/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Appropriate action by the Commission to investigate the DePuy scandal and establish responsibility

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009575/12 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Fast-track career of an EEAS official: five grades in one year

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009577/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Commission strategy on 3D printing

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009578/12 by Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto to the Council

Subject: MEPs' salaries

Versión española

English version

E-009579/12 by Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto to the Commission

Subject: MEPs' salaries

Versión española

English version

E-009580/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Cost to citizens and insurance funds of plans to entrust notaries with certification and computerised data registration

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009581/12 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission

Subject: Offensive EU poster

English version

E-009582/12 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission

Subject: Banking union

English version

E-009584/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Decision to retain visa-free travel for nationals of the Balkan countries

Versione italiana

English version

E-009585/12 by Reinhard Bütikofer, Sven Giegold, Franziska Katharina Brantner and Judith Sargentini to the Commission

Subject: Transparency regarding commodity traders

Deutsche Fassung

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009586/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian situation in Sudan and South Sudan

English version

E-009587/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Ruling by the Italian Court of Cassation confirms onset of serious cancers may be due to prolonged use of mobile and/or cordless telephones

Versione italiana

English version

E-009588/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Imposition of farm prices by major retailers: commitment to short supply chains

Versión española

English version

E-009589/12 by Ioannis A. Tsoukalas to the Commission

Subject: Maritime spatial planning

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009591/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Increased financing for the European School Milk Scheme and reduction in national contribution

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009592/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: EU action to safeguard Muslim women from being forced to wear the veil in Turkey

Versione italiana

English version

E-009593/12 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Money laundering in sport

Versione italiana

English version

E-009594/12 by Nessa Childers to the Commission

Subject: Former Commissioner McCreevy and Spanish banks

English version

E-009595/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Industrial initiatives as past of the SET Plan

Version française

English version

E-009596/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Protection of spruce and fir trees from bostrichid beetles

Version française

English version

E-009597/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Compliance with obligations under the Habitats Directive, particularly as regards the Natura 2000 network in the Mediterranean

Version française

English version

E-009598/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: International anti-blasphemy agreement

Versione italiana

English version

E-009599/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Motorways of the Sea: state of incentives in the other Member States

Versione italiana

English version

E-009601/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Evaluation of the 2010/2011 Ecobonus within the Motorways of the Sea project

Versione italiana

English version

E-009600/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Internal market transposition deficit

Versione italiana

English version

E-009602/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Recognition of the State of Palestine

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009603/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Renegotiation of Portuguese public debt

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009604/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Role of the United Nations and its General Assembly

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009605/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Negotiations as part of the Colombian peace process

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009606/12 by Roberta Angelilli, Gianni Pittella, Amalia Sartori, Mario Mauro, Niccolò Rinaldi, Giuseppe Gargani, Francesco Enrico Speroni, David-Maria Sassoli, Lara Comi, Licia Ronzulli, Debora Serracchiani, Clemente Mastella, Francesco De Angelis, Antonello Antinoro, Andrea Zanoni, Marco Scurria, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Vincenzo Iovine, Carlo Fidanza, Salvatore Tatarella, Gino Trematerra, Cristiana Muscardini, Paolo Bartolozzi, Giovanni La Via, Vittorio Prodi, Pino Arlacchi, Guido Milana, Potito Salatto, Paolo De Castro, Claudio Morganti, Barbara Matera, Mario Pirillo, Crescenzio Rivellini, Carlo Casini, Oreste Rossi, Giancarlo Scottà, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Andrea Cozzolino, Iva Zanicchi, Aldo Patriciello, Lorenzo Fontana, Matteo Salvini, Herbert Dorfmann, Tiziano Motti, Alfredo Pallone, Gabriele Albertini, Erminia Mazzoni, Gianluca Susta, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Rita Borsellino, Elisabetta Gardini, Antonio Cancian, Salvatore Iacolino, Leonardo Domenici, Roberto Gualtieri, Silvia Costa, Gianni Vattimo, Patrizia Toia, Luigi Berlinguer, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Raffaele Baldassarre, Vito Bonsignore, Luigi Ciriaco De Mita, Mara Bizzotto and Francesca Balzani to the Commission

Subject: Terni steelworks: saving the industrial site and jobs

Deutsche Fassung

Versione italiana

English version

E-009607/12 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Detention conditions in the European Union

Versione italiana

English version

E-009608/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Ecolabelling and paint strippers

English version

E-009609/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Jam and food hygiene regulations

English version

E-009610/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Solar panels and the People's Republic of China

English version

E-009611/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Investment in and possible new locations for hub airports

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009612/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: VAT on e-books

English version

E-009613/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Calypso cross-border social tourism programme in Ireland

English version

E-009614/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: EU financial support for returning to education

English version

E-009615/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: EU action plan on combating violence against women, domestic violence and female genital mutilation

English version

E-009616/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Irregular migrants and healthcare

English version

E-009617/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Treatment of non-Maltese citizens by Maltese authorities

English version

E-009618/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Manning of passenger and ferry services operating between Member States

English version

E-009619/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Missing children hotline

English version

E-009620/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Revision of the Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000)

English version

E-009621/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Musculoskeletal disorders

English version

E-009622/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Incentive measures to favour the mobility of disabled drivers

English version

E-009623/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Gender identity

English version

E-009624/12 by Emer Costello to the Council

Subject: Proposal for a directive on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights

English version

E-009625/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Daphne programme

English version

E-009626/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Costs and benefits of Natura 2000 network

English version

E-009627/12 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Health services in cross-border areas

English version

E-009628/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Banking Union: might it trigger a crisis in the European Internal Market?

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009629/12 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Derogation to the 2013 marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009631/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Airlines found guilty of unfair practices

Version française

English version

E-009632/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Monitoring the effects of omega-3

Version française

English version

E-009633/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Problems with resolution of cross-border small claims disputes and application of the existing procedures

Version française

English version

E-009634/12 by Erik Bánki to the Council

Subject: Future of the Euripid project

Magyar változat

English version

E-009635/12 by Erik Bánki to the Commission

Subject: Future of the Euripid project

Magyar változat

English version

E-009636/12 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Granting EU citizenship in exchange for payment

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009637/12 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Differences in transaction costs in the EU with reference to Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-009638/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Civil war in Lebanon

Versione italiana

English version

E-009641/12 by David Martin to the Commission

Subject: Neonicotinoid pesticide combinations and the decline in bee populations

English version

E-009642/12 by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission

Subject: Urgent solutions needed for the Erasmus programme

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009643/12 by Marietje Schaake to the Commission

Subject: Morocco — human rights violations and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009644/12 by Adrian Severin to the Commission

Subject: Resignation of Commissioner John Dalli

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009645/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Investigation into the possible rigging of the Euribor rate

Versión española

English version

E-009646/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Violations of fundamental labour rights in Greece according to European Committee of Social Rights ruling

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009647/12 by Phil Bennion to the Commission

Subject: Fee for European Health Insurance Card on fraudulent and unofficial websites

English version

E-009648/12 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Chin ethnic and religious minority in Burma

Versione italiana

English version

E-009649/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Creation of an EU-OR logo for products from the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009650/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Adapting the standards of the education and training system in the outermost regions to those of the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009651/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Definition of the role of each Commission DG in implementing the strategy for the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009652/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Participation of other (non-outermost) regional institutions in the work of the outermost regions unit of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009653/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Promotion by the Commission of regional management programmes in the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009654/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Regulation of the POSEI fisheries programme within the revised Common Fisheries Policy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009658/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Outermost regions and the future of the POSEI fisheries programme

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009655/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: General report on programmes in the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009656/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Outermost regions and external agreements

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009657/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Outermost regions and the future of the POSEI agriculture programme

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009659/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: The outermost regions as EU ambassadors and their contribution to relations with emerging nations

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009660/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Restoration of quarries in Lourosa, Santa Maria da Feira

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009661/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Environmental rehabilitation of waterways in Santa Maria da Feira

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009662/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of water services — the Commission's response to NGOs

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009663/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: International Day for Disaster Reduction

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009664/12 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Compliance by the Commission with the principle of multilingualism (Internet)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009665/12 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The European Union's policy of double standards with regard to Iran and Israel

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009666/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Dealing with State airlines in air transport agreements

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-009668/12 by Tomasz Piotr Poręba to the Commission

Subject: Flight Training Centre in Krosno

Wersja polska

English version

P-009669/12 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission

Subject: Proper implementation of derogations provided for in Article 9 of Directive 2009/147/EC

Versione italiana

English version

E-009670/12 by Gaston Franco and Tokia Saïfi to the Commission

Subject: Transparency of extractive industries and traceability of minerals

Version française

English version

E-009671/12 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Member States where a property tax is levied on primary residences

Versione italiana

English version

E-009672/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Ecomobility

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-009673/12 by Bas Eickhout to the Commission

Subject: Statements by Energy Commissioner Oettinger

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-009674/12 by Iva Zanicchi to the Commission

Subject: Enterococcus faecium: urgent need for investment in research

Versione italiana

English version

E-009675/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: invasion on the PAIGC headquarters

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009676/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Guinea-Bissau: serious outbreak of diarrhoea or cholera

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009677/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: threat to expel the UN representative

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009678/12 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: attempted attack on barracks

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-009679/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: HELIOS Project

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009680/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Price transparency and comparison for VDSL

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-009681/12 by Catherine Grèze to the Commission

Subject: Legal status of Travellers not consistent with the European directive on non-discrimination

Version française

English version

E-010355/12 by Nigel Farage to the Commission

Subject: Declining bee population

English version

E-011530/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Human rights crisis in tribal areas of Pakistan

Wersja polska

English version

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-009365/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Παράτυπη εντολή καταστροφής δάσους από το ελληνικό Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος για να διευκολυνθεί η έναρξη επιφανειακής εξόρυξης χρυσού στη Χαλκιδική

Το Δασαρχείο Αρναίας προσφάτως υπέγραψε με την εταιρεία «Ελληνικός Χρυσός»«Πρωτόκολλο Εγκατάστασης και Υλοτόμησης» για την υλοτόμηση όλων των εκτάσεων που περιλαμβάνονται στην 7633/2012 απόφαση παραχώρησης δάσους του Γενικού Γραμματέα Αποκεντρωμένης Διοίκησης Μακεδονίας-Θράκης. Η απόφαση αυτή αφορά 3 273 στρέμματα αρχέγονου δάσους στις Σκουριές και 857 στρέμματα στον Κοκκινόλακκα για την κατασκευή χώρου απόθεσης επικινδύνων αποβλήτων. Η υλοποίηση της εν λόγω απόφασης έχει ήδη ξεκινήσει και προχωρά με ταχείς ρυθμούς (1). Ο όρος 14 της 7633/2012 όμως προϋποθέτει την ύπαρξη Ειδικής Έγκρισης Επέμβασης του δασικού νόμου 998/79 και Έγκρισης Τεχνικής Μελέτης για όλα τα σχεδιαζόμενα υποέργα, από τα οποία όμως υπάρχει μόνο Έγκριση Τεχνικής Μελέτης για το «υποέργο Σκουριές» (2). Αυτή επιτρέπει αποκλειστικά και μόνο τη διαμόρφωση της κύριας οδού πρόσβασης του μεταλλείου Σκουριών και την κατασκευή ράμπας και φρέατος του υπόγειου μεταλλείου Σκουριών. Αλλά ακόμα και για να εγκριθούν αυτές οι Τεχνικές Μελέτες προϋποτίθεται η ύπαρξη εγκεκριμένου Επενδυτικού Σχεδίου που επίσης δεν υπάρχει. Μάλιστα, τα παραπάνω επιβεβαιώνει και ο Γενικός Διευθυντής Δασών και Αγροτικών Υποθέσεων της Αποκεντρωμένης Διοίκησης Μακεδονίας-Θράκης που διευκρινίζει προς το Δασαρχείο Αρναίας ότι «η υπηρεσία σας θα επιτρέψει τις επεμβάσεις που αφορούν, τόσο τους χώρους που καταλαμβάνουν αυτά καθαυτά τα έργα, όσον και τους χώρους επεμβάσεων που εξαρτώνται άμεσα από αυτά (π.χ. δρόμοι προσπέλασης σε αυτά κ.λπ.) και θα εκδώσει τα ανάλογα πρωτόκολλα εγκατάστασης υλοτομικών εργασιών μόνο μετά την προσκόμιση των εγκεκριμένων μελετών των προσαρτημάτων 3,4 και 5 του υποέργου Μεταλλευτικές Εγκαταστάσεις Σκουριών »  (3), που όμως δεν υπάρχουν (4).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Εκτιμά ότι παρακάμπτονται οι Εγκρίσεις Τεχνικών Μελετών και η Έγκριση Επενδυτικού Σχεδίου που απαιτούνται για να δοθεί η άδεια υλοτόμησης;

Συμφωνεί ότι αυτό αντίκειται στην ελληνική και ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία; Αν ναι, τι μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει;

Απάντηση του κ. Potočnik εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Νοεμβρίου 2012)

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου στην απάντησή της στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-4129/2012 του κ. Τσουκαλά (5).

Όσον αφορά την εφαρμογή, και ιδίως τις ειδικές διατάξεις που αναφέρονται στον δασικό νόμο 998/79, η Επιτροπή δεν έχει δικαιοδοσία να επιληφθεί του θέματος που θίγει η ερώτηση, το οποίο αφορά αποκλειστικά τις αρμόδιες ελληνικές αρχές.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-009365/12

to the Commission

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Clearance of forest land inappropriately ordered by the Greek Environment Ministry for the purposes of open-pit gold mining in the Khalkidhiki

The Arnaia Forestry Department has recently signed a surface clearance protocol with Hellas Gold SA in respect of all forest land referred to in Decision 7633/2012 issued by the Secretary-General of the Macedonia-Thrace Decentralised Administration relating to 327.3 hectares of primeval forest land in Skouries and 85.7 hectares in Kokkinolakkas for the construction of a hazardous waste disposal facility. This decision is already being rapidly put into effect (6). However, under paragraph 14 of Decision 7633/2012, special authorisation referred to in Forestry Law 998/79 and approval of a technical survey for all sub-projects are required. To date only the technical survey for the Skouries sub-project has been approved (7), relating solely and exclusively to work on the principal mine access road as well as the ramp and shaft. Approval of the technical surveys is subject to an authorised investment plan, which is also non-existent. The above requirements have been confirmed by the Director-General for Forestry and Rural Affairs of the Macedonia-Thrace Decentralised Administration, which has notified the Arnaia Forestry Department that ‘your department may authorise operations at the sites of each of the projects and directly related operations (for example, access roads, etc.) and issue the relevant surface clearance protocols only after submission of approved surveys for appendices 3, 4 and 5 of the “Skouries mining installations” sub-project’ (8). These surveys, however, are non-existent (9).

In view of this:

Does the Commission consider that the technical survey and investment plan approval procedures for surface clearance authorisation have been circumvented?

Does it agree that this is an infringement of Greek and European law? If so, what measures will it take?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2012)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-4129/2012 by Mr Tsoukalas (10).

As regards the implementation, and in particular the special provisions referred to in the Forestry Law 998/79, the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the Greek authorities concerned.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009367/12

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(16 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Quiebras transaccionales de entidades de previsión social voluntaria

En los últimos meses, centenares de trabajadores de varias empresas radicadas en el País Vasco han sufrido los efectos de la quiebra de una empresa radicada en otro país de la Unión, que era responsable del abono de parte de los derechos pasivos a que tenían derecho. En concreto, estos trabajadores tenían contratada, a través de una empresa de seguros radicada en Amberes, una póliza que completaba las prestaciones ordinarias que ofrece la seguridad social en España. Tras un proceso de deslocalización de varias empresas, los trabajadores quedaron en situación de desempleo o se acogieron a jubilaciones anticipadas y comenzaron a cobrar, junto a las prestaciones de la Seguridad Social, los complementos de renta correspondientes a las indemnizaciones contratadas con la citada empresa belga.

Tras comenzar a cobrar estas prestaciones complementarias, la firma belga de seguros fue intervenida por las autoridades federales del señalado Estado. La primera consecuencia de esta intervención, ocurrida a finales de 2011, fue que los trabajadores de las empresas vascas dejaron de cobrar los complementos de renta que tenían contratados. Los tribunales españoles, tras analizar lo sucedido, reconocieron estas deudas a los trabajadores afectados. Sin embargo, éstos no han podido hasta la fecha ni hacer efectivo el cobro de las cantidades que ya se les adeudan, ni garantizar que, en el futuro, vuelvan a cobrar las prestaciones complementarias por las que cotizaron. A la vista de lo sucedido:

¿Dispone la Comisión de datos, reclamaciones o denuncias que se refieran a problemas como el que se describe en esta pregunta? De ser así, ¿a cuántos trabajadores afectan y de qué Estados miembros?

¿Hay algún procedimiento previsto para agilizar las reclamaciones ante casos de quiebras y/o intervenciones que afecten a entidades de previsión social voluntaria radicadas en un determinado país de la Unión y tengan efectos en los derechos pasivos de trabajadores que cotizaron por ellos y residen en otros Estados diferentes?

Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión

(18 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión conoce el asunto a que se refiere Su Señoría. La Comisión ha pedido a la autoridad de supervisión competente belga que mantenga informada a la autoridad de supervisión competente española sobre el progreso del proceso de liquidación, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 18 de la Directiva 2001/17/CE, relativa al saneamiento y a la liquidación de las compañías de seguros.

Varios Estados miembros de la UE tienen sistemas de garantía de seguros para proteger a los tomadores de seguros en caso de insolvencia de una empresa de seguros. En junio de 2010, la Comisión propuso un conjunto de medidas destinadas a reforzar la confianza de los consumidores en los servicios financieros. Tal conjunto incluía dos propuestas de Directivas sobre los sistemas de garantía de depósitos y los sistemas de indemnización de los inversores, así como un Libro Blanco sobre los sistemas de garantía de seguros. En esta fase, y especialmente antes de que avancen las negociaciones sobre las dos propuestas legislativas, la Comisión cree prematuro considerar un seguimiento del Libro Blanco.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009367/12

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Transnational bankruptcy of voluntary social security providers

In recent months, hundreds of workers from several companies in the Basque Country have been affected by the bankruptcy of a company based in another EU country, which was responsible for paying part of their pension fund entitlements. These workers had taken out a policy, with an Antwerp insurance company, to complement the ordinary benefits covered by Social Security in Spain. After several companies were relocated, the workers were left unemployed, or took early retirement and, as well as Social Security benefits, began to receive the income support to which they were entitled from that Belgian company.

After the workers had begun to receive these complementary benefits, the Belgian insurance company was taken over by the country's federal authorities. The first consequence of the takeover, which took place at the end of 2011, was that the workers from the Basque companies stopped receiving the income support which had been included in their policy. After examining the events, the Spanish courts recognised the debts owed to the workers affected. Nevertheless, until now the workers have neither recovered the amounts which are owed to them, nor received a guarantee that payment of additional entitlements corresponding to their contributions will resume.

1.

Does the Commission have any data, claims or complaints relating to this type ofproblem? If so, how many workers are affected and from which Member States?

2.

Has any procedure been planned to facilitate claims in bankruptcy cases and/or businesstakeovers involving voluntary social security providers located in a given EU countrywhich affect the pension funds of workers who have paid the contributions forthem and who live in different EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2012)

The Commission is aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission has invited the competent Belgian supervisory authority to keep the competent Spanish supervisory authority regularly informed on the progress of the liquidation process, as required by Article 18 of Directive 2001/17/EC on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings (11).

Several EU Member States operate Insurance Guarantee Schemes to protect policy holders in the event of an insolvency of an insurance undertaking. In June 2010, the Commission proposed a package aimed at boosting consumer confidence in financial services. The package contained two legislative proposals for Directives on Deposit Guarantee Schemes and Investor Compensation Schemes, and a white paper on Insurance Guarantee Schemes. At this stage, and notably before further progress in the negotiation on the two legislative proposals, the Commission finds it premature considering a follow-up to the white paper.

(българска версия)

Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-009368/12

до Комисията

Ivailo Kalfin (S&D)

(16 октомври 2012 г.)

Относно: Въвеждане на такса за достъп до енергийната мрежа в България

С решение на енергийния регулатор ДКЕВР (Държавна комисия за енергийно и водно регулиране) от м. октомври 2012 г. в България бяха въведени ежемесечни такси, които производителите на енергия от възобновяеми източници трябва да плащат за достъп до енергийната мрежа. Таксата е между 10 и 39 % от цената на енергията от възобновяеми енергийни източници (ВЕИ). В резултат на решението се очакват незабавни фалити, предимно на малки и средни производители на енергия от ВЕИ, за които размерът й е непосилен.

Предложението предизвика силна реакция както сред представителите на бизнеса и потребителските организации, така и сред дипломатическите представители, акредитирани в България. 15 посланици, включително от 11 държави членки на ЕС, изпратиха на 8 октомври 2012 г. писмо до българския ресорен министър, в което изразяват сериозна загриженост във връзка с решението, което според тях влошава бизнес средата в България. Те призовават за незабавна намеса от страна на правителството. До този момент правителството на България не е предприело никакви действия — нито за отмяна на таксата, нито дори за мотивиране на нейното въвеждане.

Във връзка с това искам да запитам Европейската комисия:

Съответства ли въвеждането на въпросните такси, без обяснение за тяхната стойност, на европейското законодателство?

Предвиждането на различни размери на таксата в зависимост от периода за включване за предишни години не нарушава ли конкурентната среда?

Смята ли Европейската комисия да предприеме действия предвид очакваните фалити на производители на възобновяема енергия в България в резултат на въведените такси за достъп до енергийната мрежа?

Отговор, даден от г-н Йотингер от името на Комисията

(4 декември 2012 г.)

Европейската комисия знае за неотдавнашните промени в законодателството на България, с които се въвеждат такси за достъп до газопреносната мрежа в различен размер (на пръв поглед само) за производителите на електроенергия от възобновяеми енергийни източници. За да определи съвместимостта на тази мярка с достиженията на правото на ЕС в областта на енергетиката, Комисията започна разследване по системата „EU Pilot“.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009368/12

to the Commission

Ivailo Kalfin (S&D)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Introduction of an energy grid access charge in Bulgaria

By decision of the Bulgarian energy regulator SCEWR (State Commission for Energy and Water Regulation) in October 2012, renewable energy producers have been required to pay monthly charges for access to the grid. The charges represent between 10% and 39% of the price of the renewable energy. Bankruptcies are expected as an immediate result of the decision, particularly among small and medium-sized producers in the renewables sector, for whom the level of the charges is unrealistic.

When the charges were proposed there was a strong reaction both from the representatives of business and consumer organisations and from diplomatic representatives in Bulgaria. On 8 October 2012, ambassadors from 15 countries, including 11 EU Member States, wrote to the Minister responsible expressing serious concern about the decision, which, they said, would damage the business environment in Bulgaria. They called on the Government to intervene immediately. To date, however, the Bulgarian Government has moved neither to abolish the charge nor, indeed, to justify its introduction.

Does the Commission consider that the introduction of these charges, without any explanation as to their value, is in accordance with European law?

Does the Commission not consider the provision for varying levels of charge, depending on the period for which producers were connected to the grid in previous years, to be a distortion of competition?

Does the Commission plan to take any action in view of the anticipated bankruptcies among renewable energy producers in Bulgaria as a result of the introduction of charges for access to the grid?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The Commission is aware of the recent changes in Bulgaria's legislation introducing grid access tariffs (apparently only) for producers of electricity from renewable energy sources. In order to determine the compliance of such a measure with the EU energy acquis, the Commission has initiated an investigation under the EU Pilot system.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009369/12

an die Kommission

Martin Kastler (PPE)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Diskriminierung von Menschen mit Behinderung: Zutritt von Begleithunden

In Artikel 26 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union wird anerkannt, dass Menschen mit Einschränkungen das volle Recht auf „Unabhängigkeit, soziale und berufliche Eingliederung und Beteiligung am Gemeinschaftsleben“ haben. Im Europäischem Aktionsplan „Chancengleichheit für Menschen mit Behinderungen“ (KOM(2003)0650) wird der Grundsatz der absoluten Nichtdiskriminierung bekräftigt. Dennoch sind namentlich Fälle bekannt, in denen Menschen mit einer Sehbehinderung bzw. einer sonstigen Behinderung wegen ihres Begleithundes der Zutritt zu Restaurants bzw. zum Einzelhandel verwehrt wurde.

1.

Gibt es angesichts des klaren europäischen Primärrechts zur Nichtdiskriminierung nationale Standards bzw. europaweit einheitliche Regelungen, denen zufolge ausgebildete Blinden‐ und Begleithunde als medizinisches Hilfsmittel eingestuft werden, so dass ihnen unabhängig von allgemeinen nationalen Vorschriften grundsätzlich Zutritt zu möglichst allen Orten ermöglicht wird?

2.

Ist die Kommission auch der Ansicht, dass sie legislativ tätig werden muss, um diesen Missstand der Diskriminierung durch entsprechende klare europäische Rechtsvorschriften zu beenden?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(27. November 2012)

Der aktuelle EU-Rechtsrahmen bietet nur in Beschäftigung und Beruf (12) Schutz vor Diskriminierung aufgrund einer Behinderung. Der Besitzstand der EU enthält keine Vorschriften über den Zutritt von Menschen mit Behinderungen zu Restaurants oder Geschäften.

Die Mitgliedstaaten haben das VN-Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen ratifiziert und sich darin verpflichtet, „den vollen und gleichberechtigten Genuss aller Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten durch alle Menschen mit Behinderungen zu fördern, zu schützen und zu gewährleisten und die Achtung der ihnen innewohnenden Würde zu fördern“. Die Vertragsstaaten müssen wirksame Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung persönlicher Mobilität ergreifen, die Menschen mit Behinderung größtmögliche Unabhängigkeit bietet. Die EU ist diesem Übereinkommen 2010 ebenfalls beigetreten und ist im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeiten durch ihre Verpflichtungen gebunden. Zur Förderung der kohärenten Umsetzung des Übereinkommens in der EU hat die Kommission die EU-Strategie für Menschen mit Behinderungen 2010-2020 (13) auf den Weg gebracht.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009369/12

to the Commission

Martin Kastler (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Discrimination against people with disabilities: accessibility for guide dogs

Article 26 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises that persons with disabilities have the full and unrestricted right to ‘independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community’. The European Action Plan for Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities (COM(2003) 0650), reiterates the principle of absolute non-discrimination. Cases have, however, come to light in which persons with a visual impairment or another disability were refused entry into restaurants or shops because they had a guide dog.

1.

Given that European primary law unequivocally outlaws discrimination, are there national standards or EU-wide rules under which trained guide dogs for the blind are classified as medical equipment, and can thus, regardless of general national regulations, enter as many places as possible?

2.

Would the Commission agree that it must take action to remedy this unacceptable, discriminatory state of affairs by ensuring the adoption of clear European legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

The current EU legal framework provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability only in the area of employment and occupation (14). The EU acquis does not contain rules concerning access of persons with disabilities to restaurants or shops.

Member States have to date ratified the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) and thus committed ‘to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’. State Parties must take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities. The EU also became a party to the Convention in 2010 and is bound by its obligations to the extent of EU competences. In order to facilitate a coherent implementation of the Convention in the EU, the Commission has launched the EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (15).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009370/12

to the Commission

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Mobile phone companies and ‘bill shock’

The Commission has made much progress towards dealing with the issue of the shock of high mobile phone bills due to roaming costs, but a considerable source of bill shock remains in the form of the consequences of a mobile phone being stolen. Currently, many customers have difficulty in quickly communicating with their mobile provider in order to report a theft, as often this is done via a phone call, which is difficult if their phone has been stolen.

In the light of the consumer protection legislation, is the Commission of the view that mobile phone companies are doing enough to facilitate speedy alternative means of reporting mobile phones as stolen, perhaps via a common online portal?

Is the Commission aware of consumer disquiet over the issue and, if so, does it have any plans to investigate the European mobile phone market?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2012)

The Commission is aware of consumer disquiet over this issue and aims, within its competences, at addressing this matter. Although the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications does not define any specific requirements in the case of theft of a consumer's mobile devise, the relevant EU Directives contain a number of provisions which aim at protecting users' rights in the sector, in particular through Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) (16).

Article 20 contains general requirements regarding information to be included in contracts between subscribers and undertakings providing electronic communications services which may also include measures related to control of expenditure. The Commission is also working with the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on the adoption of reinforced procedures for cooperation between the relevant national authorities, and with the involvement of operators, in cases of fraud and misuse in the sector (17) .

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009371/12

to the Commission

Derek Vaughan (S&D)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Spinal cord removal in sheep

It is estimated that the cost to the Welsh sheep industry of removing the spinal cord from sheep could be as much as GBP 8.5 million per annum. It is therefore understandable that those in the industry feel strongly that this regulation should be amended. Does the Commission have plans to reconsider this matter?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

According to the Union law, the spinal cord from sheep aged over 12 months is a Specified Risk Material (SRM), i.e. an organ considered to harbour infectivity in an animal affected by a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) and which can consequently pose a risk to human health if consumed. In the Union, the removal of SRM from the food and feed chains has been mandatory since 2000 and is the most important public health protection measure. The list of SRM is established based on scientific advice and any amendment of the current list of SRM should be based on new evolving scientific knowledge while maintaining the existing high level of consumer protection within the EU.

On 2 December 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a scientific opinion on TSE infectivity in the tissues of small ruminants (18). This opinion reviewed the distribution of TSE infectivity in small ruminant tissues and provided for the first time a quantification of the impact on public health of current SRM measures in small ruminants. EFSA confirmed that the removal of SRM such as the brain and spinal cord from animals going into the food chain protects consumers from TSE-related risks.

Considering this opinion, the Commission has no plan to reconsider the current rule related to the removal of the spinal cord in sheep.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009372/12

to the Commission

Catherine Bearder (ALDE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Superfast broadband

It has come to my attention that there is some uncertainty regarding the definition of ‘superfast broadband’. In the light of this, can the Commission provide a precise definition which can be used?

In addition, Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.

It has come to my attention that BDUK, which is part of the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is running a tendering process which effectively has only one tenderer, who will inevitably receive the state funding on offer. This will effectively duplicate the services of another company which is already providing broadband in the same area. The company currently providing the broadband will not be able to compete against a company receiving state money. Can the Commission therefore state whether this practice is in contravention of Article 107(1) TFEU?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2012)

On 20 November 2012 (19), the Commission decided that the UK umbrella support scheme BDUK for investments in next generation access (NGA) broadband networks is in line with EU State aid rules. This scheme defines superfast broadband as speeds greater than those available on current generation network infrastructure, delivered over next generation networks with at least 30 Mbps download speed (20).

The measure targets basic broadband ‘white areas’ and/or ‘white NGA areas’ where no basic broadband and/or NGA networks exist now nor are likely to be built within three years by private investors on commercial terms (21).

The UK analysed the existing broadband infrastructure in detail. The consultation with existing operators in an open, transparent way ensures that any commercial operators' investment plans are taken into account, and public funds are used only where similar commercial investments do not exist and are not planned in the near future. Publishing all information related to the broadband scheme and individual projects will ensure a high level of transparency on the use of public funds.

The framework Agreement selection procedure was done in an open, non-discriminatory way in line with EU public procurement principles. The Commission did not identify any requirements of the framework Agreement that could have excluded any operators from bidding. If local authorities wish not to use the BDUK Framework Agreement, the UK confirmed that the tender process will be open, transparent and non-discriminatory. Therefore, aid for each project will always be allocated on the basis of an open tender process.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009373/12

à la Commission

Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE)

(16 octobre 2012)

Objet: Conflits dans les zones minières en RDC

L'incapacité des autorités congolaises à faire face au regain de violence au Kivu en RDC ces derniers mois montre à quel point une situation de totale impunité s'est installée dans cette région. Cette impunité est d'autant plus prégnante au niveau des zones minières dans lesquelles les viols des femmes et des enfants sont perpétrés à une très grande échelle.

Les États-Unis avec la Section 1502 de la loi Dodd-Franck votée en 2010 ont franchi un pas décisif dans la lutte contre le commerce illicite de minerais en provenance de l'Est de la RDC. Dans son dernier rapport datant de décembre 2011, le Groupe d'experts des Nations-Unies sur la RDC constate que la loi Dodd-Franck a eu pour effet de diminuer les revenus des groupes armés et autres réseaux criminels.

À deux reprises déjà le Parlement européen a interpelé la Commission pour que l'UE envisage de mettre en place de tels dispositifs. Le Parlement a voté en décembre 2010 une première résolution dans le cadre de l'avenir du partenariat stratégique UE-Afrique, puis en mai 2012 l'Assemblée parlementaire ACP-UE dans sa résolution sur l'impact social et environnemental de l'exploitation minière a réitéré cette demande. Les Pays-Bas ont pris les devants et viennent d'adopter en septembre dernier le projet pilote «étain sans conflit» en RDC dans les mines d'étain du Sud Kivu. Cette initiative vise à introduire une chaîne d'approvisionnement étroitement contrôlée de ce minéral en dehors du contrôle des groupes armés.

Quelles initiatives législatives européennes la Commission compte-t-elle prendre pour aller dans ce sens, et selon quel calendrier?

Quelles sont les raisons de l'inaction de la Commission jusqu'à aujourd'hui?

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

(12 décembre 2012)

La Commission a connaissance des liens qui existent entre l'exploitation et le commerce illicites des minéraux et le conflit en République démocratique du Congo (RDC). Elle a encouragé une approche fondée sur la transparence des marchés physiques, des chaînes d'approvisionnement et des revenus.

Dans sa communication de 2012 intitulée «Commerce, croissance et développement» (22), la Commission a souligné l'importance de promouvoir une utilisation et un respect plus marqués des principes directeurs de l'Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE) à l'intention des entreprises multinationales et du guide de l'OCDE sur le devoir de diligence pour la gestion responsable des chaînes d'approvisionnement. À cet égard, la Commission continue d'œuvrer, par l'intermédiaire des processus de l'OCDE associant de multiples parties prenantes, à la mise en application de ces principes directeurs et de ce guide, tout en développant sa propre stratégie en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises.

En outre, la Commission travaille en étroite collaboration avec le Service européen pour l'action extérieure (SEAE) afin d'examiner la possibilité de mettre en place une initiative globale de l'UE relative au devoir de diligence, dont la portée doit encore être définie. Une consultation publique devrait être lancée en 2013; les contributions du Parlement seront les bienvenues. Pour garantir une paix et une stabilité durables dans la région, il est primordial de restaurer l'autorité de l'État congolais et l'État de droit dans l'est de la RDC, de mettre en œuvre une vaste réforme du secteur de la sécurité et d'étendre les stratégies de développement.

La Commission et le SEAE étudient également les moyens à mettre en œuvre pour apporter un soutien politique et financier à l'«Initiative régionale de lutte contre l'exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles» de la Conférence internationale sur la région des Grands Lacs (CIRGL), qui prévoit notamment la mise en place d'un mécanisme visant à certifier que les minéraux provenant de la région ne financent pas les conflits.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009373/12

to the Commission

Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Conflict in the mining areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

The inability of the Congolese authorities to contain the fresh violence that broke out a few months ago in Kivu in the DRC reveals the extent to which a climate of total impunity now prevails in the region. The implications are particularly serious in the region’s mining areas, where the rape of women and children is widespread.

By means of Section 1502 of the 2010 Dodd-Franck Act, the US has taken a decisive step forward in the fight against the illegal trade in minerals from the eastern DRC. In its latest report of December 2011, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC noted that the entry into force of the Dodd-Franck Act had served to cut the flow of money to armed groups and other criminal networks.

The European Parliament has already urged the Commission on two occasions to consider the possibility of introducing similar provisions in the EU. In December 2010, Parliament adopted a first resolution on the future of the EU-Africa strategic partnership, and then in May 2012, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly reiterated the call for new measures in its resolution on the social and environmental impact of mining. The Netherlands has taken the lead in this area, and in September 2012, the country launched a pilot project entitled ‘conflict-free tin’ in the tin mines of South Kivu. The aim of this initiative is to develop a closely-monitored tin supply chain outside the control of armed groups.

What EU legislative initiatives is the Commission planning to take in order to achieve that objective, and when?

What are the reasons for the Commission’s failure to act until now?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

The Commission is aware of the links between the illegal exploitation and trade of minerals and the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Commission has promoted an approach based on transparency of physical markets, supply chains and revenues.

In its 2012 Communication on ‘Trade, Growth and Development’ (23), the Commission highlighted the importance of promoting greater support for and use of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for multinational enterprises, and OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains management. In this regard, the Commission continues to work at the OECD through multi-stakeholder processes on implementation of these Guidelines and the Guidance, as well as developing its corporate social responsibility strategy.

In addition, the Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) are working closely together on a possible comprehensive EU due diligence initiative, the scope of which still needs to be determined. A public consultation should be launched in 2013 and contributions from Parliament will be welcome. The restoration of Congolese state authority and the rule of law in the eastern regions of the DRC, along with a wide-ranging security sector reform, as well as broader development strategies are crucial to ensure a long-lasting peace and stability in the region.

The Commission and the EEAS are also exploring ways to provide political and financial support to the ‘Regional Initiative on Illegal exploitation of Natural Resources’ of the International Conference for the Great Lakes Region which includes the establishment of a certification mechanism aiming at certifying conflict free minerals sourced in the region.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-009374/12

a Bizottság számára

Gáll-Pelcz Ildikó (PPE)

(2012. október 16.)

Tárgy: Az ételallergiával érintett családok részére biztosított kedvezményekről

Egy magyarországi felmérés rámutatott, hogy az ételallergiával érintett családok sokszor havi 100 euróval is többet költenek élelmiszerre, mint a nem diétázók, tekintettel arra, hogy akár 5-7-szeres különbség is lehet az ételallergiások számára fogyasztható élelmiszerek és a normál, nem diétás élelmiszerek ára között. A gluténmentes lisztek 5,3-szor drágábbak, mint a normál finomlisztek, és a gluténmentes kenyereknél is nagyságrendileg hasonló árkülönbséget mutat az 5,7-szeres eltérés a két átlagár között. Dietetikusok vizsgálata szerint ugyanazon fogás megfelelő elkészítése 27%-kal kerül többe a gluténmentes diétát követők számára. Kifejezetten a szegényebb rétegek esetében jelent ez kardinális kérdést, hiszen a jelenlegi magas árak mellett nagy valószínűséggel nem engedhetik meg maguknak a diétát, ami az egészségi állapotuk veszélyeztetésével járhat. Sokat javíthatna a lisztérzékenyek helyzetén, ha a speciális alapanyagokat receptre is megkaphatnák a gyógyszertárakban. Ilyen megoldásokat már Nyugat-Európában is alkalmaznak. Finnországban és Olaszországban adókedvezmény vagy havi anyagi támogatás segíti a gluténmentes táplálkozás fokozott költségeinek fedezését, Franciaországban pedig havi ellátmányt folyósítanak.

Nem gondolja-e a Bizottság, hogy az élelmiszer-allergiásokat sújtó anyagi nehézségek a számukra fogyasztható élelmiszerek kiugróan magas ára miatt – önhibájukon kívül – méltánytalanul hátrányos helyzetben vannak? Tervezi-e a Bizottság, hogy szabályozást kezdeményez az ételallergiások számukra fogyasztható élelmiszerek okozta jelentős terhek enyhítésére érdekében?

Mi a Bizottság álláspontja az egyes tagállamokban már bevezetett adókedvezményekről és az ételallergiásoknak juttatott rendszeres anyagi támogatásokról? A belső piac kiegyensúlyozottsága és az ételallergiások hátrányos helyzetének javítása érdekében milyen egyéb eszközöket, szabályozási lehetőségeket lát a Bizottság a fenti probléma orvoslására?

Tonio Borg biztos válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2012. december 6.)

A Bizottság tudatában van annak, hogy az élelmiszer-allergiák, illetve az élelmiszer-érzékenység rendkívül nagy hatást gyakorol az egészségre, és hogy a problémát jelentő élelmiszerek kerülése alapvetően fontos.

A Bizottságnak nem áll szándékában olyan jogszabályokat kidolgozni, melyek csökkentenék az élelmiszer-allergiában szenvedő személyekre háruló élelmiszer-költségek okozta terhet, mivel a Bizottság nem rendelkezik hatáskörrel a speciális étrenddel kapcsolatos élelmiszerköltségek visszatérítése terén, amely a tagállamok közvetlen felelőssége.

Mindazonáltal a táplálkozással, túlsúllyal és elhízással kapcsolatos egészségügyi kérdésekre vonatkozó európai stratégia (24) középpontjában az élelmiszerekre és a táplálkozásra vonatkozó, a fogyasztóknak szóló információk állnak, melyek kitérnek az étrenddel összefüggő körülményekre, az élelmiszer-allergiákra és az élelmiszer-érzékenységre is.

E tekintetben a 2000/13/EK irányelv (25) biztosítja, hogy azon összetevők jelenlétét, melyek köztudottan allergiás reakciókat válthatnak ki, a címkén és az összetevők listáján kötelező feltüntetni. Ezen összetevők uniós listája (26) magában foglalja a glutént tartalmazó gabonaféléket, valamint az azokból készült termékeket.

Az 1169/2011/EU rendelet (27) szerint 2014. december 13-ától az allergénekre vonatkozó valamennyi információt a nem előrecsomagolt élelmiszereken is fel kell tüntetni, a vendéglátó-ipari létesítmények és éttermek által készített és házhoz szállított ételeket is beleértve. Ezenkívül a gluténmentességre vonatkozó jelölések, mint például a „gluténmentes” vagy az „alacsony gluténtartalmú” jelölések tekintetében különös szabályok (28) kerültek elfogadásra.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009374/12

to the Commission

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Allowances for families affected by food allergies

A study carried out in Hungary has shown that families affected by food allergies often pay EUR 100 per month more on food than those with no special dietary requirements, since foods suitable for sufferers from food allergies may cost five to seven times more than normal, non-diet foods. Gluten-free flours are 5.3 times more expensive than normal fine-grained flours, and gluten-free breads show a similar price differential of the order of 5.7 times between the two average prices. A study of people on special diets has shown that preparing the same dish properly costs 27% more for people on a gluten-free diet. Particularly for the poorer classes this is a crucial question, because given to the current high prices they very probably cannot afford the diet food they need, thus endangering their health. The situation of people with a sensitivity to flour could be improved considerably if the special basic foods could be obtained on prescription from chemists. Such solutions are already being applied in Western Europe. In Finland and Italy a tax allowance or monthly subsidy helps to cover the expense of gluten-free food, and in France monthly supplies are granted.

Does not the Commission consider that the financial difficulties affecting people with food allergies as a result of the excessively high price of the foods they need place them — through no fault of their own — at an unfair disadvantage? Does the Commission plan to initiate legislation with a view to alleviating the significant burdens caused by the cost of foods for people with food allergies?

What is the Commission’s view on the tax allowances already introduced in some Member States, and on regular subsidies for people suffering from food allergies? In the interest of balancing the internal market and improving the adverse situation of those suffering from food allergies, what other instruments and legislative options does the Commission envisage to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2012)

The Commission is aware of the health impact of food allergies or intolerance and avoidance of the foodstuff causing the problem is essential.

The Commission does not intend to develop legislation to alleviate the burden caused by the cost of food for people with food allergies as it has no role in reimbursement of food for special dietary requirements, which remains the direct responsibility of Member States.

Nevertheless, the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues (29) focuses on information to consumers about food and nutrition, taking into account diet related conditions, food allergies and intolerances.

In this regard, Directive 2000/13/EC (30) ensures that the presence of substances known for their ability to trigger allergic reactions is always indicated on the label and in the list of ingredients. The EU list of such substances (31) includes cereals containing gluten and products thereof.

According to Regulation 1169/2011 (32) as from 13 December 2014, all information on allergens will have to be provided also in the case of non-pre-packed foods, including foods prepared and delivered by catering establishments and restaurants. Moreover, specific rules (33) related to the indication of the absence of gluten such as ‘gluten-free’ or ‘very low gluten’ were adopted.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009375/12

aan de Commissie

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(16 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Aanpak onveiligheid en oneerlijke concurrentie in de Europese transportsector

Is de Commissie bekend met de uitzending „Explosief Transport” van ZEMBLA op 12 oktober 2012 over het vervoer van gevaarlijke stoffen door chauffeurs die onvoldoende opgeleid zijn?

In hoeverre is de Commissie op de hoogte van gevallen waarbij het afgeven van diploma's aan chauffeurs voor het vervoer van gevaarlijke stoffen in alle EU-lidstaten op onordentelijk wijze geschiedt?

Welke actie is de Commissie van plan te ondernemen om dit grensoverschrijdende probleem aan te pakken en de veiligheid van het transport met gevaarlijke stoffen in de hele EU te garanderen?

Welke actie onderneemt de Commissie om de UNECE-regels en EU-Richtlijn aangaande „wegtransporten van gevaarlijke goederen (ADR)” qua naleving en controles te verbeteren?

Is de Commissie bekend met de praktijk waarin chauffeurs in de transportsector collectieve arbeidsovereenkomsten ontwijken via legale en illegale constructies zoals het opzetten van satellietvestigingen in EU-lidstaten met lagere lonen en een lagere sociale bescherming?

Welke actie is de Commissie van plan te ondernemen tegen deze oneerlijke concurrentie in de transportsector?

Is de Commissie bekend met het feit dat de Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport in Nederland slechts 1 % van het vervoer controleert?

Is de Commissie als hoedster van de Verdragen van plan om minimumeisen aan arbeids‐ en veiligheidsinspectie te stellen zo.a. geldende EU-wetgeving op dit  terrein correct wordt geïmplementeerd?

Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie

(5 december 2012)

De punten die het geachte Parlementslid aanhaalt, hebben betrekking op diverse delen van de EU-wetgeving inzake wegvervoer. Het betreft niet alleen de regels inzake markttoegang, maar ook regels voor het vervoer van gevaarlijke goederen, de opleiding van bestuurders en het gebruik van de tachograaf. Deze regels evolueren constant om de verkeersveiligheid te verbeteren en eerlijke concurrentie en veilige werkomstandigheden te garanderen.

De Commissie heeft minimumeisen vastgesteld voor controles op de naleving van de geldende EU-regels. De handhaving is echter een verantwoordelijkheid van de lidstaten, die de nodige maatregelen moeten treffen om te garanderen dat vervoersondernemingen en professionele bestuurders deze regels naleven. Inbreuken moeten worden bestraft overeenkomstig de nationale sanctieregeling, die effectief, evenredig, ontradend en niet-dicriminerend moet zijn. De lidstaten moeten regelmatig bij de Commissie verslag uitbrengen over de tenuitvoerlegging van de EU-wetgeving.

De Commissie houdt toezicht op de tenuitvoerlegging van deze wetgeving op basis van de verslagen van de lidstaten, waarin de effectiviteit van de regels wordt beoordeeld en de standpunten van het bedrijfsleven worden verzameld. Regelmatig worden vergaderingen gehouden om problemen met de handhaving met de lidstaten en sociale partners te bespreken. Indien nodig neemt de Commissie het initiatief om nieuwe wetgeving voor te stellen.

De Commissie is voornemens om in 2013 een initiatief te nemen met betrekking tot de markt voor wegvervoer. Dit initiatief kan maatregelen omvatten voor de indeling van ernstige inbreuken in categorieën en voor een versterkte geharmoniseerde handhaving. Ook sociale normen kunnen in dit wetgevingspakket aan bod komen.

Nadere informatie hierover is beschikbaar op de websites van de Commissie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009375/12

to the Commission

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Tackling safety problems and unfair competition in road haulage

Is the Commission aware of the broadcast of 12 October 2012 ‘Explosief Transport’ forming part of the ZEMBLA series, which concerned the transport of dangerous substances by drivers without adequate training?

To what extent is the Commission aware of cases in which drivers have been improperly issued with certificates for the transport of dangerous substances in all EU Member States?

What action will the Commission take to tackle this international problem and guarantee the safety of the transport of dangerous substances throughout the EU?

What action will the Commission take to improve compliance with, and enforcement of, the UNECE rules and the EU Directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road (ADR)?

Is the Commission aware of the practice whereby drivers in road haulage evade collective agreements on terms of employment by means of both legal and illegal arrangements such as setting up satellite establishments in EU Member States with lower wages and poorer social protection?

What action will the Commission take against this unfair competition in the transport industry?

Is the Commission aware that the Environment and Transport Inspectorate in the Netherlands checks only 1% of transport?

As guardian of the Treaties, will the Commission draft minimum requirements applicable to labour and safety inspections so that EC law in this field is implemented correctly?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2012)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member relate to various pieces of EU road transport legislation. Apart from market access these rules also include rules on transport of dangerous goods, driver training and the use of tachograph. These rules are under constant evolution to enhance road safety, fair competition, safe working conditions.

The Commission established minimum requirements for controlling compliance with the EU rules in force. However, enforcement is the responsibility of Member States, who must take the measures to ensure that transport companies and professional drivers comply with these rules. Any infringements should be sanctioned in accordance with the national system of penalties, which are designed to be effective, proportional, dissuasive and non-discriminatory. Member States must report regularly to the Commission on the implementation of EC laws.

The Commission monitors implementation of these laws on the basis of the Member States’ reports, which assess the effectiveness of the rules and gather the views of the industry. Enforcement issues are reviewed with Member States and social partners at regular meetings. If appropriate, the Commission takes the initiative to propose new legislation.

In 2013 the Commission plans an initiative on the road transport market. This initiative could include actions on the categorisation of serious infringements and on enhanced harmonised enforcement. Social standards could also be part of this legislative package.

Detailed information is available on the Commission's websites (34).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009376/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Finanzielle Fragen in Bezug auf den WTO-Fall Boeing

Die EU hat die Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) Ende September 2009 um Erlaubnis ersucht, gegenüber den Vereinigten Staaten (USA) wegen unrechtmäßiger Subventionen an Boeing (der „Fall Boeing“) Gegenmaßnahmen einzuführen. Die WTO hat die USA verurteilt und die EU befindet sich derzeit im Prozess der Einleitung von Gegenmaßnahmen. Die Kommission schätzt, dass die Durchsetzung von Sanktionen noch ein bis zwei Jahre dauern wird  (35).

1.

Wie hoch sind bisher die Ausgaben der EU im Zusammenhang mit diesem Fall (darunter Nachforschungen und Untersuchungen zum Fall, das WTO-Beschwerdeverfahren, die Vorbereitung von Sanktionen sowie zusätzliche Ausgaben)?

2.

Kann die Kommission voraussagen, wie hoch die Kosten des weiteren Verfahrens für die EU sein werden?

3.

Wer wird die Kosten tragen, die der EU durch das Verfahren entstanden sind, nachdem diese den Fall gegen die USA nun gewonnen hat?

4.

Welchem Haushalt wird die Kommission die erlangten Mittel zuweisen, falls die US-Seite eine Geldbuße zahlen muss und/oder die EU Zollzugeständnisse aussetzt?

5.

Wird die EU Schadenersatz für die der europäischen Wirtschaft mutmaßlich entstandenen Schäden erhalten sowie die Kosten für die Verfolgung des Falles im Namen der EU zurückerhalten können, falls die USA innerhalb von einem oder zwei Jahren in Bezug auf die illegalen Subventionen Abhilfe schaffen?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(5. Dezember 2012)

Der Antrag der EU auf Genehmigung zur Aussetzung von Zugeständnissen oder sonstigen Pflichten gegenüber den Vereinigten Staaten im Rahmen der Streitigkeit über die Subventionierung des Wirtschaftszweigs für zivile Großraumflugzeuge durch die USA („Boeing‐Fall“) wurde im September 2012 gestellt. Dieser Antrag ist zurzeit bis zum Abschluss des Einhaltungsverfahrens ausgesetzt.

Antwort zu den Punkten 1 und 2: Die Kommission rechnet nicht damit, dass die Boeing-Streitigkeit die EU beträchtlich mehr kostet als WTO-Streitigkeiten vergleichbarer Größenordnung. Eine detaillierte Schätzung der Kosten ist jedoch — auch wegen noch laufender Verfahren — nicht möglich.

Bezüglich Punkt 3 merkt die Kommission an, dass im Rahmen des Streitbeilegungsmechanismus der WTO jede Seite die eigenen Kosten trägt.

In Bezug auf Punkt 4 weist die Kommission darauf hin, dass der Streitbeilegungsmechanismus der WTO keine Geldbußen vorsieht. Wie sich Gegenmaßnahmen der EU im Haushalt auswirken, hängt davon ab, wie über die Aussetzung von Zugeständnissen oder sonstigen Pflichten im Einzelnen entschieden wird.

Antwort zu Punkt 5: Die Kommission merkt an, dass es im Rahmen des Streitbeilegungsmechanismus der WTO nicht möglich ist, Schadenersatz oder die Erstattung von Kosten zu verlangen, die WTO-Mitgliedern im Zuge von Streitbelegungsverfahren entstehen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009376/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Financial issues regarding the WTO Boeing case

At the end of September 2009, the EU asked the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for the right to impose counter-measures against the United States (US) for illegally subsidising Boeing (the ‘Boeing case’). The WTO ruled against the US and the EU is currently in the process of enacting counter-measures. The Commission estimates that the enforcement of sanctions will take one to two more years. (36)

1.

To date, what costs have been incurred by the EU in pursuing this case (including research and investigation of the case, the WTO complaint process, the preparation of sanctions, and any additional costs)?

2.

Can the Commission predict how much the remainder of the process will cost the EU?

3.

Now that the EU has won the case against the US, who will bear the costs incurred by the EU in pursuing the case?

4.

If the US has to pay a penalty and/or the EU suspends tariff concessions, under which budget will the Commission allocate the funds thus gained?

5.

If the US addresses the illegal subsidies within a year or two, will the EU be able to recover the damages estimated to have been inflicted upon the EU economy, as well as the costs of pursuing the case on behalf of the EU?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2012)

The EU request for authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations against the United States in the dispute concerning US subsidisation to its Large Civil aircraft industry (the ‘Boeing case’) dates from September 2012. This request is currently suspended pending the completion of the compliance proceedings.

In response to points 1. and 2. the Commission would not expect that the Boeing dispute entails significant additional costs to the EU compared to World Trade Organisation (WTO) disputes of similar magnitude.A detailed estimate of the costs is however not possible, also because there are ongoing proceedings.

With respect to point 3. the Commission notes that under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism each side bears its own costs.

Regarding point 4. the Commission would observe that the WTO dispute settlement mechansim does not provide for the imposition of penalties. The budgetary implications of the EU countermeasures would depend on the exact nature of the suspension of concessions and other obligtaions which are not yet decided.

In response to points 5. the Commission notes that under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism it is not possible to recover damages or to recover costs incurred by WTO members in pursuing disputes.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009377/12

an die Kommission

Werner Langen (PPE)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Antidumping-Klage von EU ProSun vom 25.7.2012 und Anti-Subventions-Klage der Initiative vom 25. September 2012

Infolge der chinesischen Importe und Dumpingpreise bei Solaranlagen müssen immer mehr europäische Photovoltaik-Hersteller Insolvenz anmelden bzw. Arbeitskräfte entlassen.

Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Industrieinitiative EU ProSun am 25. Juli 2012 eine Anti-Dumping-Klage bei der Kommission eingereicht, die zum Ziel hat, die chinesischen Importe schnellstmöglich registrieren zu lassen und, sofern das Dumping bestätigt wird, auch rückwirkend Maßnahmen zu verhängen. Am 6. September 2012 hat die Europäische Kommission offiziell eine Anti-Dumping-Untersuchung eingeleitet, deren Ergebnis Mitte bis Ende 2013 zu erwarten ist.

Da die chinesische Solarbranche durch massive Subventionen unterstützt wird, die laut internationalen Handelsregeln wettbewerbswidrig sind, hat EU ProSun am 25. September 2012 zusätzlich eine Anti-Subventions-Klage eingereicht.

Mit jeder neuen Woche melden weitere Solarfirmen Insolvenz an oder streichen Arbeitsplätze, so dass EU ProSun die Kommission aufgefordert hat, das Verfahren zu beschleunigen und die Registrierung der Importe frühzeitig zu eröffnen.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

Wie ist der aktuelle Sachstand in den oben genannten Verfahren?

Inwiefern kommt die Kommission der Aufforderung, das Anti-Dumping-Verfahren zu beschleunigen, nach?

Ist die Kommission bereit, vergleichbare Maßnahmen wie die US-Regierung zu ergreifen?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(14. Dezember 2012)

Die Kommission sammelt derzeit Informationen für ihre Untersuchung zu den Anträgen auf Einleitung eines Antidumpingverfahrens und eines Antisubventionsverfahrens betreffend Fotovoltaikmodule aus kristallinem Silicium. Angesichts der großen Zahl betroffener Parteien hat die Kommission Stichproben der ausführenden Hersteller in China sowie der Hersteller und Einführer in der Union gebildet und um Beantwortung spezieller Fragebogen gebeten. Anhand dieser Antworten wird die Kommission feststellen können, ob Dumping und Subventionierung stattfinden und ob der Wirtschaftszweig der Union dadurch geschädigt wird. Auch andere interessierte Parteien, etwa die Verwender (und im Falle der Antisubventionsuntersuchung auch die chinesische Regierung) wurden um Übermittlung von Informationen ersucht. Die Kommission wird die übermittelten Informationen analysieren und überprüfen, bevor sie ihre vorläufigen Feststellungen trifft, was bis zum 5. Juni 2013 (Antidumpinguntersuchung) bzw. bis zum 5. August 2013 (Antisubventionsuntersuchung) zu geschehen hat.

Die Kommission ist an die von der Welthandelsorganisation und dem EU‐Recht gesetzten Verfahrensfristen gebunden. Innerhalb dieser Fristen wird sie so zügig wie möglich arbeiten. Wie rasch das Verfahren abgewickelt werden kann, wird von seiner Komplexität und seinem Umfang abhängen, außerdem muss gewährleistet sein, dass die Untersuchungen ordnungsgemäß und sorgfältig durchgeführt werden und alle interessierten Parteien ihre Verfahrensrechte wahrnehmen können.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009377/12

to the Commission

Werner Langen (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: EU ProSun complaints of 25 July 2012 concerning dumping and of 25 September 2012 concerning unfair subsidies

Imports from China of solar energy systems marketed at dumping prices are forcing more and more European manufacturers of photovoltaic equipment to declare insolvency or lay off workers.

Against this background, on 25 July 2012 the EU ProSun trade association lodged a complaint with the Commission urging it to begin keeping a formal record of Chinese imports as soon as possible and, if dumping is confirmed, to impose retroactive penalties. On 6 September 2012 the Commission officially opened an anti-dumping investigation, the results of which are expected in mid-to-late 2013.

On 25 September 2012, EU ProSun filed another complaint against the massive subsidies propping up the Chinese solar industry, which breach international trade rules by distorting competition.

Since every week sees another solar energy company forced to declare insolvency or make workers redundant, EU ProSun has called on the Commission to speed up the procedure and begin keeping a formal record of Chinese imports as a matter of urgency.

1.

What stage has been reached in the aforementioned procedure?

2.

How is the Commission responding to the call to speed up the procedure?

3.

Is the Commission willing to take measures similar to those implemented by the US Administration?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2012)

The Commission is in the phase of collecting information for its investigation into the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy complaints on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules. Given the great number of parties involved, the Commission has selected samples of exporting producers in China and producers and importers in the Union, and has requested that they reply to specific questionnaires. The results of this exercise will allow the Commission to establish whether dumping and subsidisation are taking place and whether this is causing injury to the EU industry. Other interested parties, like users (and also the Government of China in the subsidy case), are also requested to provide information. The information, once received, will be analysed and verified before any preliminary findings are made by 5 June 2013 for the anti-dumping investigation and by 5 August 2013 for the anti-subsidy investigation.

The Commission is bound by procedural deadlines imposed by the World Trade Organisation and EU legislation. Within those deadlines, the Commission will work as speedily as possible.The speed of the case will be determined by its complexity and size as well as by the need to carry out out the investigations properly and accurately and the requirement to ensure due process for all interested parties.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009378/12

an die Kommission

Christian Ehler (PPE)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Schaffung von Normen auf dem Gebiet der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit

Das Thema „Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit“ gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung in der Europäischen Union. Nach einigen groß angelegten Hackerangriffen auf mehrere Mitgliedstaaten wird von der Kommission gegenwärtig der Entwurf für eine Strategie zur Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit ausgearbeitet.

Die Aktivitäten im Bereich der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit reichen von der Spionage über Verbrechen bis hin zur Kriegführung. Bei jeder dieser Aktivitäten gibt es eigene Beweggründe und Ziele.

Politische Reaktionen und Versuche der Standardisierung gestalten sich zunehmend schwieriger, da die Aktivitäten und Anwendungsbereiche weit gefächert sind.

Hat die Kommission einen Überblick darüber, ob es innerhalb der EU nationale Strategien auf dem Gebiet der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit gibt?

Hat die Kommission bereits nationale Standards zur Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit auf europäischer und internationaler Ebene untersucht? Falls ja, könnte sie Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerungen mitteilen?

Bis jetzt gibt es keine gemeinsame Stimme der EU in internationalen Normungsgremien auf dem Gebiet der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit.

Wie plant die Kommission, diese Situation zu ändern? Wird sich die EU zukünftig mehr in die Normungsverfahren auf dem Gebiet der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit einbringen?

Falls ja, wie?

Antwort von Frau Kroes im Namen der Kommission

(30. November 2012)

Die Kommission teilt die Meinung des Herrn Abgeordneten hinsichtlich der Bedeutung der Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit als maßgeblicher wirtschaftlicher und gesellschaftlicher Faktor für die EU und hält es für ausgesprochen wichtig, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten wirksame nationale Strategien für die Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit umsetzen. Eine Reihe von Mitgliedstaaten hat der Kommission bereits die Verabschiedung nationaler Strategien für die Computer‐ und Netzsicherheit mitgeteilt. Die meisten dieser Strategien sind auch öffentlich zugänglich und wurden ins Englische übersetzt. Sie decken verschiedene Aspekte der Cybersicherheit ab, einschließlich Prävention und Robustheit, Forschung, Bekämpfung von Cyberkriminalität, Verteidigung und außenpolitische Aspekte.

Im Hinblick auf die Normung hat die Kommission im Jahr 2011 einen Programmauftrag  (37) (M/487) erteilt, mit dem ein Überblick über den Sachstand bei der sicherheitsbezogenen Normung in Europa im Allgemeinen gewonnen werden soll (Phase 1) und spezifische Programme der sicherheitsbezogenen Normung mit Fahrplänen für ausgewählte Bereiche der Sicherheit ausgearbeitet werden sollen (Phase 2). Aspekte der Robustheit von Computern und Netzen werden in diesem Zusammenhang behandelt. In seinem Abschlussbericht zur Phase 1 hat der Normenausschuss CEN/TC 391 „Sicherheit der Gesellschaft und der Bürger“ unter anderem europäische und internationale Normen für die Sicherheit der Informations‐ und Kommunikationstechnik und einschlägige laufende Normungstätigkeiten  (38) aufgeführt. Das Mandat sowie der Abschlussbericht wurden auf der CEN-Internetseite  (39) veröffentlicht. Die bevorstehende EU-Strategie für die Cybersicherheit sollte sich außerdem eingehender mit der Frage der Normung befassen. In Anbetracht der Einrichtung der Koordinierungsgruppe für die Cybersicherheit von CEN, Cenelec und ETSI unter dem Vorsitz des Herrn Abgeordneten sieht die Kommission einem weiteren Austausch zu diesem wichtigen Thema mit Interesse entgegen, insbesondere mit Blick auf die internationale Normung.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009378/12

to the Commission

Christian Ehler (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Cybersecurity standardisation

The topic of cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important within the EU. After some major cyberattacks on several Member States, a European cybersecurity strategy is currently being drafted by the Commission.

Cybersecurity activities range from cyberespionage to cybercrime and cyberwar. Each of these has its own motivations and goals.

Policy responses and attempts at standardisation are becoming increasingly difficult due to the wide range of activities and areas of focus.

Does the Commission have an overview on whether any national cybersecurity strategies exist within the EU?

Has the Commission already analysed national cybersecurity standards at European and international level? If so, please could it share the results and conclusions?

Until now, there has been no EU voice on international standardisation bodies in the area of cybersecurity. How does the Commission plan to change this situation? Will the EU become more engaged in cyberstandardisation processes in the future? If so, how?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2012)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's views on the importance of cyber-security as a major economic and societal driver for the EU and believes that it is of the utmost importance that all Member States adopt effective national cyber-security strategies. A number of Member States have already informed the Commission that they have adopted national cyber-security strategies. Most of those strategies are also publicly available and have been translated into English. Those strategies cover various aspects of cyber-security including prevention and resilience, research, the fight against cybercrime, defence and its external dimension.

Regarding standardisation, in 2011 the Commission has issued a Programming Mandate (40) (M/487), aiming at providing an overview on the state of play in security standardisation in Europe in general (Phase 1), and at developing specific security standardisation programmes with roadmaps for selected security sectors (Phase 2). Cyber resilience aspects will be taken up in this context. In its final report of Phase 1, CEN/TC 391 ‘Societal and citizen security’, among others, has identified European and international standards on ICT security, and relevant, ongoing activities (41). The mandate as well as this final report have been published on the website of CEN (42). Moreover, the forthcoming EU Cyber Security Strategy should further address the issue of standardisation. Finally, with the creation of the CEN, CENELEC and ETSI Cybersecurity Coordination Group (CSCG), which is chaired by the Honourable Member, the Commission is looking forward to further interaction on this important issue, with a particular view on international standardisation.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009379/12

προς το Συμβούλιο

Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Κλιμακώνεται η επιθετικότητα του ισραηλινού κράτους ενάντια στον παλαιστινιακό λαό

H επιθετικότητα του ισραηλινού κράτους ενάντια στον παλαιστινιακό λαό και η προκλητική αδιαλλαξία του απέναντι στο δίκαιο αγώνα του για τον τερματισμό της κατοχής και τη δημιουργία ανεξάρτητου, βιώσιμου και κυρίαρχου Παλαιστινιακού κράτους, εκδηλώθηκε ακόμη μία φορά με την ομιλία του Ισραηλινού πρωθυπουργού Μπ. Νετανιάχου, στην πρόσφατη Γενική Συνέλευση του ΟΗΕ, έχοντας τη στήριξη των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ.

Η εγκληματική δράση του ισραηλινού στρατού κατοχής κλιμακώνεται με δολοφονικές επιθέσεις ενάντια στον παλαιστινιακό λαό στη Λωρίδα της Γάζας και στα άλλα παλαιστινιακά εδάφη.

Οι ιμπεριαλιστικοί ανταγωνισμοί αυξάνουν τους κινδύνους γενικευμένου πολέμου, με ολέθριες συνέπειες για τους λαούς της ευρύτερης περιοχής.

Στο έδαφος αυτών των ανταγωνισμών, η ΕΕ αναβαθμίζει συστηματικά τις πολιτικές, οικονομικές, εμπορικές αλλά και τις στρατιωτικές της σχέσεις με το Ισραήλ, τόσο στα πλαίσια της Συμφωνίας Σύνδεσης ΕΕ-Ισραήλ, όσο και της ένταξης του Ισραήλ στο χώρο του Ενιαίου Ευρωπαϊκού Ουρανού.

Με πρόσφατη απόφαση του Συμβουλίου της ΕΕ συνάφθηκε πρωτόκολλο που προσαρτάται στην Ευρωμεσογειακή Συμφωνία Σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και του Ισραήλ, με το οποίο τα προϊόντα που παράγονται στα κατεχόμενα παλαιστινιακά εδάφη να εξάγονται ως ισραηλινά προϊόντα στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

Η συμφωνία αυτή EE-Ισραήλ ουσιαστικά αποτελεί ευθεία αναγνώριση και νομιμοποίηση της ισραηλινής κατοχής και των εγκλημάτων σε βάρος του παλαιστινιακού λαού.

Ερωτάται το Συμβούλιο:

Προτίθεται να συνεχίσει αυτή την πολιτική στήριξης του Ισραήλ σε βάρος του παλαιστινιακού λαού και του δίκαιου αγώνα του, για τον τερματισμό της ισραηλινής κατοχής και τη δημιουργία ανεξάρτητου, βιώσιμου και κυρίαρχου παλαιστινιακού κράτους, στα σύνορα του 1967, με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ, για το γκρέμισμα του απαράδεκτου τείχους, την απελευθέρωση των παλαιστινίων πολιτικών κρατουμένων στο Ισραήλ και το δικαίωμα επιστροφής όλων των παλαιστίνιων προσφύγων στις εστίες τους, με βάση τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ;

Απάντηση

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Η θέση της ΕΕ σχετικά με την ειρηνευτική διαδικασία στη Μέση Ανατολή καθορίζεται στα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου της 14ης Μαΐου 2012, όπως συμπληρώθηκαν με τα συμπεράσματα της 19ης Νοεμβρίου 2012 και της 10ης Δεκεμβρίου 2012.

Η ΕΕ έχει εκφράσει τη δέσμευσή της για μια λύση που προβλέπει τη δημιουργία δύο κρατών και πιστεύει ότι οι συνεχιζόμενες εξελίξεις στον αραβικό κόσμο καθιστούν επιτακτικότερη την ανάγκη προόδου της ειρηνευτική διαδικασίας στην Μέση Ανατολή. Η εκπλήρωση των προσδοκιών των λαών της περιοχής, τόσο των Παλαιστινίων για απόκτηση κράτους, όσο και των Ισραηλινών για ασφάλεια, αποτελεί κρίσιμο στοιχείο για μόνιμη ειρήνη, σταθερότητα και ευημερία στην περιοχή.

Η επίλυση της σύγκρουσης συνάδει προς το καίριο συμφέρον τόσο της ΕΕ όσο και των ίδιων των μερών και της ευρύτερης περιοχής και μπορεί να επιτευχθεί μέσω μιας συνολικής ειρηνευτικής συμφωνίας, βασισμένης στις συναφείς αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, τις αρχές της Μαδρίτης — περιλαμβανομένης της αρχής «έδαφος για την ειρήνη» — τον οδικό χάρτη, τις συμφωνίες που επιτεύχθηκαν προηγουμένως από τα μέρη και την Αραβική Ειρηνευτική Πρωτοβουλία. Η ΕΕ υπενθυμίζει την εφαρμογή του διεθνούς ανθρωπιστικού δικαίου στα κατεχόμενα Παλαιστινιακά εδάφη, περιλαμβανομένης της εφαρμογής της τέταρτης Σύμβασης της Γενεύης περί προστασίας των πολιτών εν καιρώ πολέμου.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009379/12

to the Council

Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Escalating aggression of the Israeli State towards the Palestinian people

The aggression of the Israeli State towards the Palestinian people and its provocative intolerance of its just struggle to end the occupation and create an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian State has once again found expression in a speech given by Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu at the recent UN General Assembly. It was supported by the US and the EU.

The criminal actions of the Israeli army of occupation have culminated in murderous attacks against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and the other Palestinian territories.

Imperialist rivalries increase the risks of a generalized war, with devastating consequences for the peoples of the region as a whole.

Against the backcloth of these rivalries, the EU is systematically upgrading political, economic, commercial and military relations with Israel, both within the framework of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and by including Israel in the Single European Sky.

A recent decision of the EU Council concluded a Protocol which has been annexed to the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between the European Communities and Israel, under which products produced in the occupied Palestinian territories can be exported as Israeli products to EU Member States.

This EU-Israel agreement essentially constitutes a straightforward recognition and legitimization to the Israeli occupation and its crimes against the Palestinian people.

In view of the above, will the Council say:

Will it pursue this policy in support of Israel against the Palestinian people and its just struggle for an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, for the removal of the unacceptable wall, for the release of Palestinian political prisoners in Israel and for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees to their homes, on the basis of the relevant UN resolutions?

Reply

(16 January 2013)

The EU position on the Middle East Peace Process is set out in the Council conclusions of 14 May 2012, completed by those of 19 November 2012 and 10 December 2012.

The EU is committed to a two-state solution and convinced that the ongoing changes across the Arab world make the need for progress on the Middle East peace process all the more urgent. Heeding the aspirations of the people in the region, including those of Palestinians for statehood and those of Israelis for security is a crucial element for lasting peace, stability and prosperity in the region.

Ending the conflict is a fundamental interest of the EU as well as of the parties themselves and the wider region, and it can be achieved through a comprehensive peace agreement, based on the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Roadmap, the agreements previously reached by the parties and the Arab Peace Initiative. The EU recalls the applicability of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-009380/12

a Bizottság számára

Bánki Erik (PPE)

(2012. október 16.)

Tárgy: A parlagfűre vonatkozó kísérleti projektek

A közönséges parlagfű nemzetközileg igen elterjedt, és az egyre melegedő éghajlat következtében folyamatosan nagyobb és nagyobb területeket hódít meg. Az egyre növekvő pollenszint mintegy 50-60 millió európai polgár egészségére ártalmas, és súlyos közegészségügyi problémává vált az EU-ban, óriási költségeket és károkat okozva különösen egyes közép‐ és kelet-európai országokban, például Magyarországon.

Tájékoztatást tudna-e adni a Bizottság az alábbi kísérleti projektekről, amelyeket a Parlament kezdeményezett és a 2010-es uniós költségvetésben szerepeltek?

1.

A közönséges parlagfű terjedésének és hatásainak értékelése és ellenőrzése Európában (HL 2010/S 137-210135. sz. ajánlati felhívás); valamint

2.

A parlagfű terjedésének ellenőrzésére szolgáló módszerekre és a virágpor-allergiára vonatkozó komplex kutatási kísérleti projekt (támogatás).

Rendelkezésre állnak-e már a fent említett projektek teljesítményére/eredményeire vonatkozó adatok? Amennyiben igen, melyek ezek?

A fenti projektek eredményei alapján milyen további lépésekre készül a Bizottság a parlagfű által okozott súlyos közegészségügyi probléma kezelése érdekében?

Janez Potočnik válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2012. december 4.)

A parlagfű terjedésének ellenőrzésére szolgáló módszerek és a virágpor-allergia komplex kutatására vonatkozóan megrendelt kísérleti projekt (07.0322/2011/586608/ETU/B2) a közelmúltban zárult le, és eredményei hamarosan elérhetővé válnak a Környezetvédelmi Főigazgatóság honlapján. (43)

A közönséges parlagfű európai terjedésének megállítására alkalmas módszerek komplex kutatása (07.0322/2010/586350/SUB/B2) még folyamatban van, és várhatóan 2014 derekára fejeződik be. A projekt lezárultát követően eredményei közzétételre kerülnek.

Foglalkozik a témával a hetedik kutatási és technológiafejlesztési keretprogram (FP7, 2007‐2013) egyik kutatási projektje is: az ATOPICA projekt (44), amely az éghajlatváltozásnak és a levegő minőségének a virágpor-allergiákra gyakorolt hatásait vizsgálja, elsősorban a parlagfűre koncentrálva. A projekt szakmai ajánlásokat fog megfogalmazni a parlagfű-invázió visszaszorítására irányuló szakpolitikai kezdeményezések megalapozásához 2014-től kezdődően.

A Bizottság az EU biológiai sokféleséggel kapcsolatos, 2020-ig teljesítendő stratégiájának (45) megfelelően az invazív fajok okozta problémák kezelését célzó jogszabályok megerősítésére vonatkozó javaslatok készítésekor támaszkodik a tanulmányok eredményeire.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009380/12

to the Commission

Erik Bánki (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Pilot projects on ragweed

Common ragweed is widespread internationally and is constantly spreading into an even wider area, assisted by an increasingly mild climate. Increasing levels of pollen are harming the health of some 50-60 million European citizens and have become a serious public health problem in the EU, generating enormous costs and damage, especially in some central and eastern European countries such as Hungary.

Can the Commission provide information on the following pilot projects initiated by Parliament and included in the 2010 EU budget:

Assessing and controlling the spread and the effects of common ragweed in Europe (call for tender OJ 2010/S 137-210135); and

Pilot project on complex research on the methods of controlling the spread of ragweed and pollen allergies (grant).

Are the deliverables/results of the above projects already available? If so, what are they?

Based on the findings of these projects, what further steps/initiatives is the Commission planning to take in order to tackle the serious public health problem caused by ragweed?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The Study Contract ‘Pilot project on complex research on the methods of controlling the spread of ragweed and pollen allergies’ (07.0322/2011/586608/ETU/B2) was recently finalised and all deliverables will be made available on the DG ENV website soon (46).

The Grant ‘Complex research on methods to halt the Ambrosia invasion in Europe’ (07.0322/2010/586350/SUB/B2) is ongoing and is expected to be finalised by mid-2014. Deliverables will be shared after finalisation of the project.

An additional and related project, under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013), is the project ATOPICA (47), which is investigating the effects of climate change and air quality on pollen-induced allergies, focusing on ragweed. The project will deliver policy-relevant guidance to combat Ambrosia invasion as of 2014.

The Commission is using the results of the Study Contract in its proposals to strengthen legislation to tackle the problems caused by invasive species, as outlined in the communication on an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (48).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009381/12

alla Commissione

Claudio Morganti (EFD)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Aggiornamento elenco ausili medici

Vi sono diversi strumenti e apparecchiature tecnologiche, come ad esempio respiratori, carrozzine, deambulatori e materassi anti-decubito, che sono necessari per determinate categorie di pazienti, e che in Italia sono quindi garantiti dal Servizio Sanitario Nazionale.

Il Nomenclatore tariffario contiene l'elenco completo di questi strumenti, ma il suo ultimo aggiornamento risale a ben 13 anni or sono (Decreto n. 332/99 del Ministero della Salute); in teoria dovevano esservi adeguamenti periodici a scadenza massima triennale, ma quest'obbligo è stato completamente disatteso e la sua revisione ulteriormente rinviata.

La tecnologia in detto ambito si evolve in maniera piuttosto rapida, e i pazienti che necessitano di questi ausili si trovano di fronte a una difficile scelta, ovvero utilizzare strumenti obsoleti oppure dover pagare di tasca propria la differenza per poter usufruire di migliori servizi. A volte questa possibilità di scelta non viene neppure concessa, in quanto nel Nomenclatore sono completamente assenti alcune nuove innovazioni.

I continui tagli in ambito sanitario costringono inoltre molte ASL a cercare sul mercato i prodotti al minor costo, che spesso sono anche però di qualità scadente, come ad esempio molte carrozzine prodotte in Estremo Oriente.

Questi nuovi dispositivi non si caratterizzano per essere dei prototipi specifici, ma solamente delle innovazioni entrate oramai nell'uso comune in ambito sanitario.

1.

Alla luce di tutto questo, quali misure può attuare la Commissione per cercare di risolvere questa situazione, lesiva dell'autonomia e della partecipazione di questi pazienti a una normale vita sociale e lavorativa?

2.

Esiste a livello europeo un coordinamento per lo scambio delle migliori pratiche e tecniche innovative in ambito di dispositivi medici e sanitari?

3.

Non ritiene la Commissione inoltre doveroso favorire una più ampia diffusione in Europa dei migliori strumenti attualmente disponibili?

Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione

(22 novembre 2012)

La problematica sollevata dall'onorevole deputato rientra nelle responsabilità degli Stati membri poiché, conformemente all'articolo 168 del trattato, l'azione dell'Unione rispetta le responsabilità degli Stati membri per la definizione della loro politica sanitaria e per l'organizzazione e la fornitura di servizi sanitari e di assistenza medica. In queste responsabilità rientra la gestione dei servizi sanitari e dell'assistenza sanitaria e lo stanziamento di risorse a tal fine.

La Commissione ritiene tuttavia importante identificare e condividere informazioni sulle innovazioni che intervengono nell'ambito degli ausili medici. La Commissione organizza perciò riunioni regolari in tema di tecnologie nuove e emergenti laddove le parti interessate, come ad esempio le autorità nazionali competenti, l'industria degli ausili medici, gli organismi notificati e gli organismi di normazione, possono scambiare i loro punti di vista e condividere le loro esperienze sui dispositivi innovativi che arrivano sul mercato europeo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009381/12

to the Commission

Claudio Morganti (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Updating of list of medical devices

There are a number of instruments and pieces of technological equipment, such as respirators, wheelchairs, walking frames and anti-bedsore mattresses, which are necessary for certain categories of patient and which are therefore provided by the national health service in Italy.

The Nomenclatore tariffario (official list of NHS tariffs) includes a full list of these instruments, but it was last updated 13 years ago (by Ministry of Health Decree No 332/99). In theory, there were supposed to be regular adjustments, every three years at the most, but this requirement has been completely ignored and the revision of the decree further postponed.

Technology in this field is evolving fairly rapidly and patients who need these devices are faced with a difficult choice — either having to use outdated devices or having to pay the difference out of their own pockets in order to receive better services. Sometimes they do not even have that choice, as some new innovations are not even included on the official list.

The continuing health service cuts are also forcing many local health authorities (ASL) to seek lower-cost products on the market, but these are also often of poor quality, such as many wheelchairs that are manufactured in the Far East.

These new devices are not specific prototypes but are simply innovations that have now become commonplace in the health sector.

1.

In the light of the above, what measures can the Commission take to try to resolve this situation, which is undermining the autonomy of these patients and preventing them from having a normal social and working life?

2.

Is there, at EU level, any coordination with regard to the exchange of best practices and innovative techniques in the field of medical and health devices?

3.

Does the Commission not think it should facilitate a wider dissemination in Europe of the best instruments currently available?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2012)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member fall under Member States' responsibilities since, in accordance with Article 168 of the Treaty, the Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. These responsibilities include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes it is important to identify and share information on innovation in the area of medical devices. The Commission therefore organises regular meetings on new and emerging technologies where interested parties such asnational Competent Authorities, the medical device industry, Notified Bodies and standardisation bodies can exchange views and share expertise on innovative devices coming onto the European market.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-009382/12

do Rady

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(16 października 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Środki finansowe z Pokojowej Nagrody Nobla

Wczoraj Unia Europejska otrzymała Pokojową Nagrodę Nobla za „budowanie pokoju na kontynencie, działania na rzecz praw człowieka oraz demokracji”. W tym roku kwota, jaką został uhonorowany laureat wynosi 931 tys. euro.

Przypominam, że jednym z tegorocznych kandydatów był Aleś Bialacki, dzielny białoruski opozycjonista, który za swoją działalność odsiaduje wyrok 4 i pół roku więzienia.

Zwracam się z pytaniem, czy Rada nie uważa, że środki związane z przyznaniem nagrody mogłyby być przyznane na pomoc białoruskiemu społeczeństwu.

W skali budżetu Unii kwota niespełna miliona euro jest nieznacząca, natomiast gdyby przeznaczyć ją na wsparcie społeczeństwa obywatelskiego na Białorusi miałaby wymierne znaczenie i na pewno przyczyniła się do zniknięcia z mapy Europy ostatniej klasycznej dyktatury. To wstyd, że u granic Unii Europejskiej nadal rządzi dyktator.

Odpowiedź

(10 grudnia 2012 r.)

W dniu 15 października do Rady dotarła zaszczytna wiadomość, że Pokojową Nagrodę Nobla przyznano Unii Europejskiej, w uznaniu jej działań służących pojednaniu, demokracji, propagowaniu praw człowieka oraz rozpowszechnianiu pokoju i stabilności na cały kontynent. Rada podkreśliła wtedy, że nagroda jest też wyrazem uznania dla bezprecedensowego – w historii i w świecie – przedsięwzięcia w dziedzinie regionalnej, obejmującej coraz większy obszar integracji, dzięki której dawniej wrogie państwa są dziś zjednoczone w przyjaźni wokół pewnych zasadniczych wartości. Rada zobowiązała się, że nadal będzie niestrudzenie pracować na rzecz pokoju i propagowania podstawowych praw i wartości oraz że postara się, by jej działania zewnętrzne były bardziej spójne, całościowe i skuteczne.

Rada nie omawiała kwestii środków finansowych z Pokojowej Nagrody Nobla.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009382/12

to the Council

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Funds from the Nobel Peace Prize

Yesterday the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘advancing peace, human rights and democracy on the continent’. This year the prize money awarded to the winner amounts to EUR 931 000.

One of this year’s candidates was Ales Bialiatski, a courageous Belarusian opposition activist who is serving a four-and-a-half-year prison term for his activities.

Does the Council not think that the prize money from this award could be allocated to help Belarusian society?

Compared with the EU budget, the sum of less than a million euros is insignificant, yet spent in support of civil society in Belarus it would have a substantial impact and help to remove the last old-style dictatorship from the map of Europe. It is a disgrace that a dictator remains in power at the very border of the European Union.

Reply

(10 December 2012)

On 15 October, the Council welcomed the historic award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union in recognition of its work on reconciliation, democracy, promotion of human rights and in enlarging the area of peace and stability across the continent. The Council underlined that the prize also recognises the historically and globally unique project of regional integration and enlargement in Europe, where former enemies today are united as friends around a core set of values. The Council undertook to continue to work tirelessly for peace and in the promotion of fundamental rights and values and to strive to make its external action more coherent, comprehensive and effective.

The Council has not discussed the issue of funds from the Nobel Peace Prize.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009383/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Attacchi informatici iraniani contro obiettivi negli Stati Uniti e nel Golfo persico

In base ai rapporti pubblicati il 15 ottobre 2012, gli Stati Uniti avrebbero accusato la Repubblica islamica dell'Iran di lanciare attacchi informatici contro istituti finanziari statunitensi, nonché contro Aramco, la più grande società petrolifera al mondo, e RasGas, azienda qatariana produttrice di gas.

Secondo quanto riportato dal Sunday Times, il segretario della difesa statunitense, Leon Panetta, avrebbe dichiarato che il Pentagono intende intervenire con misure offensive nei confronti degli autori di tali attacchi, in modo da scongiurare una nuova «Pearl Harbour informatica». L'amministrazione USA è convinta che dietro l'atto, che ha colpito 30 000 computer presso Aramco, vi sia l'Iran. Secondo Leon Panetta si tratterebbe «probabilmente dell'attacco più distruttivo che abbia mai colpito il settore privato». Gli attacchi alle società finanziarie statunitensi si sono manifestati sotto forma di interruzioni del servizio, in quanto le reti sono state invase da messaggi generati da computer.

Mahdi Akhavan Bahabadi, segretario del centro nazionale iraniano del ciberspazio, ha negato il coinvolgimento dell'Iran negli attacchi. Ciononostante, si ritiene che gli attacchi siano stati lanciati in risposta alle sanzioni promosse dagli Stati Uniti e al worm digitale Stuxnet impiegato per paralizzare gli impianti nucleari iraniani.

1.

In relazione a quanto suesposto, ritiene il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante che gli attacchi informatici lanciati dalla repubblica islamica abbiano colpito anche società europee?

2.

Secondo la valutazione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante, in che misura gli interessi europei sono vulnerabili alla minaccia di attacchi informatici orchestrati dall'Iran?

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

(14 dicembre 2012)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton non è a conoscenza di attacchi informatici iraniani contro società europee. Al momento, la Commissione non intende fare congetture su disposizioni in materia di sicurezza adottate da società europee per difendersi da possibili attacchi informatici organizzati dallo Stato.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009383/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Iranian cyber attacks on US and Persian Gulf targets

According to reports published on 15 October 2012, the United States has accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of launching cyber attacks on US financial institutions, as well as on the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, and on the Qatari gas company RasGas.

The Sunday Times reports US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta as saying that the Pentagon would move aggressively against perpetrators of such attacks to ward off a ‘cyber-Pearl Harbour’. The US Administration is convinced that Iran was behind an attack that affected 30 000 computers belonging to Aramco. Mr Panetta said that this is ‘probably the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen to date’. US financial firms have suffered from ‘denial of service’ attacks, as networks are swamped by computer-generated messages.

The secretary of Iran’s National Centre of Cyberspace, Mahdi Akhavan Bahabadi, has denied Iranian involvement in the attacks. This notwithstanding, the attacks are believed to be in retaliation for US-led sanctions and for the Stuxnet computer worm used to cripple Iran’s nuclear facilities.

1.

In regard to the above, does the Vice-President/High Representative believe that any European companies have been affected by cyber attacks launched by the Islamic Republic?

2.

According to the assessment of the Vice-President/High Representative, how vulnerable are European interests to the threat of Iranian-orchestrated cyber attacks?

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

(14 December 2012)

The HR/VP is not aware of European companies having been targeted by Iranian cyber attacks. At this stage, the Commission does not intend to speculate with regard to security arrangements put in place by EU companies against possible state-lead cyber attacks.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009384/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Insegnanti thailandesi nel mirino dei ribelli

Il 10 ottobre 2012 Human Rights Watch (HRW) ha riferito che, nelle province meridionali della Thailandia, gruppi di ribelli starebbero mettendo in atto attacchi deliberatamente rivolti a insegnanti e istituti scolastici. Alcuni gruppi, quali i separatisti di Pattani, selezionano questi obiettivi in quanto simboli dello Stato thailandese buddista.

Il 24 settembre 2012 i presunti ribelli avrebbero fatto esplodere un ordigno all'ingresso di una scuola nel distretto di Bacho, nella provincia di Narathiwat, dove era in corso una riunione di dirigenti scolastici. Il 9 agosto 2012 è stata fatta esplodere una bomba all'interno di una scuola nel distretto di Su-ngai Padi, nella medesima provincia. La regione, la cui popolazione è in predominanza di etnia Malay e di fede musulmana, ha assistito al proliferarsi di questi attacchi dopo l'esplosione delle violenze nel gennaio 2004. Nell'arco di otto anni, i ribelli hanno dato alle fiamme più di 300 istituti scolastici statali, mentre numerosi insegnanti hanno subito imboscate mentre si recavano a scuola o sono stati uccisi nelle loro classi. Anche gli studenti sono stati al centro di brutali attacchi e sono rimasti feriti durante gli attentati dei ribelli contro il personale di sicurezza.

Secondo quanto riferito dal portavoce di HRW, «i gruppi separatisti utilizzano questi attacchi per dare prova del loro potere e screditare le autorità thailandesi, ma a farne le spese sono la gente comune e i loro bambini. Gli attentati alle scuole sembrano rientrare in un progetto più ampio da parte dei ribelli, che sfrutterebbero la violenza e il terrore per spingere i thailandesi buddhisti fuori dalle province meridionali e tenere i musulmani locali sotto il loro controllo.»

1.

È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante al corrente dei deliberati attacchi a scuole e insegnanti da parte dei gruppi di ribelli thailandesi nelle province meridionali del paese?

2.

Ha discusso il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante la questione con il primo ministro thailandese Yingluck Shinawatra?

3.

Quali misure concrete intende adottare il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a sostegno degli insegnanti, degli studenti e degli istituti scolastici presi di mira dai gruppi di ribelli?

4.

Eroga attualmente l'Unione europea una qualche forma di assistenza specifica?

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

(12 dicembre 2012)

L’Unione europea segue con apprensione il conflitto in Thailandia del sud e trova particolarmente allarmante la recrudescenza di violenza degli ultimi mesi.

L’Unione collabora con le autorità e altre parti in causa per contribuire a trovare una soluzione. Il governo deve garantire protezione a quanti sono nel mirino dei ribelli ma la soluzione militare non basta a dare sicurezza alle popolazione nel lungo termine. Per una pace duratura nella regione occorrono soluzioni politiche. Un certo grado di decentramento potrebbe risolvere in parte il problema se accompagnato da altre riforme politiche che ripristinino la giustizia e garantiscano alle comunità Malay maggiore risonanza culturale e più accesso all’istruzione.

L’Unione finanzia attualmente una serie di attività per dare voce alla società civile, favorire il dialogo tra le comunità buddiste e musulmane e promuovere lo sviluppo socio-economico nella Thailandia del sud.

Il presidente Barroso e l’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente hanno affrontato la questione della rivolta nella Thailandia del sud con il premier tailandese Yingluck in occasione delle loro recenti visite nel paese, rispettivamente a novembre e aprile 2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009384/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Thai teachers targeted by insurgents

On 10 October 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that in the southern provinces of Thailand insurgent groups are carrying out attacks that deliberately target teachers and schools. Groups such as Patani Independence Fighters choose these targets as they are viewed as symbols of the Thai Buddhist state.

On 24 September 2012, alleged insurgents detonated a bomb at the entrance of a school in the Bacho district of Narathiwat Province, where a meeting of school directors was being held. On 9 August 2012, a bomb was detonated inside a school in the Su-ngai Padi district in the same province. Such attacks became common after violence broke out in January 2004 in this predominantly ethnic Malay and Muslim region. Insurgents have set fire to more than 300 government schools in eight years, and teachers have been ambushed on their way to school or killed in their classrooms. Students have also fallen victim to brutal attacks, and been wounded in insurgent attacks targeting security personnel.

According to one HRW representative, ‘separatist groups use these attacks to demonstrate their power and discredit Thai authorities, but it is ordinary people and their children who are suffering. These attacks on schools seem to be part of a larger campaign by insurgents to use violence and terror to drive Buddhist Thais out of the southern provinces and keep local Muslims under their control.’

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the deliberate targeting of schools and teachers by Thai insurgent groups in the country’s southern provinces?

2.

Has the Vice-President/High Representative discussed this issue with Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra?

3.

What are some practical steps that the Vice-President/High Representative is prepared to take to support teachers, students and schools targeted by insurgent groups?

4.

Is the EU currently providing any form of assistance in this regard?

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

(12 December 2012)

The EU follows the conflict in Southern Thailand with concern. The EU is particularly alarmed by the surge of violence in the past few months.

The EU is engaged with the authorities and other stakeholders in addressing the issue. While the protection of all those targeted by the insurgents should be a priority for the Thai government, military solutions alone cannot provide security to the population over the long term. Sustainable peace in the region can be only guaranteed through political means. A degree of devolution may go a long way, if it is coupled with other political reforms aimed at restoring justice and providing a wider cultural and educational space for Malay communities.

The EU is currently funding a number of activities with a view to strengthening the voice of civil society, fostering dialogue between Buddhist and Muslim communities, and promoting social and economic development in Southern Thailand.

President Barroso and the HR/VP raised the matter of the insurgency in Southern Thailand with Prime Minister Yingluck during their recent visits to the country in November and April 2012 respectively.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-009385/12

Komisi

Evelyn Regner (S&D), Richard Falbr (S&D), Zita Gurmai (S&D), Jutta Steinruck (S&D) a Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(16. října 2012)

Předmět: Certifikace pečovatelů

Přibližně 72 % všech pečovatelů zaregistrovaných v Rakousku našlo zaměstnání přes agentury. Při poskytování těchto služeb se mnoho zprostředkovatelů a agentur uchyluje k nespravedlivým či dokonce mafiánským praktikám. Například od pečovatelů vyžadují pravidelné (měsíční) platby, ačkoliv jim zprostředkovatelskou službu poskytli jen jednorázově. Nelegální smlouvy s pečovateli nejsou výjimkou, v mnoha případech jsou jim vnuceny nátlakem, vydíráním, dochází i ke zpronevěře finančních prostředků, předstírané samostatně výdělečné činnosti, porušování smluvního práva a v některých případech dokonce i k porušování základních práv. (49)

Jednou z možností, jak čelit tomuto problému, je zavést osvědčení pro pečovatelskou službu, která by se vztahovala jak na pečovatele, tak na zprostředkovatele a agentury. Taková osvědčení jsou jednak zárukou kvality z hlediska odborného, jazykového a právního a zároveň zlepšují situaci pečovatelů i těch, jimž je péče poskytována. Kromě toho napomáhají vytvářet nové pracovní příležitosti pro pečovatele a lektory jazyků. Taková osvědčení, která jsou vydávána v Rakousku i u jeho východních sousedů orgánem VOSBP (50), jsou užitečným a nezbytným opatřením, jehož posláním je chránit pracující i pacienty, bojovat proti nezaměstnanosti a kriminální činnosti, zlepšovat situaci na vnitřním trhu a snižovat administrativní náklady.

1.

Je si Komise vědoma výše popsaného nebezpečí a má přístup k celounijním průzkumům tohoto jevu?

2.

Jak Komise tento nástroj v dané situaci hodnotí?

3.

Zvažuje Komise zavedení a podporu takových osvědčení po celé Unii?

4.

Zvažuje Komise vzhledem k přeshraniční povaze této problematiky přijmout v této oblasti nějaká opatření?

Odpověď komisaře Andora jménem Komise

(12. prosince 2012)

Komisi je známo, že v některých členských státech mnohé rodiny využívají k péči o své starší příbuzné nehlášené migrující pracovníky (51). Nejisté postavení takových pečovatelů znamená, že mohou být více ohroženi protiprávním jednáním, a rovněž by mohlo vést k nedostatečné kvalitě poskytované péče. Neexistuje však žádný celoevropský průzkum věnovaný této problematice.

V členských státech, které zavedly přímou či nepřímou finanční podporu pro poskytování zdravotnické péče, často existuje systém pro uznávání kvalifikací a/nebo osvědčení. Každý členský stát čelí poněkud rozdílným problémům a je jejich odpovědností, aby prosazovaly platné předpisy k ochraně pečovatelů i těch, jimž je péče poskytována. Rakouský systém, o němž se zmiňují vážení páni poslanci, by však mohl zajímat jiné členské státy a mohl by být představen v souvislosti s přezkumnými činnostmi prováděnými pod dohledem Výboru pro sociální ochranu.

Komise nemá v úmyslu zavést osvědčení na celoevropské úrovni, mohla by však podporovat výměnu informací mezi členskými státy, pokud jde o otázky, jež by se prostřednictvím systémů osvědčení mohly řešit.

Komise bude jednat tehdy, vyskytne-li se mezera v právních předpisech EU, zejména pokud jde o právo pečovatelů z jiných členských států na volný pohyb. V pracovním programu Komise na rok 2013 se plánuje zřízení evropské platformy o nehlášené práci. Jejím cílem by mělo být posílit spolupráci a výměnu informací i osvědčených postupů na úrovni EU mezi různými donucovacími orgány, tak aby se dospělo k účinnějšímu a soudržnějšímu přístupu k boji proti nehlášené práci.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009385/12

an die Kommission

Evelyn Regner (S&D), Richard Falbr (S&D), Zita Gurmai (S&D), Jutta Steinruck (S&D) und Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Zertifikate für Personenbetreuer

Etwa 72 % aller in Österreich registrierten Personenbetreuer finden mittels Agenturen einen Arbeitsplatz. Beim Erbringen solcher Dienstleistungen wenden viele Agenten und Agenturen unfaire oder sogar mafiaähnliche Methoden an. Zum Beispiel verlangen sie oft kontinuierliche (monatliche) Zahlungen von Personenbetreuern, für die sie nur einen einmaligen Vermittlungsservice erbracht haben. Gesetzwidrige Verträge mit Personenbetreuern sind nicht ungewöhnlich, in vielen Fällen werden diese durch Nötigung, Erpressung, missbräuchliche Verwendung von Geldern, Scheinselbstständigkeit, Verletzung der Vertragsrechte und in einigen Fällen sogar durch die Verletzung der Grundrechte erzwungen  (52).

Eine praktikable Möglichkeit zur Bekämpfung dieses Problems ist die Einführung von Zertifikaten für die Personenbetreuung, die sowohl vom Betreuer als auch vom Agenten und der Agentur unterzeichnet werden. Einerseits wird mit solchen Zertifikaten in beruflicher, sprachlicher und rechtlicher Hinsicht für Qualitätssicherung gesorgt, andererseits wird mit ihnen die Situation sowohl des Betreuers als auch der betreuungsbedürftigen Person verbessert. Zusätzlich können so Arbeitsplätze für Betreuer und Sprachtrainer geschaffen werden. Solche Zertifikate — wie sie in Österreich und dessen östlichen Nachbarländern vom VOSBP  (53) ausgestellt werden — sind eine nützliche und notwendige Maßnahme, um Arbeitnehmer und Patienten zu schützen, Arbeitslosigkeit und kriminelle Tätigkeiten zu bekämpfen, den Binnenmarkt zu verbessern und Verwaltungskosten zu verringern.

1.

Ist der Kommission dieses Problem bekannt und hat sie Zugang zu EU-weiten Studien zu diesem Thema?

2.

Wie beurteilt die Kommission die Möglichkeit, in diesem Zusammenhang Zertifikate auszustellen?

3.

Erwägt die Kommission, solche Zertifikate innerhalb der Union einzuführen oder zu fördern?

4.

Erwägt die Kommission, angesichts des grenzüberschreitenden Charakters des Problems in diesem Bereich tätig zu werden?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(12. Dezember 2012)

Die Kommission weiß, dass in einigen Mitgliedstaaten viele Familien bei der Betreuung ihrer älteren Familienangehörigen auf nicht angemeldete Migranten zurückgreifen. Die unsichere Stellung dieser Betreuungskräfte würde diese anfällig für Ausbeutung machen und könnte denjenigen, die sie versorgen, keine ausreichenden Qualitätsgarantien geben. Zu diesem Thema gibt es jedoch keine EU-weiten Erhebungen.

In den Mitgliedstaaten, die Betreuungsdienste direkt oder indirekt finanziell unterstützen, gibt es häufig eine Zulassung und/oder Zertifizierung. Die Probleme dürften sich von Mitgliedstaat zu Mitgliedstaat unterscheiden; für die Durchsetzung der geltenden Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz von Betreuungskräften und betreuten Personen sind die Mitgliedstaaten zuständig. Die Erfahrungen aus Österreich, auf die sich die Abgeordneten beziehen, könnten jedoch für andere Mitgliedstaaten interessant sein und im Kontext der Peer-Review-Aktivitäten unter Federführung des Ausschusses für Sozialschutz vorgestellt werden.

Die Kommission beabsichtigt nicht, EU-weit Zertifikate einzuführen; sie könnte allerdings den Informationsaustausch zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten über Fragen fördern, die durch Zertifizierungssysteme geregelt werden könnten.

Die Kommission wird tätig werden, sofern ein Verstoß gegen EU-Recht vorliegt, insbesondere gegen das Recht auf Freizügigkeit von Betreuungskräften. Die Einrichtung einer EU-Plattform zum Thema nicht angemeldeter Erwerbstätigkeit ist im Arbeitprogramm 2013 der Kommission vorgesehen. Ziel dieser Plattform wäre die Ausweitung der Zusammenarbeit und der Austausch von Informationen und bewährten Verfahren auf EU-Ebene zwischen verschiedenen Durchsetzungsstellen, um einen wirksameren und kohärenteren Ansatz zur Bekämpfung nicht angemeldeter Erwerbstätigkeit zu verwirklichen.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-009385/12

a Bizottság számára

Evelyn Regner (S&D), Richard Falbr (S&D), Gurmai Zita (S&D), Jutta Steinruck (S&D) és Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(2012. október 16.)

Tárgy: A személyi gondozók tanúsítása

Az Ausztriában nyilvántartásba vett személyi gondozók 72%-a ügynökségek útján talál munkát. E szolgáltatás kapcsán sok ügynök és ügynökség alkalmaz tisztességtelen, olykor szinte a maffiára jellemző módszereket. Például gyakran követelnek folyamatos (havi) fizetést azoktól a személyi gondozóktól, akiknek csupán egyszeri közvetítői szolgáltatást nyújtottak. Nem ritka, hogy illegális szerződést kötnek személyi gondozókkal, és e szerződéseknek gyakran kényszerítéssel, zsarolással, sikkasztással, színlelt önfoglalkoztatással, a szerződéses jogok megsértésével és bizonyos esetekben akár az alapvető jogok megsértésével szereznek érvényt (54).

A probléma orvoslására az egyik megvalósítható lehetőség egy, a gondozóra és az ügynökre vagy ügynökségre egyaránt vonatkozó tanúsítási rendszer bevezetése. E tanúsítási rendszer egyrészt minőségbiztosítási eszközt jelent szakmai, nyelvi és jogi szempontból. Másrészt javítja a személyi gondozó és a gondozott helyzetét is. Ráadásul munkahelyek jöhetnek létre gondozók és nyelvtanárok számára. Az – Ausztriában és keleti szomszédainál a VOSBP (55) által kiadotthoz hasonló – ilyen tanúsítványok hasznos és szükséges eszközt jelentenek a munkavállalók és a betegek számára, hozzájárulnak a munkanélküliség és a bűnözés elleni fellépéshez, javítják a belső piac működését, valamint csökkentik az adminisztratív költségeket.

1.

Ismeri-e a Bizottság a fenti problémát, és rendelkezik-e az egész EU-ra kiterjedő felmérésekkel e témában?

2.

Mindezek alapján hogyan értékeli a Bizottság a tanúsítási rendszert?

3.

Tervezi-e a Bizottság ilyen tanúsítási rendszer bevezetését vagy előmozdítását szerte az Unióban?

4.

Tervez-e fellépni a Bizottság e területen, tekintve a probléma határokon átnyúló jellegét?

Andor László válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2012. december 12.)

A Bizottság tisztában van azzal, hogy egyes tagállamokban sok család bízza idős hozzátartozóik gondozását be nem jelentett migráns munkavállalókra (56). Az ilyen gondozók bizonytalan helyzetüknél fogva könnyebben kihasználhatók, és helyzetük a gondozottak szempontjából elégtelen minőségbiztosítást jelenthet. Ugyanakkor az egész Unióra kiterjedően nem készült felmérést ezekről a kérdésekről.

A tagállamokban gyakran találkozunk olyan csoportosulásokkal/minősítési rendszerekkel, amelyek közvetett vagy közvetlen finanszírozást biztosítanak az egészségügyi tevékenységek számára. Az egyes tagállamokban nagy valószínűséggel eltér a problémák jellege, és a tagállamok felelősségi körébe tartozik a vonatkozó jogszabályok végrehajtása a gondozók és a gondozásban részesülők védelmében. A tisztelt képviselő által említett osztrák példa ugyanakkor más tagállamok érdeklődésére is számot tarthat, és a szociális védelemmel foglalkozó bizottság égisze alatt végzett szakértői felülvizsgálati tevékenység keretében mutathatják be.

A Bizottság nem tervezi az egész Európai Unióra kiterjedő minősítés bevezetését, azonban elősegítheti a tagállamok közötti információcserét a minősítési rendszeren keresztül kezelendő kérdésekkel kapcsolatban.

A Bizottság fel fog lépni az uniós jog megsértése esetén, különösen ha egy másik tagállamból származó gondozók szabad mozgásáról van szó. A Bizottság 2013-as munkaprogramjában szerepel a be nem jelentett munkavégzés európai platformjának létrehozása. A platform célja az lenne, hogy fokozza a különböző végrehajtó szervek közötti európai szintű együttműködést, illetve az információk és a bevált módszerek egymással való megosztását, hogy ezáltal a be nem jelentett munka elleni küzdelem terén hatékonyabb és koherensebb megközelítés alakuljon ki.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009385/12

to the Commission

Evelyn Regner (S&D), Richard Falbr (S&D), Zita Gurmai (S&D), Jutta Steinruck (S&D) and Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Certification of personal caretakers

About 72% of all personal caretakers registered in Austria find employment through agencies. In providing such services, many agents and agencies apply unfair or even mafia-like methods. For instance, they often demand continuous (monthly) payments from personal caretakers for whom they have only provided a one-time mediation service. Illegal contracts with personal caretakers are not uncommon, in many cases enforced through coercion, extortion, misappropriation of funds, bogus self-employment, infringement of contract rights, and, in some cases, even of violation of fundamental rights. (57)

To counter this problem, one feasible option is to introduce certificates for personal care that certify the caretaker as well as the agent and agency. On the one hand, such certificates provide quality assurance in professional, linguistic and legal terms. On the other hand, they improve the situation for both the caretaker and the person receiving care. In addition, jobs can be created for caretakers and language trainers. Such certificates — as they are issued in Austria and its eastern neighbours by VOSBP (58) — are a useful and necessary measure to protect workers and patients, combat unemployment and criminal activity, improve the internal market and reduce administrative costs, .

1.

Is the Commission aware of the problem described above, and does it have access to EU-wide surveys on this issue?

2.

How does the Commission assess the instrument of certification in this context?

3.

Is the Commission considering introducing or promoting such certifications throughout the Union?

4.

Is the Commission considering taking action in this field, given its cross-border nature?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

The Commission is aware that in some Member States many families rely on undeclared migrant workers to provide care for their elderly relatives (59). The precarious status of such care workers would make them vulnerable to abuse and could also imply insufficient quality assurances for care receivers. However, there are no EU-wide surveys on these issues.

Often aggregation and/or certification exists in the Member States which put into place direct or indirect financial support for healthcare activities. The problems are likely to differ from one Member State to another, and it is the responsibility of Member States to enforce the applicable legislation to protect care workers and care receivers. However, the experience from Austria referred to by the Honourable Member could be of interest to other Member States and could be presented in the context of the peer review activities under the auspices of the Social Protection Committee.

The Commission has no plans for introducing an EU-wide certification, but could promote the exchange of information among Member States on the issues to be addressed through certification schemes.

The Commission will act if there is a breach of EU legislation, notably concerning the right to free movement of carers from other Member States. The establishment of a European Platform on undeclared work is foreseen in the 2013 Commission Work Programme. Its aim would be to enhance cooperation and exchange information as well as best practices at EU level between different enforcement bodies to achieve a more effective and coherent approach to the fight against undeclared work.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009386/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Crimini sessuali in Colombia: seguiti di un conflitto armato

Amnesty International ha diffuso il 4 ottobre un nuovo rapporto, intitolato «Al riparo dalla giustizia. Impunità per la violenza sessuale collegata al conflitto», denunciando la reazione di passività del governo colombiano nei confronti dei responsabili dei crimini sessuali legati al conflitto armato, in corso da oltre 45 anni nel paese. Pochissimi, infatti, sono stati i responsabili portati di fronte alla giustizia e puniti per i reati commessi. Il messaggio che palesemente deriva da tale atteggiamento governativo è di impunità e tolleranza nei confronti di criminali che ogni giorno calpestano i diritti umani delle loro vittime.

Rispetto ai 12 732 casi sospetti di violenza sessuale del 2000, nel 2011 l'Istituto nazionale di medicina legale e scienza forense ha eseguito controlli su 22 597 pazienti.

In situazioni di conflitto armato, la violenza sessuale contro le donne viene praticata per seminare il terrore tra le comunità, allo scopo di spingerle alla fuga e vendicarsi contro il nemico. In tale contesto permeato di violenza cronica, raramente i crimini sessuali vengono denunciati. I maggiori ostacoli all'accesso alla giustizia sono dati dal timore di stigmatizzazione e alla mancata percezione di reale sicurezza per le vittime sopravvissute e coinvolte nei processi legali. Inoltre, lentezze burocratiche, mancanza di fondi e infiltrazione dei gruppi armati nelle istituzioni locali rendono il procedimento giuridico inadeguato rispetto alle esigenze di protezione e umanità delle vittime.

La vera problematica del Paese non è data da una mancanza di leggi punitive nei confronti dei responsabili di reati sessuali, ma da un'inesistente applicazione reale e omogenea di queste.

Come intende dunque monitorare il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante l'attività delle autorità colombiane in materia di tutela delle donne da violenze sessuali e assicurarsi che alle vittime sia garantito un accesso sicuro alla giustizia in nome del rispetto dei diritti fondamentali?

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

(4 dicembre 2012)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza dell’elevata incidenza di violenze sessuali nell’ambito del conflitto armato in Colombia e dell’impunità per tali reati.

Il governo colombiano ha fatto sforzi significativi volti a rafforzare lo stato di diritto e ridurre l’impunità per la violazione dei diritti umani in tutto il paese. Detti sforzi sono tuttavia ostacolati dalla continuazione di questo conflitto complesso e dalle mille sfaccettature, che rappresenta una sfida costante sul piano dei diritti umani e un ostacolo di più all’efficiente amministrazione della giustizia.

La questione dell’impunità e dell’esigenza di proteggere i gruppi vulnerabili della popolazione è regolarmente sollevata dall’UE, in particolare nel suo dialogo bilaterale con la Colombia in tema di diritti umani. L’UE sostiene inoltre da tempo tali sforzi mediante il programma in corso «Rafforzamento istituzionale per assistere le vittime dei conflitti» (7.4 milioni di euro), tra i cui obiettivi rientra il rafforzamento delle capacità investigative dell'ufficio del procuratore generale.

Il tema «donne e conflitti armati» è entrato a far parte della strategia nazionale dell'UE per i diritti umani, in corso d'adozione. Questo è anche uno dei temi che verranno discussi al seminario sui diritti umani che la delegazione UE di Bogotá sta organizzando per il novembre 2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009386/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Sex crimes in Colombia: the consequences of armed conflict

On 4 October Amnesty International issued a new report entitled ‘Hidden from justice. Impunity for conflict-related sexual violence’, condemning the Colombian Government's passive reaction to those responsible for sex crimes related to the armed conflict that has been continuing for over 45 years in the country. Indeed, very few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice and punished for the crimes committed. The message that clearly emerges from the government's attitude is one of impunity and tolerance towards criminals who trample on the human rights of their victims every day.

In 2011 the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences carried out a total of 22 597 examinations into suspected cases of sexual violence, compared to 12 732 in 2000.

In situations of armed conflict, sexual violence against women is carried out to sow terror among communities, to force them to flee and to wreak revenge on the enemy.

In such a situation of chronic violence, sex crimes are rarely reported. The main obstacles to access to justice are the fear of being stigmatised and the perceived lack of real security for surviving victims involved in legal proceedings. In addition, administrative delays, a lack of funds and the infiltration of armed groups into local institutions make the legal process inadequate to meet the victims' needs for protection and humanity.

The real problems in the country are not due to a lack of laws to punish sex offenders, but to the fact that those laws are not genuinely and consistently enforced.

How will the Vice-President/High Representative therefore monitor the activities of the Colombian authorities to protect women from sexual violence and ensure that victims are guaranteed secure access to justice in the name of respect for fundamental rights?

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

(4 December 2012)

The HR/VP is well aware of the high incidence of sexual violence in the context of Colombia’s armed conflict, and of the impunity for these crimes.

The Colombian government has made significant efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to reduce impunity for human rights violations throughout the country. However, these are hampered by the continued existence of the complex and multifaceted conflict, which represents a persistent human rights challenge and a formidable obstacle to the effective administration of justice.

The issue of impunity and the need to protect vulnerable population groups is regularly raised by the EU, notably in its bilateral human rights dialogue with Colombia. Moreover, the EU has long supported related efforts, i.a. through the ongoing ‘Institutional Strengthening for assisting conflict victims’ programme (EUR 7.4 million), whose aims include the strengthening of the investigative capacity of the Prosecutor General's Office.

The theme ‘women and armed conflict’ has been included in the EU’s country strategy for human rights that is currently being adopted. It is also one of two themes that will be discussed at the human rights seminar which the EU Delegation in Bogotá is organising for November 2012.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009387/12

aan de Commissie

Judith A. Merkies (S&D)

(16 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Verkoop illegaal afval door overheid

Over vijf jaar moet in alle lidstaten 85 % van de verkochte elektrische en elektronische apparaten ook weer ingezameld worden. In Nederland is het inzamelpercentage momenteel 45 %. Reden voor inzameling is optimale recycling en het tegengaan van illegale export, dump en verwerking. Veel kostbare grondstoffen gaan alsnog verloren, de arbeidsomstandigheden bij veel recycling buiten Europa laten te wensen over en milieuvervuiling is een groot risico.

De lidstaten moeten de inzameling en verwerking van deze afvalstromen organiseren. De overheid certificeert instanties die de inzameling mogen doen. In Nederland blijkt nu dat er sprake is van illegale handel tussen lagere overheden en niet gecertificeerde handelaren van elektrisch en elektronisch afval (De Telegraaf, blz. 1 en 23, 12.10.2012).

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van handel van elektrisch en elektronisch afval tussen lokale overheden en ongecertificeerde handelaren?

2.

Welke acties onderneemt de Commissie om illegale handel tussen overheden en ongecertificeerde inzamelaars tegen te gaan?

3.

In hoeverre zijn lidstaten verplicht aan te tonen aan de Commissie wat er met het niet geregistreerde percentage afvalstromen gebeurt?

4.

In hoeverre verplicht de Commissie lidstaten aan te tonen welke problemen er zijn bij de inzameling van deze afvalstromen en welke acties de lidstaten nemen om deze problemen op te lossen?

5.

Welke actie onderneemt de Commissie als een lidstaat in gebreke blijft bij de inzameling van het afval en transparantie van wat er met deze afvalstromen gebeurt?

6.

Welke actie onderneemt de Commissie om inzage te krijgen in wat er gebeurt met de hoeveelheid elektrisch en elektronisch afval dat niet ingezameld wordt?

Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie

(5 december 2012)

1.

Bij Richtlijn 2008/98/EG betreffende afvalstoffen

1.

Bij Richtlijn 2008/98/EG betreffende afvalstoffen

 (60) is bepaald dat handelaars in afvalstoffen, waaronder afgedankte elektrische en elektronische apparatuur (AEEA), over een vergunning overeenkomstig artikel 23 moeten beschikken, of ten minste moeten zijn geregistreerd overeenkomstig artikel 26. De Commissie is niet op de hoogte van gevallen waarin plaatselijke overheden in de lidstaten hebben gehandeld met handelaren die niet aan deze voorwaarden voldoen.

2. 5. en 6.

Het is de taak van de EU-lidstaten te zorgen voor de naleving van de EU-richtlijnen op hun grondgebied. De Commissie zal de Nederlandse overheid vragen om nadere gegevens betreffende het specifieke geval waarnaar het geachte Parlementslid verwijst.

3.

Op grond van artikel 12 van Richtlijn 2002/96/EG

3.

Op grond van artikel 12 van Richtlijn 2002/96/EG

 (61) en artikel 16 van Richtlijn 2012/19/EU (62) zijn de lidstaten verplicht jaarlijks informatie te verzamelen over AEEA „die langs alle wegen werden ingezameld”. Deze informatie kan bestaan uit degelijke ramingen betreffende de niet-geregistreerde hoeveelheden ingezamelde AEEA.

4.

Overeenkomstig artikel 12 van Richtlijn 2002/96/EG en artikel 16 van Richtlijn 2012/19/EU moeten de lidstaten om de drie jaar over de uitvoering van de richtlijnen rapporteren. De betrokken verslagen moet een evaluatie bevatten van de positieve en de negatieve ervaringen met de tenuitvoerlegging van de richtlijn

4.

Overeenkomstig artikel 12 van Richtlijn 2002/96/EG en artikel 16 van Richtlijn 2012/19/EU moeten de lidstaten om de drie jaar over de uitvoering van de richtlijnen rapporteren. De betrokken verslagen moet een evaluatie bevatten van de positieve en de negatieve ervaringen met de tenuitvoerlegging van de richtlijn

 (63). De Commissie verzamelt de in de genoemde artikelen bedoelde informatie en publiceert een verslag over de uitvoering van de richtlijn (64).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009387/12

to the Commission

Judith A. Merkies (S&D)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Sale of illegal waste by public authorities

In five years’ time, it will become a requirement in all Member States that 85% of electrical and electronic goods sold should be collected again. In the Netherlands, the collection percentage is currently 45%. The aim of collecting it is to ensure optimal recycling and to combat illegal exports, dumping and processing. Large quantities of valuable raw materials go to waste, working conditions for those who perform recycling outside Europe often leave much to be desired, and there is a major risk of environmental pollution.

Member States are required to organise the collection and recycling of these waste flows. The public authorities certify bodies which are permitted to collect waste. In the Netherlands, it has now become apparent that illegal trading is going on between local authorities and uncertified dealers in electrical and electronic waste (De Telegraaf, 12.10.2012, pp.1 and 23).

1.

Is the Commission aware of dealing in electrical and electronic waste between local authorities and uncertified dealers?

2.

What action does the Commission take to combat illegal trade between authorities and uncertified collectors?

3.

To what extent are Member States required to demonstrate to the Commission what happens to the unregistered part of waste flows?

4.

To what extent does the Commission require Member States to demonstrate what problems exist in the collection of these waste flows and what action the Member States are taking to solve these problems?

5.

What action does the Commission take if a Member States fails to collect waste in the required manner and does not ensure sufficient transparency regarding what happens to these waste flows?

6.

What action does the Commission take to ascertain what is happening to electrical and electronic waste which is not collected?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2012)

1.

Directive 2008/98/EC

1.

Directive 2008/98/EC

 (65) on waste requires dealers of waste, including waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), to hold a permit according to Article 23, or at least, to be registered according to Article 26. The Commission is not aware of cases where local authorities in Member States have traded with dealers which do not fulfil these requirements.

2, 5 and 6.

It falls to EU Member States to enforce EU Directives on their territory. The Commission will ask the Dutch authorities for further information on the specific case to which the Honourable Member refers.

3.

Article 12 of Directive 2002/96/EC

3.

Article 12 of Directive 2002/96/EC

 (66) and Article 16 of Directive 2012/19/EU (67) require Member States, on an annual basis, to collect information on WEEE ‘collected through all routes’. This information may contain substantiated estimates concerning the unregistered quantities of WEEE collected.

4.

Member States must report on the implementation of the directives, at three‐ year intervals, as required by Article 12 of Directive 2002/96/EC and Article 16 of Directive 2012/19/EU. Such reports should include an evaluation of the positive and negative experiences with the implementation of the directive

4.

Member States must report on the implementation of the directives, at three‐ year intervals, as required by Article 12 of Directive 2002/96/EC and Article 16 of Directive 2012/19/EU. Such reports should include an evaluation of the positive and negative experiences with the implementation of the directive

 (68). The Commission collects the information referred to in these Articles and publishes a report on the implementation of the directive (69).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009388/12

an die Kommission

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Finanzierung von Flughäfen und Gewährung staatlicher Anlaufbeihilfen für Luftfahrtunternehmen auf Regionalflughäfen (Überarbeitung der Leitlinien)

Mehr als 500 Millionen Flugpassagiere pro Jahr benutzen regionale Flughäfen in Europa. Diese regionalen Flughäfen sind von entscheidender Bedeutung für den inner‐ und außereuropäischen Luftverkehr, die Erreichbarkeit der Regionen und die Mobilität der Bürger. Es ist gleichzeitig allgemein anerkannt, dass Flughäfen mit weniger als einer Million Passagieren wirtschaftlich nicht rentabel sind und ohne öffentliche Beihilfen nicht weiterbetrieben werden können.

Wird die Kommission diese wirtschaftliche Realität in ihrem Entwurf für überarbeitete Leitlinien berücksichtigen und insbesondere Betriebsbeihilfen für Flughäfen mit weniger als einer Million Passagieren genehmigen?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(27. November 2012)

Regionalflughäfen können eine wichtige Rolle für die lokale Entwicklung und die Anbindung von Regionen spielen. Es ist jedoch auch wichtig, übermäßige Wettbewerbsverzerrungen und die Verschwendung öffentlicher Mittel zu vermeiden, und dieses Risiko ist besonders hoch, wenn zusätzlich zu bestehenden Flughäfen wirtschaftlich nicht rentable Flughäfen betrieben werden.

Die Kommission wird all diese Aspekte bei der Überarbeitung der Luftverkehrsleitlinien berücksichtigen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009388/12

to the Commission

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (revision of guidelines)

Over 500 million passengers a year use regional airports in Europe. These regional airports are vital for intra‐ and extra-European air transport, the accessibility of regions and the mobility of citizens. It is also generally accepted that airports with fewer than one million passengers are not economically viable and cannot continue to operate without state aid.

Will the Commission take this economic reality into account when drafting its revised guidelines and, in particular, authorise operating aid for airports with fewer than one million passengers?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

Regional airports can play an important role in local development and accessibility. Nevertheless, it is also important to avoid undue distortions of competition and wasting public resources. This risk is particularly high in cases of duplication of non-profitable airports.

The Commission will take all these elements into account when revising the Aviation guidelines.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-009389/12

til Kommissionen

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(16. oktober 2012)

Om: Anden og tredje energiliberaliseringspakke

Kommissionen og energikommissæren har tidligere besvaret en lang række spørgsmål vedrørende implementeringen af anden og tredje energiliberaliseringspakke.

Kan Kommissionen for overskuelighedens skyld forelægge en komplet oversigt over, hvilke medlemsstater der har modtaget en åbningsskrivelse og en begrundet udtalelse, samt over, hvilke medlemsstater der er indbragt for EU-Domstolen, samt sikre, at oversigten opdeles efter retsakt?

Vil Kommissionen derudover oplyse, hvilke retsakter fra anden og tredje liberaliseringspakke de enkelte medlemsstater har implementeret korrekt?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne Af Günther Oettinger

(10. december 2012)

På foranledning af det ærede medlems forespørgsel om en komplet oversigt over de overtrædelsesprocedurer, som Kommissionen har indledt med hensyn til gennemførelsen af den anden (70) og tredje energipakke (71), henviser Kommissionen til sin meddelelse om det indre energimarked (72), som blev offentliggjort den 15. november 2012, og som indeholder detaljerede oplysninger om Kommissionens håndhævelsespolitik inden for området elektricitet og gas.

Desuden henviser Kommissionen til de oversigter over dette emne, som er blevet sendt til det ærede medlem og til Parlamentets sekretariat. Den første oversigt giver et overblik over de overtrædelsesprocedurer, der er blevet indledt vedrørende manglende meddelelse af gennemførelsesforanstaltninger for direktiverne om elektricitet og gas i den tredje energipakke (direktiv 2009/72/EF og direktiv 2009/73/EF).

Den anden oversigt giver et overblik over de overtrædelsesprocedurer, der er blevet indledt vedrørende gennemførelse af den anden energipakkes forordninger om elektricitet og gas (forordning (EF) nr. 1228/2003 og (EF) nr. 1775/2005).

Den tredje oversigt giver et overblik over de overtrædelsesprocedurer, der er blevet indledt vedrørende gennemførelsen af direktiverne om elektricitet og gas i den anden energipakke (direktiv 2003/54/EF og direktiv 2003/55/EF).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009389/12

to the Commission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Second and third energy liberalisation packages

The European Commission and the Commissioner for Energy have previously answered many questions concerning the implementation of the second and third energy liberalisation packages.

For the sake of clarity, the Commission is requested to provide a comprehensive overview of which countries have received letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions, and which countries have been the subject of a case brought before the European Court of Justice. This overview should be broken down by legal instrument.

The Commission is also requested to state which legal instruments from the second and third energy liberalisation packages have been correctly implemented by the individual countries.

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2012)

In view of the request of the Honourable Member to receive a comprehensive overview of the infringement proceedings opened by the Commission concerning the implementation of the Second (73) and Third Energy Package (74), the Commission refers to its communication on the Internal Energy Market (75), which was issued on 15 November 2012, and which provides detailed information on the enforcement policy of the Commission in the area of electricity and gas.

In addition, the Commission refers to the tables on this topic sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The first table provides an overview of the infringement proceedings opened for non-communication of transposition measures for the Electricity and Gas Directives of the Third Energy Package (Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC).

The second table provides an overview of the infringement proceedings opened concerning the implementation of the Electricity and Gas Regulations of the Second Energy Package (Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005).

The third table provides an overview of the infringement proceedings opened in view of the implementation of the Electricity and Gas Directives under the Second Energy Package (Directive 2003/54/EC and Directive 2003/55/EC).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009390/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Eliminación de la procedencia de la pesca en el etiquetado: trazabilidad y derechos sociales y laborales en origen

La aprobación de la Resolución legislativa del Parlamento Europeo del pasado 12 de septiembre por la que se establece la organización común de mercados en el sector de los productos de la pesca y de la acuicultura supone una significativa modificación de la propuesta de la Comisión.

De entre las numerosas enmiendas presentadas al texto original destaca una en particular, que suprime el artículo 42, apartado 2, evadiendo la responsabilidad de especificar la procedencia del producto en el etiquetado. Esta modificación elimina la obligación de los productores de informar al cliente sobre la procedencia del producto que comercializan.

Esta nueva normativa obstaculiza la trazabilidad de los productos pesqueros, al no garantizar la posibilidad de conocer en qué lugar fueron pescados y, por tanto, bajo qué régimen laboral y social. Así dificulta la promoción de un consumo responsable que pueda evaluar aspectos tan importantes como el impacto social, económico y ambiental, imposible si no se puede conocer de qué aguas proceden las capturas que procesan las compañías envasadoras y en qué condiciones son producidas.

Este aspecto afectará a las pequeñas empresas conserveras que tratan de producir mercancías con un mayor valor añadido gracias al componente de calidad y certificación de origen, que respetan unos estándares sociales y laborales para sus trabajadores, y que tendrán que vender su producto sin capacidad para informar al cliente de la procedencia de su producto. Así, de este cambio en la normativa propuesta solo salen beneficiadas las grandes conserveras que transforman toneladas de pescado al menor coste posible sin evaluar las necesidades de protección, el impacto ambiental de la actividad o las más mínimas normas ambientales. Esto solo puede generar un consumo irresponsable, no sostenible y desinformado de las conservas pesqueras en lugar de una apuesta por la calidad, la sostenibilidad y el respeto al medio ambiente dentro de la actividad pesquera.

1.

¿Considera la Comisión suficientemente informados a los consumidores a través de un etiquetado sin la procedencia de la captura?

2.

¿Considera la Comisión compatible esta normativa de etiquetado con las ayudas al sector pesquero que pretenden mantener la actividad pesquera en las costas europeas apostando por el valor añadido de la certificación de origen?

3.

¿Estima la Comisión que la producción en costas europeas que cumple altos estándares ambientales podrá competir con cualquier otra región del mundo para abastecer a la industria conservera si no se elaboran e implementan medidas para conseguir la trazabilidad en el sector?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión considera que disponer de una mejor información sobre los productos de la pesca y la acuicultura contribuirá a que los consumidores de la UE puedan elegir mejor, en concreto en lo que concierne a la calidad de los productos que adquieren.

En su propuesta de reforma de la PPC, la Comisión ha incluido, por lo tanto, disposiciones sobre la información obligatoria que debe proporcionarse a los consumidores acerca de todos los productos del mar (frescos, congelados y transformados) que se venden en la EU. Esta información incluye la denominación comercial, el método de producción (captura o acuicultura) y la procedencia (zonas, subzonas o divisiones de captura, o país de producción en el caso de los productos de la acuicultura (76)).

Se puede proporcionar a los consumidores con carácter voluntario información adicional (de tipo medioambiental y social, sobre la calidad, sobre marcas locales o regionales, etc.), siempre y cuando se garantice su exactitud y tal información no induzca a error al consumidor. La Comisión ha propuesto elaborar unos criterios mínimos cuando sea necesario para garantizar la fiabilidad de la información proporcionada. Esta postura es plenamente compartida por el BEUC (77).

El etiquetado de los productos de la pesca y la acuicultura forma parte integral de la reforma y tiene en cuenta las disposiciones del Reglamento de control, en particular aquellas en materia de trazabilidad. Las disposiciones propuestas acerca de la información a los consumidores pueden contribuir a garantizar unas condiciones de competencia equitativas. Los consumidores de la UE podrán distinguir las especies de que se trate y conocer su procedencia. También podrán saber la fecha de captura o recolección y si el producto es fresco o ha sido descongelado.

Todo ello redundará en beneficio de los productores de la UE, tanto del sector extractivo (particularmente los pescadores costeros), como del sector de la acuicultura, pues permitirá la diferenciación de los productos, el incremento del valor añadido y la promoción de nuevas salidas comerciales. La propuesta relativa al FEMP (78) incorpora medidas cuyo objetivo es apoyar estas iniciativas de comercialización.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009390/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Deleting the origin of fish from labels: traceability and social and labour rights at the point of origin

The adoption of the European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2012 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products presupposes a significant alteration to the Commission’s proposal.

One amendment in particular to the original text stands out among the many tabled. This amendment deletes Article 42(2), evading responsibility for stating the product’s origin on the label. It removes the obligation on producers to inform customers about the origin of the product they are selling.

This new piece of legislation will make it difficult to trace fish products as there will be no guarantee that where fish were caught, and hence what labour and social system applied, will be known. This will make promoting responsible consumption difficult as it will be impossible to judge important factors such as the social, economic and environmental impact if there is no way of knowing in which waters fish processed by canning companies were caught and under what conditions.

This will affect small canning companies which try to produce goods whose quality and certification of origin give them added value, which comply with social and labour standards for their workers, and which will have to sell their product without being able to inform customers about its origin. Thus only the big canning firms will benefit from this change to the proposed legislation, firms who process tonnes of fish at the lowest possible cost without considering protection needs, the environmental impact of their production or the most basic of environmental standards. This can only lead to irresponsible, unsustainable and uninformed consumption of tinned fish instead of a commitment by the fishing industry to quality, sustainability and care for the environment.

1.

Does the Commission believe that labels which do not include the product’s origin provide consumers with sufficient information?

2.

Does the Commission consider this legislation on labelling to be compatible with subsidies to the fishing industry which claim to support EU coastal fishing through the added value brought about by certification of origin?

3.

Does the Commission think that EU coastal fishing, which complies with high environmental standards, will be able to compete with other regions in the world in supplying the canning industry, without measures being implemented to ensure traceability within the sector?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

The Commission believes that improved information on seafood products will help EU consumers to make more informed choices, including on the quality of the products they buy.

In its proposals for the CFP reform, the Commission has therefore included provisions on mandatory information to consumers for all seafood products (fresh, frozen and processed ones) sold in the EU. It includes the commercial name, the production method (catch or aquaculture) and the provenance (catch areas, sub areas or divisions, or country of production for aquaculture products (79)).

Additional voluntary information can be provided to consumers (environmental, social, quality, local or regional brands …) as long as accuracy is ensured and information does not mislead the consumer. The Commission proposed to develop minimum criteria when needed to ensure the reliability of such information. These views are fully supported by the BEUC (80).

Labelling of fisheries and aquaculture products is an integrated part of the reform and takes into account provisions of the Control Regulation, in particular on traceability. Proposed provisions on information to consumers can contribute to ensure a level playing field in terms of competition. EU consumers will be able to know the species concerned and its provenance. They will also know the date of catch or harvest and if a product is fresh or has been defrosted.

This could be beneficial for EU producers both in the catching sector, in particular the coastal fishermen, as well as in aquaculture for differentiating their products, increasing added value and fostering new outlets. There are measures included in the proposed EMFF (81) designed to support such marketing initiatives.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009391/12

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: «Decreto sviluppo 2»: campi elettromagnetici e diritto alla salute

Lo scorso 4 ottobre il governo italiano ha presentato il cosiddetto «Decreto sviluppo 2», volto a favorire la crescita e l'occupazione. Tuttavia, secondo una disposizione contenuta all'interno del decreto stesso, è stato previsto che il proprietario o il condominio non possono opporsi all'accesso dell'operatore di comunicazione al fine di installare, collegare o manutenere gli elementi di rete, quali cavi, fili, riparti, linee o apparati, incluse le nuove antenne. Pertanto non sarà più possibile nessuna lite giudiziaria se arriva una compagnia telefonica e installa un'antenna o un ripetitore non graditi sul proprio palazzo. D'ora in poi, infatti, l'appartamento o le parti comuni dell'edificio saranno territorio libero per i giganti delle telecomunicazioni e, per di più, le stesse aziende saranno esentate dalla tassa per l'occupazione di suolo pubblico. In cambio, sarà stabilita un'indennità al proprietario in base all'effettiva diminuzione del valore, come se si trattasse di un esproprio forzato.

Inoltre, sempre in nome delle autostrade digitali, anche l'iter per installare i cavi della banda larga e ultra-larga nel sottosuolo delle strade cittadine sarà più veloce: i tempi per l'accoglimento della domanda da parte dei Comuni passano da 90 a 45 giorni nei casi normali, da 30 a 15 giorni per scavi inferiori ai 200 metri, con l'inserimento del termine ridotto di 10 giorni per «buche, apertura chiusini, posa di cavi o tubi aerei su infrastruttura esistente, allacciamento utenti»; in caso contrario, se il Comune non dovesse rispettare i tempi stabiliti, scatterà automaticamente il principio del silenzio-assenso. Tale liberalizzazione, dunque, rischia di causare una moltiplicazione incontrollata di antenne sui condomini, con un conseguente aumento di inquinamento elettromagnetico.

Tutto ciò premesso, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

se sono state rispettate le disposizioni degli articoli 168 e 169 del TFUE e dell'articolo 35 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE;

se sono state rispettate le indicazioni contenute nella raccomandazione 1999/512/CE e nella raccomandazione 1999/519/CE relative alla limitazione dell'esposizione della popolazione ai campi elettromagnetici;

un quadro generale della situazione.

Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione

(27 novembre 2012)

1.Le disposizioni di cui agli articoli 168 e 169 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea non conferiscono alla Commissione la competenza a legiferare nel campo della protezione della popolazione dagli effetti potenzialmente nocivi dei campi elettromagnetici e ne lasciano la responsabilità primaria agli Stati membri. Quindi, per quanto riguarda il pubblico in generale, non esistono prescrizioni specifiche dell'UE che le autorità italiane devono rispettare. Per quanto riguarda più in particolare le questioni sollevate dall'onorevole parlamentare in materia di diritti fondamentali, segnatamente la compatibilità delle misure nazionali con l'articolo 35 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, la Commissione ricorda che, conformemente all'articolo 51, paragrafo 1 di tale Carta, le disposizioni in essa contenute sono destinate agli Stati membri esclusivamente nell'attuazione del diritto dell'Unione.

2.L'Italia ha rispettato le indicazioni contenute nella raccomandazione 1999/519/CE del Consiglio, relativa alla limitazione dell'esposizione della popolazione ai campi elettromagnetici (da 0 Hz a 300 GHz), avendo istituito limiti di esposizione più severi (inferiori).

3.La Commissione non effettua alcun monitoraggio delle radiazioni elettromagnetiche nell'UE, in quanto ciò è di competenza delle autorità degli Stati membri. Tuttavia, la Commissione segue l'evoluzione delle conoscenze scientifiche invitando periodicamente i suoi comitati scientifici ad analizzare i più recenti dati scientifici. Pertanto, la Commissione ha chiesto al comitato scientifico per i rischi sanitari emergenti e recentemente identificati (CSRSERI) di procedere all'aggiornamento del suo parere del 2009, previsto per il secondo trimestre del 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009391/12

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: ‘Second Development Decree’: electromagnetic fields and the right to health

On 4 October 2012, the Italian Government presented the ‘Second Development Decree’, whose purpose is to promote growth and employment. However, according to one of the provisions of the decree itself, an owner or co-owner cannot deny access to a telecommunications operator if the latter wishes to install, connect or maintain network elements such as cables, wires, distributors, lines or devices, including new antennas. Accordingly, it will no longer be possible to take any legal action if a telephone company arrives and installs an unwelcome antenna or distributor on one’s house. From now on, an apartment or the communal parts of the building will be freely available to large telecommunications companies and, moreover, these same businesses will be exempt from tax for the use of public land. In return, a payment to owners will be set on the basis of the actual reduction in value of the property, as if this were a case of compulsory purchase.

In addition, likewise in the name of the digital super-highways, the procedure for installing underground broadband and ultra-broadband cables beneath public roads will be accelerated: the time limits within which local authorities are required to process applications will be reduced from 90 days to 45 in normal cases, from 30 days to 15 for excavations less than 200 metres in length, and shorter still — 10 days — for ‘holes, drains, the installation of cables or aerial tubes on existing infrastructure, user connections’; otherwise, if the local authority fails to respect the set time limits, this will automatically be taken as signifying consent. There is a danger, therefore, that this liberalisation may result in an uncontrolled multiplication of the number of antennas appearing on the roofs of blocks of flats, which will increase levels of electromagnetic pollution.

1.

Have the provisions of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights been complied with?

2.

Have the indications given in Recommendation 1999/512/EC and Recommendation 1999/519/EC on limiting exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields been complied with?

3.

Can the Commission provide a general overview of the situation?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

1.The provisions of Articles 168 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union do not confer the Commission (or EU) competence to legislate in the area of protection of the general public from potential harmful effects of EMF and leaves the primary responsibility with the Member States. Therefore, as far as the general public is concerned, there are no specific EU provisions that the Italian authorities need to comply with. Regarding more particularly the fundamental rights issues raised by the Honourable Member, notably the compatibility of the national measures with Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission would recall that, according to Article 51 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

2.The instructions set out in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (82) on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) have been complied with because Italy has already instituted stricter (lower) exposure limits.

3.The Commission does not carry out any monitoring of the electromagnetic radiation in the EU as this is the responsibility of the Member State authorities. However, the Commission follows the development of scientific knowledge and periodically asks its Scientific Committees to review the latest scientific evidence. Therefore the Commission has asked the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to update its 2009 opinion (83), which is expected in the second quarter of 2013.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009392/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Participaciones preferentes en Caixa Galicia y Caixanova

El 20 de julio de 2012, se produjo la firma del Memorando de Entendimiento sobre las condiciones de política sectorial financiera entre la Unión Europea y España. En dicho memorando, se prevé la creación de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada. Esta responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de Caixa Galicia y Caixanova.

Estas dos cajas gallegas comenzaron a comercializar participaciones preferentes desde 2003 y 2005 respectivamente, recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. Todas estas operaciones que durante años permiten la expansión del sistema financiero español se llevaron a cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE del 21 de abril de 2004, que especifica los derechos del consumidor de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la normativa de la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores que regula la adquisición de este tipo de productos. Para poder comercializarlos, las entidades financieras debían facilitar grandes cantidades de información sobre los productos financieros, así como advertir con exactitud de los riesgos a los que se exponen los clientes. En ningún caso se cumplieron estos requisitos mínimos dispuestos por la normativa, informando de manera errónea, ocultando información y estafando a clientes para comercializar todos estos complejos productos financieros entre personas sin preparación específica.

En el Derecho civil de España el «vicio de consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato (art. 1265 del Código Civil). En el caso de estas participaciones preferentes, no cumplir con la normativa existente supondría un vicio de consentimiento que invalidaría los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de la posible invalidez, según la normativa española, de buena parte de las participaciones preferentes de Caixa Galicia y Caixanova que se verían afectadas por el Memorando de Entendimiento citado?

En caso de invalidez de origen de estas participaciones preferentes, ¿cómo pretende hacer cumplir la Comisión el Memorando de Entendimiento sin afectar a los fondos de estos miles de pequeños ahorradores estafados?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión aprobó el 28 de noviembre de 2012 el plan de reestructuración de NCG Banco (resultado de la integración de Caixanova y la Caja de Ahorros de Galicia). Todas las medidas previstas en el plan tienen por objeto garantizar la solidez y la viabilidad del banco en cumplimiento de las normas sobre las ayudas estatales. Además, el memorando de entendimiento firmado entre las autoridades españolas y la Comisión, en nombre de los Estados miembros de la zona del euro, establece que los ejercicios de responsabilidad subordinada deben llevarse a cabo en relación con los instrumentos híbridos de capital, incluidas las acciones preferentes.

La Comisión conoce las acusaciones de posibles ventas abusivas de acciones preferentes por algunos bancos. Incumbe al sistema judicial español investigar y valorar esas acusaciones.

Su Señoría puede estar seguro de que la Comisión promueve los principios de la protección de los consumidores. Más concretamente, el memorando de entendimiento establece que debe reforzarse la protección de los consumidores en lo relacionado con los instrumentos híbridos de capital. A la luz de todo ello, las autoridades españolas aprobaron la Ley 9/2012 de reestructuración y resolución de entidades de crédito (antiguo Real Decreto-Ley 24/2012), que establece determinadas normas dirigidas a limitar la venta de acciones preferentes e instrumentos de deuda subordinada por los bancos a clientes minoristas no cualificados.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009392/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Preferred shares in CaixaGalicia and CaixaNova

The Memorandum of Understanding on Financial-Sector Policy Conditionality was signed by the European Union and Spain on 20 July 2012. The memorandum provides for rules to be established to guarantee subordinated liability. Subordinated liability means creditors’ rights over funds held by Spain’s financial institutions, and over the funds of customers of a particular kind who have accepted a subsidiary risk with the institution, are protected. The latter customers include holders of Caixa Galicia and Caixanova preferred shares.

These two savings banks in Galicia began marketing preferred shares in 2003 and 2005 respectively, raising millions of euros to expand their capital. All these transactions which for years enabled Spain’s financial system to expand were carried out under what is alleged to be fraud in law (Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code), as legislation in force stemming from Directive 2004/39/EC of 21 April 2004, which lays down the rights of consumers of financial products of this kind, and the rules of the Spanish Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the purchase of products of this kind were known but not complied with. In marketing these financial products financial institutions should have provided large quantities of information about them and warned their customers of the precise risks they would be running. These minimum legal requirements were not met in any of these cases; information was wrong or even concealed, tricking people who did not have any training in finance in order to sell these complex financial products.

Spain’s civil law allows any contract to be invalidated on the simple grounds of ‘vicio de consentimiento’ or ‘imperfect consent’ (Article 1265 of the Civil Code). In the case of these preferred shares, failure to comply with existing legislation would presuppose imperfect consent which would invalidate the contracts.

Is the Commission aware that a large number of Caixa Galicia’s and Caixanova’s preferred shares — which would be affected by the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding — may well be invalid under Spanish law?

Should these preferred shares prove to be invalid, how will the Commission enforce the memorandum of understanding without affecting the funds of the thousands of small savers who were tricked in this way?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

The Commission approved on 28 November 2012 the restructuring plan for NCG Banco (result of the integration of Caixanova and Caja de Ahorros de Galicia). All measures envisaged in the plan aim at ensuring the soundness and the viability of the bank in compliance with state aid rules. In addition to this, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the Spanish authorities and the Commission, acting on behalf of the euro area Member States, establishes that subordinated liability exercises have to be conducted for hybrid capital, including preference shares.

The Commission is aware of allegations of potential mis-selling as regards the sale of preference shares by some banks. Such allegations are for the Spanish judicial system to investigate and assess.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission promotes consumer protection principles. More concretely, the MoU establishes that consumer protection should be strengthened as regards hybrid instruments. In light of this, the Spanish authorities approved Law 9/2012 on the restructuring and resolution of credit institutions (former Royal Decree-Law 24/2012) that envisages certain rules in order to limit the sale by banks of preference shares and subordinated debt instruments to non-qualified retail clients.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009393/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Έξοδος ελληνικών επιχειρήσεων από τη χώρα

Πρόσφατα ανακοινώθηκε η πρόθεση δύο εκ των μεγαλύτερων ελληνικών επιχειρήσεων να αλλάξουν έδρα. Συγκεκριμένα, η εταιρία ΦΑΓΕ αποφάσισε να μετακινήσει την έδρα της στο Λουξεμβούργο, ενώ η εταιρία COCA COLA 3E AE αποφάσισε τη μετακίνησή της στην Ελβετία. Οι κινήσεις αυτές αποτελούν σαφέστατα ένα πρώτο βήμα πριν την απεγκατάσταση και των παραγωγικών τμημάτων αυτών των επιχειρήσεων, ενώ, σύμφωνα με πληροφορίες, θεωρείται βέβαιο ότι την ίδια πρακτική σκοπεύουν να ακολουθήσουν σύντομα και άλλες ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις. Όλα αυτά συμβαίνουν ενώ η εφαρμοζόμενη πολιτική του μνημονίου στην Ελλάδα επιφέρει, εκτός των άλλων, συνεχείς μειώσεις μισθών, κατάργηση των συλλογικών συμβάσεων εργασίας καθώς και εργασιακών δικαιωμάτων.

Οι υπό αποχώρηση επιχειρήσεις αιτιολογούν τις αποφάσεις τους τονίζοντας ότι «η δραστηριότητα στην Ελλάδα συρρικνώνεται λόγω περιορισμού της ζήτησης», «τα επενδυτικά σχήματα φεύγουν από τη Νότια Ευρώπη λόγω του ρίσκου, το οποίο οφείλεται κυρίως στις ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές» και ότι «οι ξένες τράπεζες ζητούν υπέρογκα επιτόκια λόγω του ρίσκου της χώρας … μόνο από την αλλαγή έδρας, μία ομολογία ελληνικής εταιρίας μπορεί να γίνει δεκτή με 8% έναντι 14% αν είχε έδρα την Ελλάδα». Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

α. Ποια είναι η δική της αιτιολόγηση για το φαινόμενο ότι, παρά την πρωτοφανή μείωση του εργατικού κόστους, οι επιχειρήσεις αποφασίζουν τη μετακίνησή τους εκτός Ελλάδας; Πώς απαντάει στο ότι, «τα επενδυτικά σχήματα φεύγουν από τη Νότια Ευρώπη λόγω του ρίσκου, το οποίο οφείλεται κυρίως στις ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές»;

β. Τι πολιτική προτίθεται να εφαρμόσει ώστε να επανέλθει το κλίμα εμπιστοσύνης στην ελληνική αγορά, και, αφ’ ενός να επιστρέψουν οι επιχειρήσεις αυτές στη χώρα, αφ’ ετέρου να αποφευχθεί η συνέχιση της μετεγκατάστασης και άλλων επιχειρήσεων; Με ποιον τρόπο θα αναστρέψει το ιδιαίτερα δυσμενές κλίμα που έχει δημιουργηθεί στις διεθνείς αγορές απέναντι στις ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(12 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή θεωρεί κρίσιμο να διασφαλιστεί η ανάκτηση της δημοσιονομικής βιωσιμότητας της Ελλάδας και η χώρα να προβεί στις αναγκαίες διαρθρωτικές και δημοσιονομικές μεταρρυθμίσεις που μπορούν αμφότερες να συμβάλλουν στην έγκαιρη επιστροφή στη χρηματοδότηση από τις χρηματαγορές. Εν προκειμένω, τα μέτρα που έχει ήδη λάβει η ελληνική κυβέρνηση στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής η σημαντική δέσμη μέτρων χρηματοδότησης και μείωσης του χρέους που συμφωνήθηκε από το Eurogroup στις 27 Νοεμβρίου θα συμβάλουν στη δημιουργία ευνοϊκότερου κλίματος για τις ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις στις διεθνείς αγορές.

Η Ελλάδα έχει από την πλευρά της σημειώσει σημαντική πρόοδο στη βελτίωση της ανταγωνιστικότητάς της σε όρους μοναδιαίου κόστους εργασίας και βελτίωσης του επιχειρηματικού περιβάλλοντος, ανεβαίνοντας 11 θέσεις το 2013 στην κατάταξη της Παγκόσμιας Τράπεζας όσον αφορά το επιχειρείν («Doing Business 2013»). Εφόσον η κατάσταση αυτή διατηρηθεί μακροπρόθεσμα θα ενθαρρυνθούν οι πρόσθετες ροές άμεσων ξένων επενδύσεων και η αύξηση της παραγωγής στη χώρα.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009393/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Exit of Greek companies from Greece

It was recently announced that two of the largest Greek companies intended to relocate their headquarters abroad. More specifically, the company FAGE has decided to move its headquarters in Luxembourg, while the company COCA COLA 3E Ltd has decided to move to Switzerland. These moves are quite clearly a first step before the dismantling of the production departments of these companies, and according to reports, it is certain that other Greek companies intend to follow their lead soon. All this is taking place while the Memorandum policy being implemented in Greece is producing, inter alia, constant salary reductions and the elimination of collective bargaining agreements and workers' rights.

The companies that are relocating justify their decision by emphasising that economic activity in Greece is shrinking due to falling demand; that investment projects are fleeing southern Europe because of the risk, which is due mainly to European policies; and that foreign banks are imposing exorbitant rates of interest because of the risk that Greece represents. It is thus only by relocating that a Greek company can obtain interest rates of 8% compared to 14% if it were based in Greece.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

How does it explain the phenomenon that, despite the unprecedented reduction in labour costs, Greek companies are deciding to move abroad? How does it respond to the statement that ‘investment projects are fleeing southern Europe because of the risk, which is mainly due to European policies’?

What policy does it intend to pursue so as to restore a climate of confidence in the Greek market and so that, on the one hand, these companies return to Greece and, on the other, more undertakings are dissuaded from also relocating? How will it reverse the highly unfavourable climate created in international markets towards Greek companies?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

The Commission considers it crucial to ensure that Greece regains fiscal sustainability and undertakes the necessary structural and fiscal reforms which both will contribute to a timely return of private investment. In this respect, the measures already taken by the Greek Government in context of the economic adjustment programme and their continued firm implementation, as well as the the substantial package of financing and debt-reduction measures agreed by the European partners will help to create a more favourable climate for Greek companies in international markets.

Greece has made substantial progress in improving its competitiveness in terms of unit labour costs and improving its business environment, with the country rising 11 places in the World Bank's ‘Doing Business 2013’ rankings. If sustained in the longer term this will encourage additional foreign direct investment inflows and production in the country.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009394/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Υπόθεση δωροδοκιών της εταιρίας DAIMLER και ενέργειες της Επιτροπής

Οι αρχές των ΗΠΑ, μετά από έρευνα, επέβαλαν πρόστιμο 185 εκατομμυρίων δολαρίων στη γερμανική εταιρία DAIMLER AG διότι η εν λόγω εταιρία και οι θυγατρικές της προχώρησαν σε «ανάρμοστες πληρωμές» ύψους «δεκάδων εκατομμυρίων δολαρίων σε ξένους αξιωματούχους» από τουλάχιστον 22 χώρες, (ανάμεσα τους και η Ελλάδα για την περίοδο 1998-2008) για να βοηθήσουν «στην εξασφάλιση των συμβάσεων για την αγορά των οχημάτων της DAIMLER AG».

Με δεδομένα ότι:

έρευνα διεξήγαγε και η γερμανική δικαιοσύνη για τις ίδιες περιπτώσεις.

η Επιτροπή οφείλει να υπερασπίζεται το κοινοτικό δίκαιο και τα χρήματα των ευρωπαίων φορολογούμενων πολιτών,

υπάρχει δεδικασμένο από την αμερικανική δικαιοσύνη που καταδίκασε τη γερμανική εταιρία για δωροδοκία.

η Επιτροπή είχε απαντήσει (Ε-002442/2010) μεταξύ άλλων, σε προηγούμενη ερώτηση μου ότι: «η Επιτροπή δεν διαθέτει στοιχεία με την συμμετοχή της εταιρίας DAIMLER σε διαγωνισμούς στην Ελλάδα» και ότι «δεν έχει υποβληθεί στην Επιτροπή ή απευθείας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Καταπολέμησης της Απάτης (OLAF) καταγγελία στηριζόμενη στα όσα αναφέρονται στη γραπτή ερώτηση».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ζήτησε στοιχεία ή προτίθεται να ζητήσει στοιχεία με την συμμετοχή της εν λόγω εταιρίας σε διαγωνισμούς στην Ελλάδα;

Γνωρίζει το αποτέλεσμα των ερευνών που διεξήγαγε η γερμανική δικαιοσύνη για τις υποθέσεις δωροδοκιών της εταιρίας DAIMLER AG; Αν ναι, ποιο το αποτέλεσμα των ερευνών;

Με δεδομένη την καταδικαστική απόφαση της αμερικανικής δικαιοσύνης, σε ποιες ενέργειες προχώρησε η Επιτροπή ώστε να διερευνήσει και αυτή αν υπήρξαν ατασθαλίες σε ό,τι αφορά τις κρατικές προμήθειες, προκειμένου να υπερασπιστεί το κοινοτικό δίκαιο και τα χρήματα των ευρωπαίων πολιτών;

Απαγορεύεται από το κοινοτικό δίκαιο να αναλάβει η ίδια πρωτοβουλίες για τη διερεύνηση αυτού του δεδικασμένου και τεράστιου σκανδάλου αντί να περιμένει από τρίτους να της προσκομίσουν στοιχεία; Δεν αποτελεί στοιχείο η οριστική καταδίκη από χώρα όπως οι ΗΠΑ;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(11 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Οι αποφάσεις των δικαστηρίων των ΗΠΑ και της Γερμανίας στις οποίες αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου αφορούν, όπως φαίνεται, περιστατικά απάτης και δωροδοκίας. Ως προς το θέμα αυτό, είναι απαραίτητη η υπενθύμιση ότι η άσκηση ποινικής δίωξης για μεμονωμένες υποθέσεις διαφθοράς εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών. Η Επιτροπή δεν παρακολουθεί τις έρευνες που διεξάγονται σε εθνικό επίπεδο, αν και είναι πιθανό να εξετάζει ορισμένες υποθέσεις μόνον εφόσον συνεπάγονται συγκεκριμένες παραβιάσεις της κοινοτικής νομοθεσίας.

Εντούτοις, βάσει των πληροφοριών που διαβιβάστηκαν, φαίνεται ότι οι εν λόγω συμβάσεις συνήφθησαν μεταξύ 1998 και 2004 και έχουν ήδη εκτελεστεί. Συνεπώς, δυνάμει της νομολογίας του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, προκύπτει ότι η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να ερευνήσει περαιτέρω τις επίμαχες συμβάσεις όσον αφορά πιθανές παραβιάσεις του ενωσιακού δικαίου (84). Σε περίπτωση που το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου ενημερώσει την Επιτροπή ότι υφίστανται συμβάσεις υπό εξέλιξη, η Επιτροπή θα τις ερευνήσει προκειμένου να εκτιμήσει αν σημειώθηκαν παρατυπίες από την άποψη της νομοθεσίας για τις δημόσιες συμβάσεις.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009394/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Case involving bribery by DAIMLER AG and action taken by the Commission

Following an investigation, the U.S. authorities has fined the German company DAIMLER AG USD 185 million because the company and its subsidiaries had made ‘improper payments’ worth ‘tens of millions of dollars to foreign officials’ from at least 22 countries (including Greece for the period 1998-2008) in return for assistance ‘in securing contracts … for the purchase of Daimler vehicles …’

Given that

— The German judicial authorities have also conducted an investigation into the same cases;

— The Commission has a duty to defend Community law and safeguard European taxpayers' money;

— A US court has already found the German company guilty of bribery;

— The Commission had answered inter alia to my previous question (E-002442/2010) that: ‘The Commission …does not possess any information related to the participation of the Daimler company in tenders in Greece’ and that ‘no complaint based on the facts referred to in the written question has so far been lodged before the Commission, or directly before the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).’

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Has it requested information, or does it intend to do so in future, on the participation of the company in question in tenders in Greece?

Is it aware of the findings of the investigations conducted by the German courts into corruption cases involving the company DAIMLER AG? If so, what was the outcome of the investigations?

Given that the US courts have found DAIMLER AG guilty, what action has the Commission taken also to investigate whether there have been any irregularities relating to public procurement in order to defend Community law and safeguard European taxpayers' money?

Is it prohibited under Community law from taking initiatives of its own to investigate this res judicata which constitutes a huge scandal, instead of waiting for third parties to submit information to it? Does the final conviction of the company in country like the U.S. not constitute such information?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2013)

It appears that the decisions of the US and German courts which are mentioned by the Honourable Member concern acts of fraud and bribery. In this respect, it should be recalled that the criminal prosecution of individual corruption cases falls within the competence of Member States. National investigations are not monitored by the Commission, which may look into specific cases only to the extent that they would entail concrete violations of EU legislation.

On the basis of the information communicated, it appears however that the contracts in question have been concluded between 1998 and 2004 and that they have already been performed. This implies that, following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission is not in a position to further investigate the contracts at stake for possible violations of EC law (85). Should the Honourable Member communicate to the Commission that there are ongoing contracts, it would look into them in order to appreciate whether there have been irregularities from a public procurement perspective.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009395/12

to the Commission

Julie Girling (ECR)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: National bans on the use of bisphenol A

In the past eight months, France, Belgium and Sweden have notified their intention to adopt national bans on the use of bisphenol A, also known as BPA, in certain food contact materials. This is despite the fact that the EU and worldwide regulators, including the World Health Organisation and the European Food Safety Authority, have assessed the substance and concluded that there is no risk deriving from BPA in its intended uses.

These bans, if implemented, would de facto create disruption within the single market as well as in the international trade of these goods. They would also send confused signals to both consumers and businesses, given that they run counter to the international scientific assessments mentioned above.

2012 represents a milestone for the European single market, marking its 20th anniversary. The European project itself is founded on the idea of the single market. The Commission has the important task of guaranteeing that obstacles to the movement of products, services, innovation and creativity are removed.

1.

What are the Commission’s views on these national measures threatening the single market?

2.

How will the Commission act to redress the situation?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

The Member States referred to in the question have justified their national measures on the grounds of protection of health. In accordance with the framework Regulation on food contact materials (86), the Commission has referred the scientific justification provided by the Member States to the European Food Safety Authority which is expected to issue an opinion in May 2013. This opinion should also take account of the most recent scientific data on Bisphenol A.

The Commission awaits EFSA opinion before taking a decision on the national measures and a possible revision of the status of Bisphenol A as food contact material.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009397/12

to the Commission

Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Access to vaccines in developing countries

Through the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), the Commission’s research budget supports the development of new health products, such as diagnostic tools, vaccines and treatments, for poverty-related and neglected diseases. The EU also supports action to combat such diseases through the Global Fund, the success of which was acknowledged by the Commissioner at the meeting of the Committee on Development of 9 October 2012. As we know, 20% of EU development spending is to be earmarked for health and basic education.

However, it is clear that the right supporting environment in the developing countries where these diseases are often endemic — including adequate local manufacturing capacity, functioning healthcare infrastructures and realistic pricing mechanisms — must be in place if these products are ever going to be made available to those who need them most.

In the light of the above, and in the interest of Policy Coherence for Development, can the Commission say:

which EU development instruments and programmes could support the dissemination of new health products for poverty-related diseases?

in which specific ways development funds could be channelled to increase access to the health products being developed, in order to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the taxpayers’ money spent in this area through the EU research budget? How might the Commission cooperate specifically with the private sector on this?

to what extent the Commission’s development and research DGs are cooperating in the development of the second phase of the EDCTP?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2013)

The European Union's geographic development instruments aim to strengthen countries' health systems as a whole in order to establish functioning health services that allow health products, new medicines or vaccines, to find a market and reach the population. The Development Cooperation Instrument and European Development Fund have been used to support Global Health initiatives to provide affected countries with new health products.

The authorisation to import medical products is based on the comparative advantages the product could have for its population and is the responsibility of countries' Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authorities. The Global Alliance Vaccine Initiative (GAVI) is already an example of support for public-private partnerships to ensure the dissemination of new vaccines in developing countries after selection of the most interesting products.

Horizon 2020 and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership II (EDCTP II) are opportunities to ensure strong coherence between research and development objectives.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009398/12

al Consejo

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Armas nucleares en Israel

La posición del Consejo sobre el cumplimiento del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear está siendo muy estricta con ciertos países en múltiples foros de la comunidad internacional. Esta presión está siendo ejercida continuamente y de manera focalizada con algunos de los países firmantes de dicho Tratado, pero, con vistas a la seguridad internacional, este Tratado no puede suponer el límite de la intervención diplomática del Consejo en este ámbito. La proliferación nuclear es, sin ningún lugar a dudas, la mayor amenaza para la seguridad internacional, así como para los respectivos equilibrios regionales. Más allá de los países firmantes del Tratado de No Proliferación existen otras potencias militares sobre las que pesan numerosas acusaciones y sospechas sobre la posesión de armamento nuclear.

Una de estas potencias militares no firmantes del citado Tratado es Israel. El Gobierno de Israel ha sido acusado en múltiples ocasiones de disponer de dicho tipo de armamento y la comunidad internacional no ha desarrollado ninguna medida importante de presión diplomática para su verificación.

Israel es un país que ha provocado numerosos conflictos en la zona, viola continuamente numerosas resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas, así como la soberanía de prácticamente todos sus vecinos. Es conocida su continua violación de los derechos humanos, dispone de una de las tecnologías militares más avanzadas y es la primera potencia militar de la zona. Creemos suficiente la importancia de estos hechos como para considerar necesario establecer acciones diplomáticas orientadas a la verificación sobre la posesión de armamento nuclear.

El pasado 12 de octubre, la televisión libanesa Al-Manar difundía imágenes tomadas mediante un avión espía que demostraban la existencia de armamento nuclear en territorio israelí.

Ante estas nuevas pruebas sobre el potencial nuclear de Israel, ¿está valorando el Consejo la potencial posesión de armamento nuclear por parte de Israel? En caso afirmativo, ¿establecerá el Consejo alguna vía diplomática para verificar la posesión de este tipo de armamento fuera del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear?

En caso de confirmarse la posesión de armas nucleares, ¿que tipo de medidas o sanciones plantearía el Consejo a Israel?

Respuesta

(11 de febrero de 2013)

La proliferación de armas de destrucción masiva y sus vectores constituye, según la Estrategia Europea de Seguridad, una de las mayores amenazas para la seguridad tanto internacional como de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, hay que abordarla en el plano internacional. La UE utiliza constantemente todos los instrumentos políticos y diplomáticos que tiene a su disposición para afrontar esa amenaza, y ha reiterado abundantemente la importancia de que se incorporen al ordenamiento jurídico de cada país los tratados y acuerdos vigentes de desarme y no proliferación, y las demás obligaciones en virtud del Derecho internacional, y la necesidad de que se apliquen plenamente. Asimismo, la UE ha hecho repetidos llamamientos a todos los países para que establezcan sistemas nacionales efectivos de control de las exportaciones, con el fin de vigilar la exportación y el tránsito de mercancías relacionadas con las armas de destrucción masiva.

En particular, la UE lleva tiempo insistiendo en la importancia de la adhesión universal al Tratado sobre la No Proliferación de las Armas Nucleares, que sigue siendo la piedra angular del régimen internacional contra la proliferación, y ha exhortado a los países que aún no lo han firmado, a que lo hagan, en calidad de Estados no poseedores de armas nucleares.

De acuerdo con el principio de multilateralismo eficaz, que constituye el núcleo de la Estrategia de la UE contra la Proliferación de Armas de Destrucción Masiva, la UE mantiene un diálogo político regular con una serie de países, entre ellos los que todavía no se han adherido al Tratado de No Proliferación, diálogo que incorpora temas de interés en el ámbito del desarme y la no proliferación de armas nucleares.

Desde la Declaración de Barcelona de 1995, la UE lleva poniendo todo su empeño en la creación de una zona libre de armas de destrucción masiva en Oriente Medio, y tratando de alcanzar este objetivo por la libre voluntad de los países de la región; por otra parte, ha apoyado los planes de acción que se adoptaron al respecto en 2010 y que preveían la convocatoria de una conferencia en 2012 para tratar la cuestión. El pasado noviembre se decidió aplazar su celebración. La UE desea que esta conferencia se vuelva a convocar cuanto antes en 2013 y está animando a todos los Estados partes interesados a asistir a ella con espíritu de compromiso. La UE también colabora estrechamente con el Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica (cuya función es verificar que los programas de energía nuclear se desarrollan conforme a los requisitos más estrictos de seguridad y no proliferación) y con la Organización del Tratado de Prohibición Completa de los Ensayos Nucleares, encargada de verificar el cumplimiento de dicho Tratado.

La UE no cuenta con información de fuentes independientes que le permita determinar que Israel está en posesión de armas nucleares.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009398/12

to the Council

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Nuclear weapons in Israel

The Council is taking a very strict stance in many of the international community’s fora in regard to compliance by some countries with the Treaty on the Non‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It is exerting constant and focused pressure on certain countries signatory to this Treaty. However international security requires that the Council’s diplomatic action in this field does not begin and end with this Treaty. Nuclear proliferation is, without doubt, the greatest threat to international security and regional stability. It is not just countries signatory to the Treaty that have nuclear weapons. Other military powers are often accused or suspected of possessing nuclear weapons too.

Israel is one of the military powers that have not signed the Non‐Proliferation Treaty. The Israeli Government has often been accused of having nuclear weapons but the international community has not exerted any significant diplomatic pressure to verify this.

Israel has sparked off a good many conflicts in the region, it constantly breaches numerous UN resolutions, and infringes the sovereignty of practically all its neighbours. Its continual violation of human rights is well known, its military technologies are extremely advanced and it is the top-ranking military power in the region. These facts are grounds alone to justify diplomatic steps being taken to ascertain whether Israel does have nuclear weapons.

On 12 October 2012, the Lebanese TV station Al-Manar broadcast pictures taken by a spy plane which prove the existence of nuclear weapons on Israeli territory.

In view of this new proof of Israel’s nuclear potential, is the Council assessing Israel’s potential possession of nuclear weapons? If so, will the Council open a diplomatic channel to ascertain whether Israel possesses nuclear weapons outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Should possession of nuclear weapons be confirmed, what kind of measures or sanctions will the Council impose on Israel?

Reply

(11 February 2013)

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery has been identified in the European Security Strategy as one of the greatest threats to international and EU security, one that requires a global approach. The EU has continued to make use of all political and diplomatic instruments at its disposal to address that threat, and has constantly underlined the importance of full compliance with, and national implementation of, existing disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements and other relevant international obligations. Furthermore, the EU has been calling on all countries to establish effective systems of national export controls, to monitor the export and transit of WMD-related goods.

In particular, the EU has constantly emphasised the importance of universalising the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which remains the cornerstone of the global nuclear non‐proliferation regime, and calls on States that have not yet done so to sign up to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon states.

In line with the principle of effective multilateralism, which is at the core of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the EU holds a regular political dialogue with a number of countries, including those that have not yet joined the NPT, which covers topics of interest in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Since the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, the EU has been committed to pursuing a Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, freely arrived at by the countries of the region, and has supported the NPT action plans adopted in 2010 that called for a Conference to be held on the issue in 2012. The Conference was postponed in November. The EU would like the Conference to be reconvened as soon as possible in 2013 and is calling upon all State parties concerned to attend the Conference in a spirit of compromise. The EU also cooperates closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (in charge of verifying that nuclear energy programmes are developed in accordance with the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation), and with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation in charge of the verification of the CTBT.

The EU has no independent information that would allow it to ascertain the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009399/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Παραβίαση των ελληνικών χωρικών υδάτων από την Τουρκία

Στα ελληνικά χωρικά ύδατα εισήλθε το περασμένο Σάββατο η τουρκική κορβέτα «Bafra», κατά τον πλου της μεταξύ Εύβοιας-Άνδρου.

Σύμφωνα με ανακοίνωση του ΓΕΕΘΑ, που εξεδόθη τη Δευτέρα 15.10.2012: η τουρκική κορβέτα «BAFRA», εξερχόμενη από το λιμάνι της Σμύρνης, εισήλθε την 13η Οκτωβρίου (19:00) σε ελληνικά χωρικά ύδατα μεταξύ Εύβοιας-Άνδρου και, κινούμενη μεταξύ Κέας-Κύθνου, εξήλθε την 13η Οκτωβρίου (22:00) ΝΔ της Κύθνου. Στη συνέχεια κινήθηκε σε διεθνή ύδατα δυτικά της Μήλου, ΒΔ της Κρήτης, Νότια της Κρήτης και με ανατολική πορεία απομακρύνθηκε τις πρώτες πρωινές ώρες της 15ης Οκτωβρίου εκτός ορίων FIR Αθηνών.

Η παραβίαση των ελληνικών χωρικών υδάτων από την τουρκική κορβέτα στο Αιγαίο, ήλθε τρεις μέρες μετά την ολοκλήρωση της επίσκεψης του υπουργού Εξωτερικών της Τουρκίας Αχμέτ Νταβούτογλου στην Αθήνα, όπου συμφωνήθηκε η επανέναρξη των διερευνητικών επαφών για την οριοθέτηση της υφαλοκρηπίδας ανάμεσα στην Ελλάδα και στην Τουρκία, ο οποίος και μεταξύ άλλων δήλωσε: «Εμείς πάντοτε επιθυμούμε το Αιγαίο, ως μία θάλασσα ειρήνης και φιλίας, να είναι ανοικτό σε κάθε είδους συνεργασία».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Γιατί η Τουρκία συνεχίζει απτόητη την τελευταία περίοδο τις προκλητικές της παραβιάσεις, και αν αυτή η αδιάλλακτη στάση από την πλευρά της Τουρκίας συνδέεται με την ανοχή που επιδεικνύουν ΕΕ και ΝΑΤΟ σε σχέση με το θέμα της Συρίας που απασχολεί την ΕΕ και το Νάτο κατά το τελευταίο διάστημα;

Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(12 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Η Επιτροπή υπενθυμίζει ότι η απαίτηση για καλές σχέσεις γειτονίας αντικατοπτρίζεται στο διαπραγματευτικό πλαίσιο για την Τουρκία που συμφωνήθηκε τον Οκτώβριο του 2005, το οποίο ορίζει ότι η πρόοδος των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων θα αξιολογείται σε συνάρτηση, μεταξύ άλλων, με «τη σαφή δέσμευση της Τουρκίας για σχέσεις καλής γειτονίας».

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου που περιλαμβάνονται στην έκθεση προόδου του 2012 (87), όπου αναφέρεται ότι «η Τουρκία πρέπει να δεσμευτεί κατηγορηματικά υπέρ των σχέσεων καλής γειτονίας και του ειρηνικού διακανονισμού διαφορών βάσει του Χάρτη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, προσφεύγοντας κατά περίπτωση στο Διεθνές Δικαστήριο. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η Ένωση εκφράζει σοβαρές ανησυχίες και απευθύνει έκκληση για την αποφυγή κάθε απειλής, αιτίας προστριβών ή ενεργειών που μπορούν να βλάψουν τις σχέσεις καλής γειτονίας και τον ειρηνικό διακανονισμό διαφορών.»

Η Επιτροπή επαναλαμβάνει συνεχώς αυτή τη θέση σε κάθε κατάλληλη ευκαιρία.

Η Επιτροπή ελπίζει ότι η διαδικασία των διερευνητικών συνομιλιών μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Τουρκίας που αποσκοπεί στην αντιμετώπιση ορισμένων θεμάτων που ανακύπτουν στις διμερείς σχέσεις θα έχει πιο θετικά αποτελέσματα από αυτά του τελευταίου γύρου των συνομιλιών που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στις 18 Οκτωβρίου 2012.

Η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να σχολιάσει θέματα που εμπίπτουν στην αρμοδιότητα άλλων οργανώσεων, όπως στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση του NATO (88).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009399/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Infringement by Turkey of Greek territorial waters

Last Saturday, the Turkish corvette ‘Bafra’ entered Greek territorial waters, setting a course between Evvoia and Andros.

According to the Greek Chiefs of Staff (GEETHA), whose statement was issued on Monday 15 October 2012, the Turkish corvette ‘Bafra’, sailing from the port of Izmir, entered Greek territorial waters on 13 October (19.00), setting a course between Evvoia and Andros and between Kea and Kythnos, before leaving again southwest of Kythnos (22.00) and re-entering international waters, setting a course taking it west of the island of Milos, northwest of Crete and south of Crete, before turning east outside the Athens FIR limits and moving away in the early hours of 15 October.

This infringement of Greek territorial waters by a Turkish corvette in the Aegean occurred just three days after Ahmed Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, concluded his visit to Athens, where it was agreed to resume exploratory contacts for the purpose delimiting the continental shelf between Greece and Turkey. The Minister declared, ‘We have always wished the Aegean to be peaceful, friendly and open to all forms of cooperation.’

In view of this:

Can the Commission given any explanation for Turkey's recent repeated encroachments and say whether this persistent provocation might in any way be related to the acquiescence displayed by the EU and NATO in respect of the Syrian crisis, which has recently been causing them causing such concern?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

The Commission recalls that the requirement of good neighbourly relations is reflected in the negotiating framework for Turkey agreed in October 2005, which sets out that progress in the accession negotiations is to be measured, among other things, against ‘Turkey’s unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations.’

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the Council's conclusions quoted in the 2012 Progress Report (89), which read that, ‘Turkey needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice. In this context, the Union expresses serious concerns and urges the avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction or action which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.’

The Commission consistently reiterates this position on all appropriate occasions.

The Commission hopes that the process of exploratory talks between Greece and Turkey — aimed at addressing certain issues arising in bilateral relations — will have a positive outcome further to the latest round of the talks on October 18 2012.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on issues falling in the competence of other organisations, in this case NATO (90).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009400/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ένταξη της τέως Ανατολικής Γερμανίας στην ΕΕ

Η πρώην κομμουνιστική Ανατολική Γερμανία εντάχθηκε στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1990 στην τότε ΕΟΚ. Το κόστος για την ένταξη της υπανάπτυκτης αυτής χώρας και η σύγκλισή της προς την υπόλοιπη τότε ΕΟΚ ήταν τεράστιο και είχε βαρύτατες συνέπειες για τη συνοχή των χωρών, τις χώρες συνοχής, μεταξύ των οποίων και της Ελλάδας, οι οποίες έχασαν πολύτιμους κοινοτικούς πόρους προς όφελος της Ανατολικής Γερμανίας. Για την ένταξη της τέως κομμουνιστικής (και άκρως προβληματικής) αυτής περιοχής ουδέποτε ερωτήθηκαν οι υπόλοιπες χώρες μέλη της τότε ΕΟΚ και σήκωσαν — χωρίς να διαμαρτυρηθούν — οικονομικό βάρος που δεν τους αναλογούσε.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποιο ήταν το συνολικό κόστος για την ΕΕ από την ένταξη της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας στην Ένωση;

Ποιο το συνολικό ποσό που έλαβε η περιοχή αυτή από τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία και την Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων (ως χαμηλότοκα δάνεια) από το 1990 ως σήμερα;

Απάντηση του κ. Hahn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(6 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Τα διαθέσιμα στοιχεία αφορούν τα προγράμματα για όλες τις περιφέρειες της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας από το 1994 και έπειτα. Η χρηματοδότηση προέρχεται από τα εξής όργανα: το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ)· το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ) και το Ευρωπαϊκό Γεωργικό Ταμείο Προσανατολισμού και Εγγυήσεων (ΕΓΤΠ). Η χρηματοδότηση για το πρόγραμμα υποδομών «Bundesprogramm Verkehr» (Ομοσπονδιακό πρόγραμμα μεταφορών) από το ΕΤΠΑ έχει κατανεμηθεί μόνο σε περιφέρειες της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας και, επομένως, περιλαμβάνεται στον υπολογισμό για την περίοδο 2007-2013.

Τα εν λόγω δεδομένα δεν περιλαμβάνουν προγράμματα ή πρωτοβουλίες της Κοινότητας σε ομοσπονδιακό επίπεδο, καθώς η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να αποκτήσει αξιόπιστα δεδομένα σχετικά με τη διάθεση συγκεκριμένων χρηματοδοτήσεων σε περιφέρειες της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας. Στις περιπτώσεις που τα δεδομένα για το Βερολίνο περιελάμβαναν το ανατολικό και το δυτικό μέρος της πόλης, τα εν λόγω στοιχεία δεν συμπεριλήφθησαν στους υπολογισμούς. Αν και τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για συγκεκριμένες περιόδους περιελάμβαναν, επίσης, το Χρηματοδοτικό Μέσο Προσανατολισμού για την Αλιεία (ΧΜΠΑ) και το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Αλιείας (ΕΤΑ), καθώς η διαχείρισή τους πραγματοποιείται σε εθνικό επίπεδο, τα στοιχεία για την περιφερειακή κατανομή των χρηματοδοτήσεων στις περιφέρειες της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας δεν μπορούσαν να εξακριβωθούν.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα παραπάνω, οι περιφέρειες της πρώην Ανατολικής Γερμανίας έχουν λάβει μέχρι και σήμερα 39,5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία.

Όσον αφορά το συνολικό ποσό που έχει λάβει η περιοχή αυτή από την Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων (ΕΤΕ), η Επιτροπή δεν έχει στη διάθεση της αυτές τις πληροφορίες και προτείνει στον κ. βουλευτή να επικοινωνήσει απευθείας με την ΕΤΕ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009400/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Accession of former East Germany to the EU

In the early 1990s, the former Communist East Germany became a member of what was then the EEC, despite lagging behind in terms of growth. The cost of its entry and convergence with other Member States had a massive impact on the cohesion countries, including Greece, which forfeited valuable Community funding as a result. The other EEC Member States were never at any moment consulted regarding the entry of this former Communist country (which was facing acute difficulties) and they bore a disproportionately heavy burden without demur.

In view of this:

What has been the total cost to the EU of the accession of former East Germany?

What has been the total amount received by this country from the structural funds and the European Investment Bank (in the form of low-interest loans) from 1990 up to the present day?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2012)

The figures available include the programmes from all Eastern German regions from 1994 onwards. The funding derives from the following instruments: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); European Social Fund (ESF) and European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The ERDF funded infrastructure programme ‘Bundesprogramm Verkehr’ is only allocated to Eastern German regions and is therefore also included in the calculation for the 2007-13 period.

The data does not include programmes or Community Initiatives at federal level as the Commission cannot obtain reliable data on the allocation of specific funding to Eastern German regions. When data for Berlin included both the eastern and western part of the city, it was excluded from the calculations. Although the Structural Funds for certain periods also included the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), as they are managed at national level, data on the regional allocation of the funding to Eastern German regions could not be retrieved.

Taking the above into account, the Eastern German regions have received up to now EUR 39.5 billion from the Structural Funds.

Concerning the total amount received from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Commission does not have this information and suggests that the Honourable Member contacts directly the EIB.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009401/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Μεταναστευτικά ρεύματα από τη Συρία

Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατα στοιχεία της Ύπατης Αρμοστείας του ΟΗΕ για του Σύριους, 294 000 Σύριοι πέρασαν σε γειτονικές χώρες, ενώ ενδέχεται ο αριθμός αυτός να εκτοξευτεί στις 700 000 στα τέλη του τρέχοντος έτους, εξαιτίας των συνεχιζόμενων συγκρούσεων. Αξίζει να διαβάσουμε τα δημοσιεύματα που αναφέρονται στο «Σχέδιο φιλοξενίας 20 000 προσφύγων από τη Συρία σε Ρόδο και Κρήτη» και να σκεφτούμε την ανείπωτη ανθρώπινη τραγωδία που κρύβεται πίσω από τις λέξεις. Έτσι λοιπόν «Η Ελλάδα ετοιμάζεται να φιλοξενήσει έως και 20 000 πρόσφυγες από τη Συρία, σύμφωνα με το χρονοδιάγραμμα που προβλέπεται από το Υπουργείο Δημόσιας Τάξης, στο πλαίσιο του Χάρτη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για την υποδοχή των προσφύγων, δήλωσε την Πέμπτη το Υπουργείο».

Με δεδομένο ότι δεν τηρείται καμία συμφωνία από την Τουρκία, η οποία, αφενός, δεν έχει κανένα συμφέρον από τη διαφύλαξη των συνόρων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και, αφετέρου, φαίνεται ότι κλιμακώνει την ένταση μεταξύ αυτής και της Συρίας και με δεδομένο ότι η Ελλάδα αποτελεί τον πρώτο σταθμό για τους Σύριους πρόσφυγες,

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι μέτρα σκοπεύει να λάβει ώστε να θέσει ξεκάθαρες κόκκινες γραμμές στις συνεχιζόμενες παραβιάσεις της Τουρκίας εις βάρος της Ελλάδας;

Πώς προτίθεται να αντιμετωπίσει το νέο κύμα προσφύγων προς στην Ελλάδα, με δεδομένη την οικονομική κατάσταση της χώρας, αλλά και το ποσοστό λαθρομεταναστών που έχει ξεπεράσει κάθε προηγούμενο συγκριτικά με τον πληθυσμό της χώρας και προσλαμβάνει καθημερινά διαστάσεις ωρολογιακής βόμβας για την κοινωνική συνοχή του έθνους;

Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(19 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει να διασφαλίζουν ότι οι εθνικές πολιτικές τους για το άσυλο και τη μετανάστευση είναι προστατευτικές και αποτελεσματικές.

Η Επιτροπή, από κοινού με τους οργανισμούς της Ένωσης στηρίζει αδιαλείπτως την Ελλάδα για τη μεταρρύθμιση των πολιτικών της στον τομέα του ασύλου και της μετανάστευσης.

Η Επιτροπή βρίσκεται σε στενή επαφή με τις ελληνικές αρχές και είναι έτοιμη να παράσχει την αναγκαία στήριξη για να αντιμετωπίσει η Ελλάδα τις προκλήσεις που συνδέονται με τις αφίξεις υπηκόων τρίτων χωρών από τη Συρία. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, μπορούν επίσης να αποσταλούν εμπειρογνώμονες στον τομέα του ασύλου της ΕΥΥΑ για παροχή βοήθειας επιτόπου.

Έχοντας ολοκληρώσει τη διαπραγμάτευση της συμφωνίας επανεισδοχής ΕΕ-Τουρκίας, στις 21 Ιουνίου 2012, η Επιτροπή θα συνεχίσει να καταβάλλει προσπάθειες για να πείσει τις τουρκικές αρχές να υπογράψουν την εν λόγω συμφωνία και να την κυρώσουν το συντομότερο δυνατό. Μέχρι τη θέση σε ισχύ της συμφωνίας επανεισδοχής ΕΕ-Τουρκίας, η Επιτροπή θα συνεχίσει επίσης να υπενθυμίζει στις τουρκικές αρχές την ανάγκη να εφαρμόσουν πλήρως και αποτελεσματικά τις υποχρεώσεις επανεισδοχής με όλα τα κράτη μέλη, καθώς και να εντείνουν τις προσπάθειές τους για να παρεμποδίζουν τις παράνομες μεταναστευτικές ροές να εξέρχονται από το τουρκικό έδαφος κατευθυνόμενες προς την ΕΕ. Σύμφωνα με τα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου που εγκρίθηκαν στις 21 Ιουνίου 2012, η Επιτροπή βρίσκεται σε επαφή με τις τουρκικές αρχές για να δρομολογήσει ένα πλαίσιο διαλόγου και συνεργασίας για όλα τα θέματα που αφορούν τον τομέα της δικαιοσύνης και των εσωτερικών υποθέσεων, καθώς και να λάβει μέτρα για την ελευθέρωση των θεωρήσεων, παράλληλα με την υπογραφή της συμφωνίας επανεισδοχής μεταξύ της Τουρκίας και της ΕΕ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009401/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Influx of immigrants from Syria

According to recent figures from the UNHCR regarding Syrians, 294 000 Syrians have crossed into neighbouring countries, a figure that is likely to soar to 700 000 by the end of this year because of the ongoing conflict. The publications referred to in the plan to accommodate 20 000 refugees from Syria in Rhodes and Crete make interesting reading and we should pause to consider the unspeakable human tragedy behind the words. The Ministry stated on Thursday that Greece was preparing to accommodate up to 20 000 refugees from Syria, according to the timetable set by the Ministry of Public Order, under the UN Convention on refugees.

Given that no agreement is respected by Turkey, which has no interest in securing the borders of the European Union, and that tension between it and Syria seems to be rising, and given that Greece is the first stop for Syrian refugees;

Will the Commission say:

What steps does it intend to take to put down clear red lines as regards the ongoing violations by Turkey in respect of Greece?

How does it intend to deal with the new wave of refugees to Greece, given the economic situation of the country, but also the percentage of illegal immigrants which has exceeded all previous crises in relation to the population of the country and which is increasingly becoming a time bomb for social cohesion in Greece?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2012)

Member States should ensure that their national asylum and migration policies are both protective and efficient.

The Commission, together with Union Agencies and other stakeholders, is continuously supporting Greece towards reforming its asylum and migration policies.

The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities and stands ready to provide the necessary support to Greece to cope with challenges linked to the arrivals of third-country nationals from Syria. In this context EASO asylum experts can also be deployed to provide assistance on the ground.

Having concluded the negotiation of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement on 21 June 2012, the Commission will continue making efforts in view of persuading the Turkish authorities to sign this agreement and to ratify it as soon as possible. Until the entry into force of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement, the Commission also will continue to remind the Turkish authorities about the need to fully and effectively implement their readmission obligations with all Member States, as well as to step up their efforts to prevent irregular migration flows from exiting Turkish territory directed towards the EU. In line with the Council conclusions adopted on 21 June 2012, the Commission is in contact with the Turkish authorities in view of launching a dialogue and cooperation framework in all Justice and Home Affairs matters, and to take steps toward visa liberalisation, in parallel to the signature of the readmission agreement between Turkey and the EU.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009403/12

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(16 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Informe de la ciudadanía de la UE de 2013 y la violencia contra las mujeres

La DG Justicia llevó a cabo una consulta pública sobre el Informe de la Ciudadanía de la Unión Europea de 2013 bajo el título «Ciudadanos de la UE — Tus derechos, tu futuro» entre el 9 de mayo y el 9 de septiembre de 2012.

La violencia contra las mujeres sigue siendo un problema grave en los Estados miembros de la UE puesto que socava los principales derechos fundamentales de la mujer. La igualdad entre las mujeres y los hombres es un principio fundamental de la UE que es reconocido en los tratados de la UE y en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Efectivamente, el problema de la violencia contra las mujeres se aborda en varios artículos de la Carta, por ejemplo, en aquellos artículos relativos a la dignidad humana (artículo 1), al derecho a la vida (artículo 2), al derecho a la integridad de la persona (artículo 3), a la prohibición de la tortura y de las penas o los tratos inhumanos o degradantes (artículo 4), al derecho a la libertad y a la seguridad (artículo 6) y a la no discriminación (artículo 21). La Comisión ha reiterado la determinación de la UE de combatir la violencia de género en su «Estrategia para la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres 2010-2015» de 21 de septiembre de 2010.

Sin embargo, en la consulta mencionada anteriormente, solo una de las preguntas versaba sobre discriminación (pregunta número 4, con respecto a la discriminación por razón de nacionalidad).

1.

¿Por qué la Comisión no ha incluido ninguna pregunta relativa a la violencia contra las mujeres, ya que este asunto afecta a los derechos fundamentales de la mujer y es un factor determinante para el futuro de las mujeres en la EU?

2.

¿Considera la Comisión que el paquete de medidas en favor de las víctimas presenta un enfoque holístico hacia este problema de gran envergadura? ¿Es por ello que no se ha incluido ninguna pregunta relativa a la violencia contra las mujeres en el Informe de la Ciudadanía de la UE de 2013?

3.

¿Considerará la Comisión la elaboración de una directiva integral sobre la violencia de género contra las mujeres?

4.

¿Tiene la intención la Comisión de reconocer públicamente la falta de perspectiva de género en la consulta pública mencionada anteriormente?

Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de diciembre de 2012)

El objetivo de la consulta pública en línea sobre la ciudadanía de la UE que la Comisión abrió el 9 de mayo de 2012 y que concluyó en septiembre de 2012, es ayudar a la Comisión a identificar los obstáculos con que se encuentran los ciudadanos de la Unión en el ejercicio de los derechos que les otorga la UE en situaciones transfronterizas y hallar soluciones concretas para eliminarlos. Los resultados de la consulta se reflejan en el Informe sobre la ciudadanía de la Unión de 2013 elaborado por la Comisión.

El hecho de que la UE se comprometa a facilitar la vida de los ciudadanos de la UE en situaciones transfronterizas y se esfuerce por hacer realidad la ciudadanía de la Unión no significa que no promueva los valores de la UE y no proteja los derechos fundamentales de todos los ciudadanos en la EU.

La Comisión está firmemente comprometida en pro de reforzar la política de lucha contra todas las formas de violencia contra la mujer, tanto en el territorio de la UE como en el ámbito de las relaciones exteriores.

El paquete legislativo relativo a las víctimas (91) elaborado por la Comisión aborda, en el contexto de los procedimientos judiciales, las necesidades de las mujeres que son víctimas de la violencia. Estos instrumentos ofrecen un enfoque general para la protección y asistencia a todas estas mujeres.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009403/12

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: 2013 EU Citizenship Report and violence against women

A public consultation on the 2013 EU Citizenship Report entitled ‘EU citizens — your rights, your future’ was carried out by DG Justice between 9 May and 9 September 2012.

Violence against women continues to be a pressing problem across the EU Member States, undermining women’s fundamental rights. Equality between women and men is a core EU principle, which is recognised in the EU treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Violence against women can be seen as being addressed by several Articles of the Charter — such as those referring to the rights to human dignity (Article 1), life (Article 2) and integrity of the person (Article 3), the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 4), and the rights to liberty and security (Article 6) and non-discrimination (Article 21). The European Commission reaffirmed the EU’s determination to combat gender-based violence in its ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (21 September 2010).

However, only one question in the consultation was related to discrimination (question 4, about national discrimination).

1.

Why did the Commission not include any question about violence against women, given that this issue affects women’s fundamental rights and is of key importance to the future of European women?

2.

Does the Commission consider that the Victims’ Package offers a holistic approach to this core problem? Was this why it was not included in the 2013 EU Citizenship Report?

3.

Will the Commission consider the preparation of an integral Directive on gender-based violence against women?

4.

Does the Commission intend to publicly recognise the lack of gender perspective in the abovementioned public consultation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2012)

The objective of the public online consultation on EU Citizenship launched by the Commission on 9 May 2012, and closed end September 2012, is to help the Commission identify remaining obstacles EU citizens encounter in the enjoyment of their EU rights in cross border situations, as well as concrete solutions to remove these obstacles. The results of this consultation will be reflected in the Commission's 2013 EU Citizenship Report.

The fact that the EU endeavours to make the life of its EU citizens in cross border situations easier and strives to give substance to the status of EU citizenship does not mean that it is not carrying out policies to promote EU values and protect the fundamental rights of all citizens within the EU.

The Commission is notably committed to a strengthened policy response to combat all forms of violence against women within the EU territory and in its external relations policies.

The Commission's Victims Package (92) addresses the needs of women who are victims of violence in the context of judicial proceedings. These instruments offer a comprehensive approach to the protection of and assistance to all victims of violence against women.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009404/12

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Child soldiers in Mali

The Commission has pledged its commitment to promoting children’s universal rights and responding to their basic needs both within the EU and within a global context. The Commission’s Action Plans on ‘Children’s Rights in External Action’ and ‘Children in Situations of Emergency and Crisis’ clearly lay down a framework for child protection in the areas of separation from parents, armed forces or groups, and education.

Could the Commission therefore state what action it proposes to take in Mali, where the UN and the BBC believe that children are being bought from families by extremist Islamist militants and used as child soldiers and even as possible suicide bombers?

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

(4 December 2012)

In accordance with EU Guidelines on children and armed conflict, especially its 2010 Revised Implementation Strategy, the EU monitors closely any reports concerning violation of children's rights and remains in close relation with Human Rights and grassroots organisations in northern Mali, who are monitoring events through field visits.

However, given the situation in Mali at present, it is difficult to have an impact through the use of any of the usual diplomatic tools (informal contacts with the govt, political dialogue, démarches…).

On 15 October 2012, the Council expressed its concern about human rights violations and its full commitment to resolve the current crisis in Mali. It also recalled the possibility of adopting sanctions against those involved in terrorist groups in northern Mali.

The EU, through its humanitarian budget, is providing protection and assistance to the victims of the conflict in North Mali. All humanitarian agencies are mainstreaming the protection of civilians, including children, in their programmes. Recently, additional EU humanitarian funds have been provided to the ICRC for major food assistance in North Mali. All ICRC programmes include dissemination of international humanitarian law against the enrolment of children to armed groups.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009405/12

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(16 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Commissaris Kroes en de Nederlandse TweedeKamerverkiezingen

Ik dank de heer Barroso voor zijn antwoord op mijn eerdere vragen over commissaris Kroes, die zich heeft bemoeid met de verkiezingscampagne in Nederland (E-007890/2012). Uit zijn antwoord maak ik op dat mevrouw Kroes van mening is dat zij geen campagne heeft gevoerd tijdens de Nederlandse Tweedekamerverkiezingen, maar slechts feitelijke informatie heeft verstrekt over de EU en dat zij hem daarom niet in kennis heeft gesteld van haar politieke activiteiten tijdens die verkiezingen.

Ik hecht eraan te stellen dat mevrouw Kroes niet slechts onjuiste informatie heeft gecorrigeerd maar zich herhaaldelijk heeft uitgesproken tegen een bepaalde politieke partij die kan worden gezien als een rivaal voor haar eigen partij. Als zodanig heeft zij wel degelijk campagne gevoerd tegen de PVV en daarmee vóór haar eigen partij, de VVD.

Daarbij heeft mevrouw Kroes zich niet beperkt tot het geven van informatie, maar heeft zij zich in politieke zin uitgelaten. Zij heeft meermalen gesproken over uitsluiting van de PVV als coalitiepartner (op 1.9.2012 op Zafira-net en in het Algemeen Dagblad) (93).

In de Nederlandse politieke verhoudingen is het al dan niet kunnen toetreden tot een coalitie van groot belang. Het uitsluiten van de PVV van deelname aan een coalitie met de VVD door mevrouw Kroes is een belangrijk politiek feit. Dat brengt mij tot de volgende vragen:

Heeft mevrouw Kroes de Commissievoorzitter in kennis gesteld van haar partijpolitieke activiteiten tijdens de Nederlandse Tweedekamerverkiezingen?

Heeft de voorzitter haar daarvoor van tevoren toestemming verleend?

Op welke grond heeft de voorzitter geoordeeld dat het gedrag van mevrouw Kroes voldoet aan de gedragscode voor commissarissen, gezien haar uitspraken op 1 september jl.?

Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie

(13 november 2012)

1-2. De Commissie bevestigt haar antwoord op de vorige vraag van het geachte Parlementslid (E-07890/2012). Hiermee drukt ze uit dat de uitlatingen van de voor de digitale agenda verantwoordelijke vicevoorzitter van de Commissie in de door bovengemelde vraag vermelde video-uitzending niet als inmenging in de recente Nederlandse verkiezingscampagne kunnen worden beschouwd. De deelname van de vicevoorzitter voor de digitale agenda van de Commissie samen met persoonlijkheden van andere politieke partijen aan een gezamenlijk initiatief kan in geen geval worden beschouwd als politieke campagnevoering voor een specifieke partij.

3.

De Commissieleden zijn politieke persoonlijkheden. De Gedragscode voor Commissieleden erkent dat zij politiek actief mogen zijn op voorwaarde dat dit hun beschikbaarheid ten dienste van de Commissie of hun onafhankelijkheid in hun functie niet in het gedrang brengt.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009405/12

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Commissioner Kroes's involvement in the Dutch general election campaign

I should like to thank Mr Barroso for his answer to my previous question concerning the part played by Commissioner Kroes in the Dutch general election campaign (E-007890/2012). I gather from that answer that Ms Kroes takes the view that in making her statements she was not getting involved in the general election campaign, but merely providing factually correct information about the EU, which is why she did not inform Mr Barroso about her political activities during the election campaign.

I should like to make it clear that Ms Kroes did not merely correct factually inaccurate information, but repeatedly spoke out against a particular political party which can be seen as a rival to her own. On that basis, she certainly did campaign against the PVV and for her own party, the VVD.

In other words, Ms Kroes did not confine herself to providing information, but made political statements relevant to the campaign. On several occasions she emphasised the unsuitability of the PVV as a coalition partner (on 1 September 2012 on Zafira-net and in the Algemeen Dagblad) (94).

In Dutch politics, participation or otherwise in a coalition is a big deal. Ms Kroes’s wish to see the PVV excluded from a coalition with the VVD is an important political matter, and one which prompts the following questions:

Did Ms Kroes inform the Commission President of her party political activities during the Dutch general election campaign?

Did the Commission President approve those activities in advance?

In the light of the statements Ms Kroes made on 1 September 2012, on what basis did the Commission President decide that her actions were consistent with the Code of Conduct for Commissioners?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2012)

1-2. The Commission confirms its answer to the Honourable Member' previous question (E-07890/2012) stating that the declarations of the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda contained in the video broadcast mentioned in the above referred question can not be considered as a participation in the recent Dutch election campaign. The participation of the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, together with personalities from other political parties, to a joint initiative can in no way be considered as an act of political campaign for a specific party.

3.

The Members of the Commission are political personalities. The Code of Conduct for Commissioners acknowledges that they may be politically active provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission or their independence in their functions.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009406/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Kafkaesque treatment of air passengers

What, if anything, has the Commission done to rectify the situation, exposed in my previous questions to it, whereby alcohol can be randomly confiscated halfway through a journey when changing planes?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2012)

The restrictions on the carriage of liquids that are applicable at airports in the European Union serve to address the threat posed by liquid explosives that may be concealed in liquids, aerosol, or gel containers.

The Commission is working towards the removal of all restrictions on the carriage of liquids in hand luggage. Restrictions would be replaced by methods for screening liquids for potential threat substances.The Commission has recommended that starting in January 2014, passengers transfering at EU airports should be able to carry as hand luggage liquids, gels and aerosols purchased as duty free at non-EU airports and on non-EU air carriers. Certain conditions would apply, however, for example, those purchases would need to be sealed inside a Security Tamper-Evident Bag. To implement these recommendations, the Commission intends to bring forward proposals in autumn 2012.

In the light of the experience gained by this step forward, the Commission would then, if appropriate, bring forward proposals for subsequent phases of removing restrictions more widely with the final objective of a total end to the ban while maintining a high level of security.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009407/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Motorway tolls and taxpayers

What, if any, stretches of motorway have been contributed to or paid for by EU taxpayers’ money but are nonetheless tolled if those same taxpayers use them?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

Most motorways in the European Union are built with EU taxpayers' money, including those funded by national authorities only.

Those which are supported from the European Union budget are supported in line with the shared management principle used for the implementation of cohesion policy. Member States are responsible for selecting and implementing these projects, and the Commission does not maintain comprehensive lists of individual projects.

Member States are also responsible for deciding whether and how to introduce road tolling on EU funded motorways. The Commission welcomes the introduction of road tolling as it provides a revenue stream which can finance the maintenance of the road infrastructure and thus guarantees the financial sustainability of the initial investment. Moreover, road tolling is in line with the polluter pays principle as one of the guiding principles of cohesion policy.

Projects co-financed by cohesion policy need to undergo a financial gap analysis. Future revenues from road tolling are taken into account, which reduces the financial gap and thus the contribution from the EU budget.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009408/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Born Free Foundation

Will the Commission confirm whether it has ever instructed, requested or commissioned the Born Free Foundation, of Horsham, Sussex (UK), to carry out a survey entitled ‘The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011’ on how Council Directive 1999/22/EC on the keeping of wild animals in zoos is being implemented in the Member States?

If the Commission did instruct, request or commission the Born Free Foundation to do any work on its behalf, will it supply details of the remit?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

As stated on previous occasions when responding to similar enquiries from the general public, stakeholders, and Member States, including a significant number of Parliamentary questions on the same issue (e.g. E-004837/2012, E-005760/2011, E-006006/2011, E-000747/2011, E-000705/2011, E-000831/2011, E-0001259/2011) the Commission confirms that it has never instructed, requested or commissioned the Born Free Foundation, of Horsham, Sussex (UK), to carry out a survey entitled ‘The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011’ on how Council Directive 1999/22/EC (95) on the keeping of wild animals in zoos is being implemented in the Member States. While the Commission has been kept informed about its findings and has made clear that it will investigate any alleged breaches of the Zoos Directive that are brought to its attention, it has not endorsed the results of this particular inquiry.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009409/12

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR) and Ashley Fox (ECR)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Problems at the border between Gibraltar and Spain

A UK resident of Gibraltarian origin has alleged in writing that the Spanish Government has recently stepped up local border go-slow measures against residents of Gibraltar. Current delays at the frontier exceed five or six hours and would, if deliberately imposed, constitute a breach by Spain of the EU principle of freedom of movement of persons, with potentially serious ramifications. Gibraltar’s roads are being blocked by these queues, which are clogging up the territory’s already limited road network. This means, for instance, that emergency services are unable to move as freely as before these restrictions were applied, which could unnecessarily put people’s lives at risk in the case of a fire or accident. A gridlocked road system will also inevitably have longer-term implications for the economy.

Around 8 000-12 000 people (many of them Spanish citizens) cross into Gibraltar every day to work and these people are being forced to endure hours of queuing both into and out of Gibraltar. As well as economic consequences, there will be environmental and air quality consequences due to static or slow-flowing traffic.

Is the Commission aware of any recent downturn in relations between Spain and Gibraltar? Can it investigate whether these allegations are a deliberate attempt by Spain to make life more difficult for Gibraltarians and therefore constitute economic sanctions against the territory of another Member State (the UK)? Will it raise these concerns with the Government of the Kingdom of Spain?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2012)

Gibraltar is neither part of the area without internal border controls nor of the customs territory of the European Union. Checks on people and goods are therefore carried out at its border with Spain. Under the Schengen Borders Code, all people entering and exiting the Schengen area, including those enjoying the Union right of free movement, should undergo a minimum check to establish their identities on the basis of the production or presentation of their travel documents. This should normally consist of a rapid and straightforward verification.

On entering and exiting the Schengen area, third-country nationals, who are likely to be among those crossing between Spain and Gibraltar, should be subject to thorough checks, involving a detailed examination verifying that they fulfil all entry conditions.

While efficient border management should allow for the smooth flow of legitimate trade and movement of people, border checks may involve delays affecting traffic and travellers.

The Commission has no indications that Spain is deliberately carrying out undue checks on those crossing the border for work, which would restrict their right to free movement.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-009410/12

til Kommissionen

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE), Daniel Caspary (PPE) og Esther de Lange (PPE)

(16. oktober 2012)

Om: Ny norsk told på udvalgte landbrugsprodukter

Mandag den 8. oktober 2012 fremlagde den norske regering sit forslag til finanslov for 2013. Et forslag vedrørende budgettet vedrører en omlægning fra specifik told til værditold for seks toldpositioner, herunder oksekød, lammekroppe og hårde oste. Disse ændringer vil træde i kraft fra 1. januar 2013 og reelt øge tolden på udvalgte landbrugsprodukter fra EU.

Den nye foreslåede værditold er på 344 % for oksekød, 429 % på hele og halve slagtekroppe af lam (friske, kølede og frosne), og 277 % på udvalgte oste. 14 udvalgte oste bevarer den nuværende told på 27,15 NOK/kg (Appenzeller, Beaufort, Comté, Gamle Ole, Grana Padano, Gruyère, Le Vieux Pane, Morbier, Munster, parmigiano reggiano, Queso Manchego, Pecorino, Saint Albray og Västerbotten) (96).

Er de foreslåede ændringer i beregningen af told forenelige med artikel 19 i aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde?

Blev Kommissionen underrettet om disse forslag før offentliggørelsen, eller har den norske regering ensidigt har besluttet at foretage de foreslåede ændringer?

Er Kommissionen villig til at overveje eventuelle sanktioner eller modforanstaltninger?

Vil den norske regerings forslag påvirke de igangværende forhandlinger mellem Norge og EU om omsætning og gennemførelse af direktivet om posttjenester og bankindskudsgarantiordningen?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Dacian Cioloş

(10. december 2012)

Artikel 19 i aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS-aftalen), som de ærede medlemmer henviser til, fastsætter en fælles målsætning om, at parterne er forpligtet til at bestræbe sig på at opnå en gradvis liberalisering af handelen med landbrugsprodukter. Forslaget fra den norske regering om at omlægge fra specifik told til værditold strider mod ånden i denne artikel. Kommissionen har understreget, at den er stærkt imod ændringen, og vil, i tilfælde af at ændringen vedtages, undersøge mulighederne for domstolsprøvelse.

Kommissionen blev den 18. september 2012 officielt informeret om, at den norske regering havde besluttet at foreslå en ændring af tolden i budgetforslaget.

Med hensyn til mulige sanktioner eller gengældelsesforanstaltninger, hvis den pågældende ændring vedtages, vil Kommissionen overveje alle de muligheder, der foreligger.

Kommissionen er forpligtet til at sikre, at alle EU's retsakter af relevans for EØS indføjes i EØS-aftalen, herunder det tredje postdirektiv (2008/6/EF) (97) og direktivet om indskudsgarantiordninger (2009/14/EF) (98). Kommissionen mener ikke, at de seneste forslag fra den norske regering om told på landbrugsprodukter berører de igangværende forhandlinger mellem EU og EØS/EFTA-landene (Island, Liechtenstein og Norge) med hensyn til disse to EU-retsakter af relevans for EØS. Kommissionen vil fortsætte med at presse på for at få en hurtig afslutning af forhandlingerne om disse retsakter inden for den relevante institutionelle ramme for EØS-aftalen.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009410/12

an die Kommission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE), Daniel Caspary (PPE) und Esther de Lange (PPE)

(16. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Neue norwegische Zollsätze auf bestimmte landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse

Am Montag, dem 8. Oktober 2012, legte die norwegische Regierung einen Entwurf des Staatshaushaltsplans für das Jahr 2013 vor. Laut einem der Vorschläge im Haushaltsentwurf sollen bei sechs Zolltariflinien, u. a. Beefsteaks und Rinderfilets, Tierkörper von Lämmern und Hartkäse, spezifische Zollsätze durch Wertzollsätze ersetzt werden. Diese Änderungen sollen am 1. Januar 2013 in Kraft treten und werden zu einem Anstieg der Zollsätze auf bestimmte landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse aus der EU führen.

Die neuen vorgeschlagenen Wertzollsätze auf Beefsteaks und Rinderfilets liegen bei 344 %, auf ganze oder halbe Tierkörper von Lämmern (frisch, gekühlt oder gefroren) bei 429 % und auf bestimmte Hartkäsesorten bei 277 %. Bei 14 ausgewählten Käsesorten wird der gegenwärtige Zollsatz von NOK 27,15/kg beibehalten (Appenzeller, Beaufort, Comté, Gamle Ole, Grana Padano, Gruyère, Le Vieux Pané, Morbier, Munster, Parmiggiano Reggiano, Queso Manchego, Pecorino, Saint Albray, Västerbotten)  (99).

Sind die vorgeschlagenen Änderungen bei der Berechnung der Zollsätze mit Artikel 19 des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum vereinbar?

Wurde die Kommission vor der Veröffentlichung dieses Entwurfs darüber in Kenntnis gesetzt oder hat die norwegische Regierung einseitig entschieden, die vorgeschlagenen Änderungen durchzuführen?

Ist die Kommission bereit, mögliche Sanktionen oder Vergeltungsmaßnahmen in Betracht zu ziehen?

Wird der Entwurf der norwegischen Regierung gegenwärtige Verhandlungen zwischen Norwegen und der EU über die Umsetzung und Durchführung der Richtlinie über Postdienste und des Bankeinlagensicherungssystems beeinflussen?

Antwort von Herrn Cioloş im Namen der Kommission

(10. Dezember 2012)

Laut dem von der Frau und den Herren Abgeordneten angesprochenen Artikel 19 des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR) verpflichten sich die Vertragsparteien auf das gemeinsame Ziel, ihre Bemühungen um eine schrittweise Liberalisierung des Agrarhandels fortzusetzen. Der Vorschlag der norwegischen Regierung, spezifische Zollsätze durch Wertzollsätze zu ersetzen, widerspricht dem Geist dieses Artikels. Die Kommission hat darauf hingewiesen, dass sie diese Änderung entschieden ablehnt und prüfen wird, welche rechtlichen Möglichkeiten bestehen, wenn der Vorschlag angenommen wird.

Die Kommission wurde am 18. September 2012 offiziell darüber informiert, dass die norwegische Regierung in ihrem Staatshaushaltsplan die Umstellung der Zollsätze vorgeschlagen hat.

Wird die betreffende Änderung erlassen, so wird die Kommission alle Möglichkeiten von Sanktionen oder Vergeltungsmaßnahmen prüfen.

Die Kommission ist bemüht, alle EU-Rechtsakte, die für den EWR von Bedeutung sind, in das EWR-Abkommen einzubeziehen, so u. a. auch die dritte Postrichtlinie (2008/06/EG)  (100) und die Richtlinie über Einlagensicherungssysteme (2009/14/EG)  (101). Die jüngsten Vorschläge der norwegischen Regierung über Zölle auf landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse haben nach Auffassung der Kommission keine Auswirkungen auf die laufenden Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und den EWR/EFTA-Ländern (Island, Liechtenstein und Norwegen) über diese beiden EWR-relevanten EU-Rechtsakte. Die Kommission wird weiterhin darauf hinwirken, dass die Verhandlungen über diese Richtlinien innerhalb der geeigneten EWR-Organe zügig zum Abschluss gebracht werden.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009410/12

aan de Commissie

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE), Daniel Caspary (PPE) en Esther de Lange (PPE)

(16 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Nieuwe Noorse douanerechten op landbouwproducten

Op maandag 8 oktober 2012 heeft de Noorse regering haar voorstellen voor de nationale begroting van 2013 gepresenteerd. Een van de begrotingsvoorstellen betreft een overgang van specifieke douanerechten naar ad valorem rechten voor zes tarieflijnen, waaronder die voor rundersteaks en ‐filets, geslachte lammeren en harde kazen. Deze wijzigingen worden op 1 januari 2013 van kracht, hetgeen in feite betekent dat de douanerechten voor bepaalde landbouwproducten uit de EU omhoog gaan.

De nieuwe voorgestelde ad valorem rechten bedragen 344 % voor rundersteaks‐ en filets, 429 % voor hele en halve geslachte lammeren (vers, gekoeld en ingevroren), en 277 % voor bepaalde harde kazen. Voor veertien specifieke kazen blijft het huidige recht van 27,15 NOK/kg gelden (Appenzeller, Beaufort, Comté, Gamle Ole, Grana Padano, Gruyère, Le Vieux Panè, Morbier, Munster, Parmiggiano Reggiano, Queso Manchego, Pecorino, Saint Albray, Västerbotten) (102).

Kan de Commissie bijgevolg antwoord geven op de volgende vragen:

Zijn de voorgestelde wijzigingen ten aanzien van de berekening van de douanerechten in overeenstemming met artikel 19 van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte?

Is de Commissie voorafgaand aan de publicatie ervan in kennis gesteld van deze voorstellen of heeft de Noorse regering unilateraal besloten de voorgestelde wijzigingen door te voeren?

Is de Commissie bereid eventuele sancties of vergeldingsmaatregelen te overwegen?

Zijn de voorstellen van de Noorse regering van invloed op de lopende onderhandelingen tussen Noorwegen en de EU over de omzetting en tenuitvoerlegging van de richtlijn inzake postdiensten en de bankdepositogarantieregeling?

Antwoord van de heer Cioloş namens de Commissie

(10 december 2012)

In artikel 19 van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte (EER), waarnaar de geachte Parlementsleden verwijzen, is als gezamenlijke doelstelling bepaald dat de partijen hun inspanningen moeten voortzetten om te komen tot een geleidelijke liberalisering van de handel in landbouwproducten. Het voorstel van de Noorse regering om van specifieke douanerechten naar ad-valoremrechten over te schakelen is in strijd met de geest van dit artikel. De Commissie heeft benadrukt dat zij sterk gekant is tegen die wijziging en dat, als die wordt goedgekeurd, zij zal onderzoeken welke juridische stappen kunnen worden ondernomen.

De Commissie werd op 18 september 2012 officieel ervan op de hoogte gebracht dat de Noorse regering had besloten een wijziging van de rechten in het begrotingsvoorstel voor te stellen.

Wat mogelijke sancties of vergeldingsmaatregelen betreft, zal de Commissie, als de betrokken wijziging wordt goedgekeurd, alle mogelijke opties in overweging nemen.

De Commissie heeft zich ertoe verbonden ervoor te zorgen dat alle EU-handelingen die voor de EER relevant zijn, in de EER-overeenkomst worden opgenomen, waaronder ook de derde postrichtlijn (2008/06/EG) (103) en de richtlijn inzake de depositogarantiestelsels (2009/14/EG) (104). De Commissie is niet van oordeel dat de recente voorstellen van de Noorse regering betreffende de douanerechten voor landbouwproducten van invloed zijn op de onderhandelingen die momenteel tussen de EU en de EER/EVA-landen (IJsland, Liechtenstein en Noorwegen) worden gevoerd met betrekking tot deze twee, voor de EER relevante EU-handelingen. De Commissie zal in het passende institutionele kader van de EER blijven aandringen op een snelle afronding van de onderhandelingen over deze handelingen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009410/12

to the Commission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE), Daniel Caspary (PPE) and Esther de Lange (PPE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: New Norwegian duties on selected agricultural products

On Monday, 8 October 2012, the Norwegian Government presented its proposals for the National Budget for 2013. One of the budget proposals concerns a change from specific duties to ad valorem duties for six tariff lines comprising beef steaks and fillets, lamb carcasses, and hard cheeses. These changes will take effect from 1 January 2013, effectively increasing the duties on selected agricultural products from the EU.

The new proposed ad valorem duties are 344% on beef steaks and fillets; 429% on carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb (fresh, chilled, and frozen); and 277% on selected hard cheeses. 14 selected cheeses retain the current NOK 27.15/kg duty (Appenzeller, Beaufort, Comté, Gamle Ole, Grana Padano, Gruyère, Le Vieux Panè, Morbier, Munster, Parmiggiano Reggiano, Queso Manchego, Pecorino, Saint Albray, Västerbotten) (105).

Are the proposed changes to the calculation of custom duties compatible with Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area?

Was the Commission informed of these proposals prior to their publication, or has the Norwegian Government unilaterally decided to make the proposed changes?

Is the Commission willing to consider possible sanctions or retaliation measures?

Will the Norwegian Government’s proposals affect ongoing negotiations between Norway and the EU on the transposition and implementation of the Postal Services Directive and the Bank Deposit Guarantee Scheme?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2012)

Article 19 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement highlighted by the Honourable Members stipulates a common objective to continue the efforts of the parties with a view to achieving progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade. The proposal by the Norwegian government to change from specific to ad valorem duties is contrary to the spirit of this Article. The Commission has underlined its strong opposition to the change and, if it is adopted, the Commission will explore the available possibilities of legal action.

The Commission was officially informed on 18 September 2012 that the Norwegian Government had decided to propose the change of duties in the budget proposal.

Regarding possible sanctions or retaliation measures, if the change in question is adopted the Commission will consider all available options.

The Commission is committed to ensuring the incorporation of all EU acts of EEA-relevance into the EEA Agreement, including the Third Postal Directive (2008/06/EC) (106) and the directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes (2009/14/EC) (107). The Commission does not consider that the latest proposals by the Norwegian Government concerning customs duties on agricultural products affect the ongoing negotiations between the EU and the EEA EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) with regard to these two EU acts of EEA relevance. The Commission will continue to press for a rapid conclusion of the negotiations on these acts within the appropriate EEA institutional framework.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009411/12

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(16 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Problema amianto in Italia

La questione amianto in Italia, nonostante la messa al bando ormai ventennale e gli interventi legislativi, pur se tardivi, di adeguamento alla normativa europea, è estremamente attuale. Oltre ai numerosi processi in corso (uno su tutti, quello che si tiene a Torino che riguarda ben 2 191 morti), vi sono i dati dell'Istituto superiore della Sanità, che indicano che tra il 2015 e il 2020 vi sarà il picco di morti per amianto in Italia. L'Osservatorio Nazionale Amianto ha di recente affermato che vi sono oltre 2 400 scuole con presenza di amianto. Analoga denuncia ha riguardato la questione della presenza dell'amianto in caserme della Guardia di Finanza (ad esempio la «Cefalonia Corfù» a Roma). Questo quadro, che solo per ragioni di sintesi non può essere delineato nel dettaglio, lascia emergere una situazione italiana in cui non esiste un vero e proprio piano di intervento per la mappatura e la bonifica ambientale e sanitaria del territorio, e la questione della sorveglianza sanitaria degli esposti ed ex esposti nonché l'assistenza, il sostegno e il riconoscimento dei benefici alle vittime non risultano all'altezza della profondità e della dimensione di tale problematica.

Alla luce di quanto sopra esposto, si chiede pertanto alla Commissione:

Qual è il seguito dato alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione E-009222/2010 (108) rispetto alla verifica dell'esistenza di difformità tra le varie Regioni italiane rispetto alla creazione del registro di esposizione all'amianto e ai controlli sanitari sui lavoratori (esposti ed ex-esposti)?

Qual è il seguito della sua risposta a una serie di interrogazioni presentate nel 2010 (tra cui P-010446/2010 (109), E-8199/10, E-8313/10, E-8309/10 (110)) relativamente alle possibili iniziative legislative in ambito europeo sulla tutela dei lavoratori esposti ad amianto e sul riconoscimento dello status di vittime del dovere e dei connessi benefici?

Quali interventi intende realizzare la Commissione — tra i quali si suggerisce l'invio di un'approfondita richiesta di informazioni alle autorità italiane — in corrispondenza di una serie di denunce documentate (si veda il sopracitato caso della Caserma della Guardia di Finanza «Cefalonia Corfù» di Roma, ovvero altri già segnalati nelle interrogazioni E-004035/2012 (111) e E-002891/2012 (112)), per verificare lo stato di attuazione in tutta Italia della normativa europea?

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(13 dicembre 2012)

1.

La Commissione sta raccogliendo e analizzando tutte le informazioni relative alla questione sollevata dall'onorevole deputata al fine di accertare la situazione nelle diverse regioni d'Italia e prendere, se del caso, le misure appropriate.

2.

La Commissione ha appena ricevuto la relazione finale relativa allo studio sulle malattie professionali in Europa cui si accennava nella risposta all'interrogazione E-8199/10

2.

La Commissione ha appena ricevuto la relazione finale relativa allo studio sulle malattie professionali in Europa cui si accennava nella risposta all'interrogazione E-8199/10

 (113). La relazione verrà caricata quanto prima sul sito web. Assieme ai risultati di una conferenza sulle malattie professionali che la Commissione organizzerà nel 2013, gli esiti dello studio serviranno a determinare la migliore linea d'azione per quanto concerne il riconoscimento delle malattie professionali in generale e, se del caso, di quelle provocate dall'esposizione all'amianto. In linea con le disposizioni delle direttiva Amianto 2009/148/CE, in particolare dell'articolo 14, punto 3, la Commissione ha sviluppato linee guida pratiche per la formazione dei lavoratori adibiti alla rimozione dell'amianto (114). Il comitato degli alti responsabili dell'Ispettorato del lavoro ha anch'esso pubblicato una guida pratica sulle prassi ottimali per prevenire o minimizzare i rischi legati all'amianto durante i lavori che comportano (o possono comportare) la manipolazione di amianto: la guida è rivolta ai datori di lavoro, ai lavoratori e agli ispettori del lavoro. Questa e altre guide affini sono reperibili sul sito web dell'OSHA (115).

In seguito alla pubblicazione delle linee guida per la formazione dei lavoratori adibiti alla rimozione dell'amianto, per l'anno prossimo è prevista una riunione con rappresentanti degli Stati membri.

3.

La Commissione desidera rammentare all'onorevole deputata la propria risposta all'interrogazione E-2891/12

3.

La Commissione desidera rammentare all'onorevole deputata la propria risposta all'interrogazione E-2891/12

 (116) che concerne anch'essa tale tematica.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009411/12

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(16 October 2012)

Subject: Asbestos problem in Italy

The issue of asbestos in Italy, despite the ban dating back twenty years and the (albeit belated) legislative measures taken to comply with EU legislation, is still a matter of extreme current concern. In addition to the numerous court proceedings under way (for example, the trial currently being held in Turin concerning as many as 2 191 deaths), data from the Istituto Superiore della Sanità (National Health Institute) indicate that between 2015 and 2020 deaths from asbestos in Italy will reach their peak. The National Asbestos Monitoring Centre has recently stated that there are more than 2 400 schools that contain asbestos. A similar complaint has been made in relation to the presence of asbestos in the barracks of the Guardia di Finanza financial police (e.g. in the ‘Cefalonia Corfu’ barracks in Rome). This issue, which it is impossible to look at in detail here, suggests that in Italy there is no real action plan for the mapping of the asbestos problem and the environmental remediation and cleanup of the land. Moreover, the health monitoring of people who have been exposed and those who used to be exposed to asbestos, not to mention the assistance, support and granting of benefits to victims, are inadequate in relation to the major impact and extent of this problem.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

What action has been taken further to the answer given to Written Question E-009222/2010 (117), with a view to determining whether there are indeed differences between the Italian regions with regard to the establishment of a register of exposure to asbestos and health checks on workers and former workers exposed to asbestos?

What action has been taken in the wake of the Commission's answer to a series of written questions submitted in 2010 (including P-010446/2010 (118), E-8199/10, E-8313/10, E-8309/10 (119)) regarding possible EU legislative initiatives on the protection of workers who have been exposed to asbestos and on the recognition of the status of victims of duty and related benefits?

What action does the Commission intend to take (it is suggested, inter alia, that a detailed request for information be sent to the Italian authorities), in response to a series of official complaints (see the abovementioned case of the Guardia di Finanza ‘Cefalonia Corfu’ barracks in Rome, and others already reported in Questions E-004035/2012 (120) and E-002891/2012 (121)), to check the state of implementation of EU legislation throughout Italy?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

1.

The Commission is in the process of gathering and analysing all the information concerning the issue put forward by the Honourable Member with a view to determine the situation in the different Regions of Italy and take if necessary the appropriate measures.

2.

The Commission has just received the final report on the study on Occupational Diseases in Europe alluded to in reply to E-8199/10

2.

The Commission has just received the final report on the study on Occupational Diseases in Europe alluded to in reply to E-8199/10

 (122). The report will be put in its website soon. Together with the outcome of an occupational diseases conference to be organised by the Commission in 2013, the respective results will inform on the best way to proceed as regards recognition of occupational diseases in general, and if appropriate on those caused by exposure to asbestos. In line with the provisions of the Asbestos Directive 2009/148/EC, in particular its Article 14, point 3, Practical guidelines for the training of asbestos removal workers were developed by the Commission (123). The Senior Labour Inspectors Committee also issued a practical guide on best practice to prevent or minimise asbestos risks in work that involves (or may involve) asbestos: for the employer, the workers and the labour inspector. This and other similar guides are available in the OSHA website (124).

Following the publication of the guidelines for the training of asbestos removal workers a meeting with Member States' representatives is foreseen for next year.

3.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the reply to Question E-2891/12

3.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the reply to Question E-2891/12

 (125) which applies also to this question.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009412/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Consistenti escavazioni di ghiaia nel greto del fiume Piave, in zona SIC e ZPS, con possibili danni all'ecosistema

Nei comuni trevigiani di Cimadolmo, Maserada sul Piave, Ormelle, Breda di Piave e Ponte di Piave, attraversati dal fiume Piave, in corrispondenza di un'area golenale lunga circa 15 chilometri in zona pianeggiante, dove ricadono un SIC (126) e una ZPS (127), nell'anno 2011 hanno avuto inizio significativi lavori per la disostruzione dell'alveo del fiume, con creazione di diverse piste di accesso per camion. Tale intervento veniva considerato necessario e urgente dalla Regione Veneto a seguito di una piena del novembre 2010, quando furono registrati 1700 metri cubi d'acqua al secondo. In considerazione delle presunte esigenze di sicurezza, il Genio Civile di Treviso (128) ha ritenuto di non dover eseguire la V.I.A. (129), effettuando però quattro V.INC.A. (130) conclusesi con la valutazione dell'assenza di conseguenze negative per l'area.

Tuttavia, è ragionevole ritenere che non sussistesse alcuna urgenza legata alla pubblica sicurezza, come dimostra l'effettiva data di inizio dei lavori (febbraio 2011) a oggi non ancora ultimati; l'incolumità pubblica, invece, potrebbe essere messa in pericolo proprio dai lunghi canaloni creati con le escavazioni all'interno del letto del fiume, oramai privo della sua naturale conoide alluvionale, che potrebbero facilitare il crearsi di un effetto di «collo di bottiglia» nel tratto meridionale del fiume (in zona Ponte di Piave). Va sottolineato che nelle estati 2011 e 2012 si sono registrate delle anomale situazioni di secca del fiume e dei torrenti di risorgiva da esso alimentati che potrebbero essere state causate anche da questi interventi.

Nelle V.INC.A. effettuate è completamente assente un'analisi puntuale dello stato di fatto degli alvei fluviali e non vi è traccia di una relazione idraulica che dimostri che l'intervento possa mettere in sicurezza il sito; non vengono analizzate, inoltre, né le specie previste dalle direttive «Habitat» (direttiva 92/43/CEE) e «Uccelli» (direttiva 147/2009/CEE) — nonostante il sito ospiti specie prioritarie — né tantomeno la stagionalità delle presenze animali.

I prosciugamenti dei rami laterali del fiume, in particolare, hanno sicuramente interferito con la riproduzione e la sopravvivenza delle specie prioritarie dello Scazzone (Cottus gobio), della Lampreda padana (Lethenteron Zanandreai) nonché dell'Occhione (Burhinus Oedicnemus); quest'ultimo, nello specifico, nidifica proprio nelle zone di deposito alluvionale oggetto degli interventi di movimentazione e asporto (131).

Alla luce di quanto esposto, la Commissione ritiene che le direttive «V.I.A.», «Habitat», «Uccelli» e «Acque» (direttiva 2000/60/CE) siano state rispettate? E in caso contrario come intende intervenire?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(9 gennaio 2013)

Il progetto cui fa riferimento l’onorevole parlamentare rientra nel campo di applicazione dell’allegato II, paragrafo 10, lettera f), «Costruzione di vie navigabili interne non comprese nell’allegato I, opere di canalizzazione e di regolazione dei corsi d’acqua», della direttiva 2011/92/UE (132). Per i progetti di cui all’allegato II, gli Stati membri devono determinare, mediante un esame caso per caso o sulla base di soglie o criteri (procedura detta screening), se il progetto debba essere sottoposto a una VIA a causa dei suoi probabili effetti rilevanti sull’ambiente, tenendo conto dei relativi criteri di selezione riportati nell’allegato III della direttiva. Se le autorità degli Stati membri stabiliscono che il progetto può avere un impatto rilevante sull’ambiente, deve essere effettuata una VIA. Gli Stati membri devono adoperarsi affinché la valutazione ambientale effettuata dalle autorità competenti sia resa pubblica.

La Commissione non dispone di informazioni sufficienti per stabilire se le autorità italiane abbiano rispettato la direttiva VIA nel caso in esame. La Commissione si metterà in contatto con le autorità italiane per ottenere maggiori informazioni al fine di stabilire se vi sia stata una violazione della direttiva VIA, della direttiva quadro in materia di acque (133), per quanto riguarda il deterioramento dello stato delle acque dovuto a modifiche fisiche dell’alveo del fiume, o della direttiva «Habitat» (134).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009412/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Substantial excavation of gravel in the bed of the River Piave, near an SCI and SPA, with possible damage to the ecosystem

In the municipalities around Treviso that are crossed by the River Piave — Cimadolmo, Maserada sul Piave, Ormelle, Breda di Piave and Ponte di Piave — on a 15-km-long floodplain containing an SCI (135) and SPA (136), major work began in 2011 to clean up the river bed, and several access tracks for lorries were created. The Veneto Region considered this action to be necessary and urgent following a flood in November 2010, when 1 700 cubic metres of water per second were recorded. In view of these alleged safety requirements, the Genio Civile (civil engineering department) of Treviso (137) decided that it did not have to carry out an EIA (138). It did, however, carry out four assessments on the environmental implications (139), concluding that there would be no negative impact on the area.

However, it is reasonable to assume that there was no urgency related to public safety, as is shown by the actual date of commencement of the work (February 2011), which, to date, has not yet been completed. Public safety, on the contrary, could be endangered precisely by the long channels created by the excavations in the river bed, which has now been stripped of its natural alluvial fan and which could therefore cause a bottleneck effect in the southern part of the river (near Ponte di Piave). It is worth stressing that in the summers of 2011 and 2012, the river and its surrounding effluent streams dried up to an abnormal extent at times, and that this could also have been caused by the abovementioned work.

In the environmental implication assessments carried out, there was absolutely no detailed analysis of the current state of the river beds and there is no trace of any report showing that the work in question could make the site safer. Moreover, neither the species under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Directive 147/2009/EEC) nor the seasonal presence of animals in the area have been examined, despite the fact that the site is home to a number of priority species.

The draining of the lateral branches of the river, in particular, have certainly interfered with the reproduction and survival of the following priority species: the bullhead (Cottus gobio), the Po lamprey (Lethenteron zanandreai) and the stone-curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus); the latter, more specifically, nests precisely in the alluvial deposit areas which are currently undergoing excavation and earth removal (140).

In the light of the above information, does the Commission believe that the EIA, Habitats, Birds and Water (Directive 2000/60/EC) directives have been complied with? If not, what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2013)

The project referred to by the Honourable Member falls within Annex II 10(f) ‘Inland-waterways construction not included in Annex I, canalization and flood-relief works’ of the EIA Directive (141). For Annex II projects, Member States have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria (a procedure known as screening), whether the project is to be made subject to an EIA because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the directive. If Member State authorities determine that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment, an EIA has to be carried out. Member States have to ensure that the determination by the competent authorities is made available to the public.

The Commission does not have sufficient information to establish whether the Italian authorities have complied with the EIA Directive in this case. The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to obtain more information with a view to establish if there has been a breach of the EIA Directive, or the Water Framework Directive (142) as regards the deterioration of status due to the physical modification of the river bed, or of the Habitats Directive (143).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009413/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Οικονομική κάλυψη των δαπανών της Ομάδας Δράσης (Task Force)

Πριν από ένα χρόνο ξεκίνησε τις εργασίες της η Ομάδα Δράσης για την Ελλάδα (Task Force for Greece — TFGR), στηρίζοντας την ελληνική διοίκηση στον εντοπισμό και την παροχή τεχνικής βοήθειας για την διαδικασία μεταρρύθμισης της χώρας. Για την δραστηριοποίηση της Ομάδας απαιτούνται όπως είναι αναμενόμενο συγκεκριμένα κεφάλαια για τις δαπάνες και τα λειτουργικά της έξοδα (μισθοί, μεταφορές κτλ).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποιο είναι το ποσό που έχει μέχρι σήμερα χρειαστεί για την κάλυψη των παραπάνω δαπανών και ποιο αναμένεται να είναι τα επόμενα χρόνια;

Από ποιον προϋπολογισμό (ΕΕ, κράτους-μέλους) καλύπτονται τα συγκεκριμένα ποσά και ποιο είναι το ποσοστό συμμετοχής κατά περίπτωση (εάν είναι περισσότερες από μια οι πηγές χρηματοδότησης);

Απάντηση του κ. Šefčovič εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(17 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Για το 2011, το συνολικό ποσό των δαπανών λειτουργίας (ταξίδια, συνεδριάσεις, κατάρτιση, αντιπροσώπευση κ.λπ.) ανερχόταν σε 135 569 ευρώ. Το 2012 (πρώτο έτος πλήρους εφαρμογής) το ποσό αυτό αυξήθηκε σε 747 368 ευρώ και για το 2013 έχει διατεθεί εκ των προτέρων ποσό ύψους 840 138 ευρώ, στο πλαίσιο του σχεδίου προϋπολογισμού του 2013.

Οι προαναφερθείσες δαπάνες λειτουργίας χρηματοδοτήθηκαν από τον διοικητικό προϋπολογισμό της Επιτροπής.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009413/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Funding for Task Force expenses

One year ago the Task Force for Greece commenced its activities, helping the Greek administration identify necessary reforms and providing technical support for this purpose. As only to be expected, the Task Force requires funding for its outlay and operating expenses (pay, transport, etc.).

In view of this:

Can the Commission say what funding has been needed to date to cover these additional expenses and what are the estimates for the future?

From which budget (EU or Member States) are the amounts provided and, if the funding comes from more than one source, what percentage is provided by each?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2012)

For 2011, the total amount of operating expenses (travel, meetings, training, representation, etc.) was EUR 135 569. In 2012 (first full year) it increased to EUR 747 368 and for 2013 an amount of EUR 840 138 has been pre-allocated in the framework of the 2013 Draft Budget.

The above operating expenses are financed from the administrative budget of the Commission.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009414/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Φορολογικά κίνητρα για την βελτίωση της πρόσβασης των νέων στην αγορά εργασίας

Σύμφωνα με τις εθνικές εκθέσεις για την νεολαία, ορισμένα κράτη μέλη προβαίνουν σε αλλαγές στην εργασιακή τους νομοθεσία προκειμένου να παρέχουν φορολογικά κίνητρα για την βελτίωση της πρόσβασης των νέων στην αγορά εργασίας και την καταπολέμηση του απαράδεκτου επιπέδου ανεργίας στην Ευρώπη.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για συγκεκριμένες καλές πρακτικές κρατών μελών στον συγκεκριμένο τομέα; Υπήρξαν μετρήσιμα αποτελέσματα;

Στο πλαίσιο των μέτρων δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής που εφαρμόζει η Ελλάδα και, καθώς η ανεργία στις νεανικές ομάδες του πληθυσμού είναι η μεγαλύτερη στην ΕΕ, συνηγορεί η Επιτροπή στην παροχή φοροελαφρύνσεων σε πολιτικές που συμβάλουν στην αντιμετώπιση της νεανικής ανεργίας;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(13 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Η Επιτροπή επιθυμεί να διασφαλίσει ότι το φορολογικό σύστημα δεν αποτελεί φραγμό στην απασχόληση των νέων. Επομένως, ζητεί από τα κράτη μέλη να ευνοήσουν τις προσλήψεις με τη φορολογική ελάφρυνση και τη μείωση των κοινωνικών εισφορών των εργαζομένων, ιδίως εκείνων των οποίων η απασχολησιμότητα κινδυνεύει περισσότερο, π.χ. άτομα με χαμηλή ειδίκευση και νέοι. Αυτό μπορεί να γίνει με τη μείωση του μη μισθολογικού μέρους του κόστους εργασίας (π.χ. εισφορές κοινωνικής ασφάλισης ή φορολογικοί συντελεστές) επί της εργασίας, έτσι ώστε να γίνουν οι προσλήψεις φθηνότερες και να μειωθεί η φορολογική επιβάρυνση. Οι επιδοτήσεις για τις προσλήψεις μπορούν επίσης να βοηθήσουν, αλλά θα πρέπει να συνδυαστούν με άλλα μέτρα υποστήριξης, έτσι ώστε να μεγιστοποιηθεί ο αντίκτυπός τους και να βελτιστοποιηθεί η σχέση κόστους-αποτελεσματικότητας.

Στην περίπτωση της Ελλάδας, το πρόγραμμα χρηματοδοτικής ενίσχυσης ΕΕ/ΔΝΤ προβλέπει τη μείωση των συντελεστών των κοινωνικών εισφορών για να εξασφαλιστούν μεγαλύτερα περιθώρια για τη δημιουργία θέσεων απασχόλησης. Ειδικότερα, μια μεταρρύθμιση για τη μείωση των συντελεστών των κοινωνικών εισφορών θα προετοιμαστεί το 2013. Αυτό θα συμβάλλει στη μείωση του μη μισθολογικού κόστους της εργασίας, καθώς και στη μείωση των στρεβλωτικών συνεπειών της φορολογίας, αυξάνοντας έτσι τα κίνητρα για την απασχόληση. Η μεταρρύθμιση αναμένεται να επιτρέψει μια ουδέτερη από άποψη εσόδων σταδιακή μείωση των συντελεστών των κοινωνικών εισφορών κατά την περίοδο εκτέλεσης του προγράμματος, με την απλούστευση και την εναρμόνιση των συντελεστών στα διάφορα ταμεία που υφίστανται σήμερα και, ταυτόχρονα, με τη διεύρυνση των βάσεων για τις εισφορές. Οι λεπτομέρειες και το ακριβές χρονοδιάγραμμα της εν λόγω μεταρρύθμισης πρέπει ακόμη να αποφασιστούν, αλλά συνολικά οι συντελεστές των κοινωνικών εισφορών αναμένεται να μειωθούν κατά 5 εκατοστιαίες μονάδες σε σύγκριση με τα μέσα του 2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009414/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Tax incentives to improve young people's access to the labour market

According to the national reports on youth, some Member States are make changes in their employment legislation so as to provide tax incentives to improve young people's access to the labour market and combat the unacceptable level of unemployment in Europe.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Can it provide information about specific best practices of Member States in this area? Have there been any measurable results?

In the context of the fiscal consolidation measures being implemented by Greece, since youth unemployment is the highest in the EU, is the Commission in favour of providing tax relief as part of policies that help address youth unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

The Commission wishes to ensure that the tax system does not function as a barrier to youth employment. It is therefore asking Member States to stimulate recruitment by shifting taxes and social contributions away from labour, especially for those whose employability is more at risk, e.g. low-skilled individuals and young people. This can be done by reducing non-wage labour costs (e.g. social security contribution or tax rates) on labour which makes hiring cheaper and reduces the ‘tax wedge’. Hiring subsidies can also encourage recruitment, but they should be combined with other support measures to maximise impact and cost effectiveness.

In the case of Greece, the EU/IMF financial assistance programme calls for a reduction of social contribution rates to create more room for job creation. In particular, a reform to reduce social contribution rates will be prepared in 2013. That will help in reducing non-wage labour costs, also by making taxation less distortive, thereby increasing incentives for employment. The reform is expected to allow for a revenue-neutral gradual reduction in social contribution rates over the programme period by simplifying and harmonising the rates across the various funds now in place, while at the same time broadening the bases for contributions. Details and exact phasing in of this reform are still to be decided but in total contribution rates are expected to decline by 5 percentage points compared with their mid-2012 levels.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009415/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αντίκτυπος της στρατηγικής της ΕΕ για την νεολαία

Σε ανακοίνωσή της, στις 10.9.2012 (COM(2012)0495), η Επιτροπή σημειώνει ότι όλα σχεδόν τα κράτη μέλη έχουν αναφέρει ότι η στρατηγική της ΕΕ για την νεολαία έχει ενισχύσει τις υπάρχουσες προτεραιότητες σε εθνικό επίπεδο ενώ αρκετά κράτη μέλη υπογραμμίζουν ότι είχε άμεσο αντίκτυπο (Λιθουανία, Αυστρία).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για την περίπτωση της Ελλάδας;

Μπορεί να παραθέσει συγκεκριμένες καλές πρακτικές που εφάρμοσαν κράτη μέλη με επιτυχημένα αποτελέσματα στον τομέα αυτό;

Απάντηση της κ. Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(14 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Σύμφωνα με την έκθεση της Ελλάδας για τη νεολαία, η οποία υποβλήθηκε στην Επιτροπή ώστε να συμπεριληφθεί στην έκθεση της ΕΕ για την νεολαία 2012, είναι σαφές ότι η στρατηγική της ΕΕ για τη νεολαία έχει ενισχύσει τις τρεις βασικές προτεραιότητες της Γενικής Γραμματείας Νέας Γενιάς στην Ελλάδα.

Η πρώτη προτεραιότητα αφορά την ανεργία και τις εργασιακές σχέσεις. Η Ελλάδα σχεδίασε την «Κάρτα Σταδιοδρομίας», ώστε να βοηθήσει τους νέους να καταστούν περισσότερο απασχολήσιμοι μέσω της περαιτέρω κατάρτισης. Οι διασυνοριακές ευκαιρίες προωθούνται μέσω της εξ αποστάσεως εκπαίδευσης, η οποία έχει ως επίκεντρο τους νέους που ζουν σε απομακρυσμένες περιοχές. Επιπλέον, μία ακόμη πρωτοβουλία αναπτύσσει συγκεκριμένες δεξιότητες για τους ανέργους νέους στον τομέα της αειφόρου οικονομικής ανάπτυξης.

Το πεδίο της δεύτερης προτεραιότητας σχετίζεται με την κοινωνική ένταξη, τα δικαιώματα των νέων και τη συμμετοχή. Η Ελλάδα εστιάζει το ενδιαφέρον της στην εργασία των νέων και τα κέντρα νεότητας για την καταπολέμηση του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού. Επιπλέον, δημιούργησε ειδικά προγράμματα στα σχολεία με σκοπό να αποτραπεί η πρόωρη εγκατάλειψή του. Όσον αφορά την προώθηση της συμμετοχής, η Γενική Γραμματεία Νέας Γενιάς χρησιμοποιεί διάφορα μέσα. Μερικά από αυτά είναι ο διαρθρωμένος διάλογος με τη νεολαία, καθώς και η σύσταση μιας διαδικτυακής πύλης (OPENGOV).

Το περιβάλλον, η κλιματική αλλαγή και η πράσινη ανάπτυξη συνιστούν τα θέματα της τρίτης προτεραιότητας. Η Ελλάδα διατίθεται να ευαισθητοποιήσει τους νέους και να τους ενθαρρύνει να συμμετάσχουν στον οικολογικό εθελοντισμό.

Επιπλέον, η πολιτική της Γενικής Γραμματείας Νέας Γενιάς βασίζεται στη φιλοσοφία της αλληλεγγύης μεταξύ των γενεών υιοθετώντας μια διατομεακή προσέγγιση.

Περισσότερα παραδείγματα ορθών πρακτικών στην Ελλάδα και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη παρατίθενται στην έκθεση της Επιτροπής «Τα αποτελέσματα του πρώτου κύκλου της ΑΜΣ στον τομέα της νεολαίας (2010-2012)» (144), καθώς και στις εκθέσεις των κρατών μελών για τη νεολαία που διατίθενται στο διαδίκτυο (145).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009415/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Impact of EU youth strategy

According to Commission Communication COM(2012)0495 of 10 September 2012, nearly all Member States report that the EU youth strategy has reinforced existing priorities at national level, with several Member States (Lithuania, Austria) emphasising its direct impact.

In view of this:

Can the Commission outline the situation with regard to Greece?

Can it quote specific examples of good practice by Member States which have produced successful results in this area?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2012)

According to the National Youth Report of Greece, submitted to the Commission as an input to the EU Youth Report 2012, the EU Youth Strategy has reinforced the three main priorities of the General Secretariat for Youth in Greece.

The first priority concerns unemployment and labour relationships. Greece designed a ‘Career Card’ to help young people become more employable through additional training. Cross-border opportunities are promoted through distance-learning targeting young people in remote areas. Yet another initiative develops specific skills for young unemployed in sustainable economic development.

The second priority area addresses social inclusion, youth rights and participation. Greece focuses on youth work and youth centres in combating social exclusion. It has also developed specific programmes in schools to prevent early school leaving. To promote participation, the General Secretariat for Youth uses different channels. One is the Structured Dialogue with youth, another is the establishment of an online portal (OPENGOV).

Environment, climate change and green development are the topics of the third priority.

Greece intends to raise the awareness of young people and to encourage them to participate in green volunteering.

In addition, the General Secretariat for Youth policy is based on the philosophy of intergenerational solidarity and has embraced a cross-sectoral approach.

Further examples of good practice in Greece and other Member States are cited in the Commission's report on ‘Results of the first cycle of the OMC in the youth field (2010-2012)’ (146) as well as the National Youth Reports posted online (147).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009416/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αριθμός Σύρων Προσφύγων στην Τουρκία και ετοιμότητα της ΕΕ

Την Δευτέρα 15.10.2012, ο τούρκος υπουργός Ευρωπαϊκών Υποθέσεων, Εγκεμέν Μπαγίς, κάλεσε, σε συνέντευξή του σε γερμανική εφημερίδα, την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να βοηθήσει την Τουρκία για την διαχείριση του μεγάλου αριθμού προσφύγων από την Συρία. Μάλιστα, την ίδια μέρα η τουρκική υπηρεσία διαχείρισης καταστροφών (AFAD) ανέφερε ότι ο αριθμός των Σύρων που έχουν βρει καταφύγιο στην Τουρκία από τον εμφύλιο έχει ξεπεράσει τις 100 000 — επίπεδο το οποίο η Άγκυρα είχε αναφέρει προ εβδομάδων ως όριο για τους πρόσφυγες που μπορούσε να δεχθεί στους καταυλισμούς που έχει δημιουργήσει.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει υποβληθεί επίσημο αίτημα της Τουρκίας προς την Επιτροπή για την διαχείριση του κύματος προσφύγων από την Συρία;

Καθώς η Τουρκία επιζητεί μεταφορά προσφύγων σε κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ, η Επιτροπή προκρίνει την συγκεκριμένη πρόταση ή εκτιμά ως αποτελεσματικότερη την στήριξη των τουρκικών αρχών για την φιλοξενία των προσφύγων;

Έχει καταστρωθεί σχέδιο έκτακτης ανάγκης σε περίπτωση που η Τουρκία δηλώσει αδυναμία φιλοξενίας περισσότερων προσφύγων προωθώντας αριθμό αυτών στα σύνορα της με την ΕΕ;

Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Μέχρι τώρα, η Τουρκία δεν έχει υποβάλει στην Επιτροπή επίσημο αίτημα για τη διαχείριση της εισροής Σύρων προσφύγων. Ωστόσο, η Τουρκία απηύθυνε επίσημη έκκληση στη διεθνή κοινότητα χορηγών για την παροχή μιας τέτοιας βοήθειας.

Αυτή τη στιγμή, η ΕΕ παρέχει στήριξη στην Τουρκία για την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος των Σύρων προσφύγων με την παροχή επείγουσας ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας και — σύντομα — με το Μέσο Σταθερότητας (ΜΣ), μετά την πρόσφατη έκδοση απόφασης νέας χρηματοδότησης του ΜΣ για την παροχή στήριξης στην Τουρκία και σε άλλες χώρες της περιοχής που επηρεάζονται από την κρίση στη Συρία. Εξετάζεται επίσης η χρήση του Μηχανισμού Προενταξιακής Βοήθειας. Επιπλέον, εστάλη εμπειρογνώμονας της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σε ανθρωπιστικά θέματα για την παρακολούθηση της κατάστασης επιτόπου και την αναζήτηση λύσεων για περαιτέρω ανθρωπιστική συνεργασία/βοήθεια μέσω των εταίρων της Επιτροπής σε ανθρωπιστικά θέματα, ιδίως μέσω οργανισμών των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και του κινήματος του Ερυθρού Σταυρού/Ερυθράς Ημισελήνου.

Παράλληλα, ανταποκρινόμενη σε έκκληση της UNHCR (148), η Επιτροπή ενθαρρύνει τα κράτη μέλη να επιδείξουν αλληλεγγύη προς τα όμορα της Συρίας κράτη, περιλαμβανομένης της Τουρκίας, προσφέροντας επανεγκατάσταση σε ορισμένες κατηγορίες προσφύγων που εκτοπίσθηκαν λόγω της σύγκρουσης, ιδίως των ευάλωτων προσώπων ή εκείνων που έχουν ήδη μέλη της οικογένειάς τους στην ΕΕ. Προς το παρόν, η UNHCR δεν απηύθυνε έκκληση για επανεγκατάσταση μεγάλης κλίμακας, δεδομένης της αβεβαιότητας για το κατά πόσον η κατάσταση θα εξελιχθεί σε παρατεταμένη προσφυγική κατάσταση.

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή είναι πρόθυμη να παράσχει ή να συντονίσει οικονομική βοήθεια και βοήθεια σε εμπειρογνωσία μέσω της ΕΥΥΑ (149) εάν μεγάλη εισροή εκτοπισθέντων στην Ένωση δημιουργήσει ιδιαίτερη πίεση στο σύστημα ασύλου οποιουδήποτε κράτους μέλους.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009416/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Number of Syrian refugees in Turkey and EU readiness to act

On Monday 15 October 2012, Egemen Bağış , Turkish Minister for European Affairs called in an interview with a German newspaper for EU assistance in coping with the massive influx of refugees from Syria. On the same day, the Turkish Disaster Management Authority (AFAD) indicated that the number of Syrians fleeing civil strife and seeking shelter in Turkey had exceeded 100 000, this being, as Ankara announced weeks ago, the maximum number of refugees which can be accommodated in the camps set up for this purpose.

In view of this:

Has Turkey made a formal request to the Commission for assistance in dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria?

Would the Commission be prepared to countenance moves by Turkey to channel refugees towards EU Member States or does it consider that it would be more effective to provide assistance to the Turkish authorities in continuing to accommodate the refugees?

Has a contingency plan been drawn up to cover the eventuality of Turkey declaring itself unable to accommodate any more refugees and channelling them towards its border with the EU?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2013)

So far, Turkey has not submitted a formal request to the Commission for assistance in dealing with the influx of the Syrian refugees. However, Turkey has officially called upon the international donor community to provide such aid.

The EU is currently providing support to Turkey to cope with the Syrian refugees through emergency humanitarian assistance and — soon — through the Instrument for Stability (IfS), following the recent adoption of a new IfS Financing Decision to provide support in Turkey and other countries in the region affected by the Syrian crisis. The use of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance is also being considered. In addition, a European Commission humanitarian expert has been deployed in Turkey to monitor the situation on site and explore options for further humanitarian cooperation/assistance through the Commission's humanitarian partners, notably agencies of the United Nations and the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement.

In parallel, in response to a call by UNHCR (150), the Commission encourages Member States to show solidarity with the countries bordering Syria, including Turkey, by offering to resettle certain specific categories of refugees displaced by the conflict, in particular those who are vulnerable or who have family members already in the EU. For the time being, UNHCR has not called for large-scale resettlement, given the uncertainty as to whether this will develop into a protracted refugee situation.

In addition, the Commission stands ready to provide or coordinate financial assistance and expert support from the EASO (151) if a large influx of displaced persons into the Union were to place particular pressure on the asylum system of any Member States.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009417/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αποτελεσματικότητα της πολιτικής της ΕΕ για τα ανοιχτά στο κοινό δεδομένα της Ένωσης και η περίπτωση των κρατών μελών

Σε συνέντευξη τύπου πριν από ένα χρόνο (20.10.2011), η Επίτροπος Ν. Κρους δήλωσε ένθερμη υποστηρίκτρια στο πλήρες άνοιγμα των εγγράφων και των δεδομένων της ΕΕ στους πολίτες. Μάλιστα η Επίτροπος δήλωσε πως το 2013 θα τεθεί σε εφαρμογή μία πανευρωπαϊκή Πύλη Ανοικτών Δεδομένων. Σε οικονομικό επίπεδο, η ίδια η Επιτροπή σημειώνει στη στρατηγική της για ανοικτά δεδομένα ότι μια τέτοια πολιτική μπορεί να αποφέρει έως και 140 δις ευρώ λόγω εξοικονόμησης χρημάτων από την λιγότερη γραφειοκρατία αλλά και χάρη στην διευκόλυνση των επενδύσεων.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Διαθέτει συγκριτικά στοιχεία μεταξύ των κρατών μελών σχετικά με τον βαθμό ανοίγματος των δημοσίων εγγράφων και των δεδομένων στους πολίτες; Ελέγχει τις πολιτικές των κρατών μελών στον συγκεκριμένο τομέα; Ποια είναι η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας;

Στην περίπτωση της Ελλάδας, ποιο είναι το ύψος των κοινοτικών πόρων που καλείται να αξιοποιήσει η χώρα γι’ αυτόν τον σκοπό και ποιο το ποσοστό απορρόφησης μέχρι σήμερα;

Διαθέτει και μπορεί να παραθέσει καλές πρακτικές και παραδείγματα από κράτη μέλη που αποδεικνύουν πως η συγκεκριμένη πολιτική οδήγησε σε αύξηση των επενδύσεων, της καινοτομίας και της επιχειρηματικότητας;

Απάντηση της κ. Kroes εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(28 Νοεμβρίου 2012)

Η νομοθεσία και οι συναφείς πρακτικές που ακολουθούνται από τα κράτη μέλη ως προς την περαιτέρω χρήση των πηγών πληροφόρησης τις οποίες διαθέτουν και η σχετική με τη χρήση αυτή νομοθεσία παρουσιάζουν σημαντικές διαφορές. Με την οδηγία 2003/98/ΕΚ σχετικά με την περαιτέρω χρήση πληροφοριών του δημόσιου τομέα (ΠΔΤ), η οποία ενσωματώθηκε στο ελληνικό δίκαιο με τον νόμο 3448/2006 (όπως τροποποιήθηκε το 2007), επιτεύχθηκε εναρμόνιση έως έναν βαθμό. Η οδηγία βασίζεται σε εθνικούς κανόνες για την πρόσβαση σε πληροφορίες και επικεντρώνεται στα προσκόμματα για την περαιτέρω χρήση πληροφοριών. Δεδομένου ότι εξακολουθούν να υφίστανται σημαντικές διαφορές μεταξύ κρατών μελών όσον αφορά τις συνθήκες της περαιτέρω χρήσης πληροφοριών, η Επιτροπή πρότεινε, τον Δεκέμβριο του 2011, αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας. Στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο, οι σχετικές συζητήσεις συνεχίζονται (152).

Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με την κατάσταση στα επιμέρους κράτη μέλη ανατρέξτε επίσης στη χρηματοδοτούμενη από την Επιτροπή ιστοσελίδα: http://epsiplatform.eu

Η εφαρμογή της στρατηγικής ανοικτών δεδομένων στη δημόσια διοίκηση έχει τη δυνατότητα να οδηγήσει σε σημαντική εξοικονόμηση πόρων, τονώνοντας ταυτόχρονα την οικονομική δραστηριότητα. Η Επιτροπή ενθαρρύνει μεν την αξιοποίηση των κατάλληλων κοινοτικών προγραμμάτων χρηματοδότησης προκειμένου να εφαρμοστούν οι πρακτικές ανοιχτών δεδομένων, ωστόσο η χρήση των εν λόγω πόρων δεν είναι υποχρεωτική.

Στην εκτίμηση του αντίκτυπου (153), η οποία συνοδεύει την πρόταση της Επιτροπής για αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας ΠΔΤ, παρουσιάζεται ο αντίκτυπος της πολιτικής των ΠΔΤ για τις επενδύσεις, την καινοτομία και την επιχειρηματικότητα. Στο πλαίσιο των μελετών στις οποίες βασίζεται η εκτίμηση του αντίκτυπου δίνεται έμφαση στον τρόπο με τον οποίο οι αλλαγές στις πολιτικές για την περαιτέρω χρήση πληροφοριών είχαν θετικό αποτέλεσμα τόσο σε φορείς του δημόσιου τομέα όσο και στους ίδιους τους χρήστες (154). Για παράδειγμα, στην περίπτωση της αυστριακής υπηρεσίας κτηματολογίου, η μείωση των τιμών έως και κατά 97% οδήγησε σε συνολική αύξηση των πωλήσεων ανοιχτών δεδομένων κατά 46%, ενώ, παράλληλα, έδωσε το έναυσμα για τη δημιουργία ενός φάσματος καινοτόμων χρήσεων.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009417/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Effectiveness of EU policy on EU data open to the public and the situation in Member States

At a press conference a year ago (20 October 2011), Commissioner Neelie Kroes declared her fervent support for the full disclosure of EU documents and data to citizens. Indeed, the Commissioner said that in 2013 a pan-European open data portal would be set up. In economic terms, the Commission itself notes in its open data strategy that such a policy could lead to savings of up to 140 billion euros due to less bureaucracy but also to the facilitation of investments.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Does it have any comparative data about Member States on the degree to which their citizens have access of public documents and data? Does it control Member States' policies in this field? What is the situation in Greece?

In Greece's case, how much EU funding is the country required to use for this purpose and what has been the take-up rate so far?

Does it have available best practices and examples from Member States showing that this policy has led to increased investment, innovation and entrepreneurship? If so, can it cite them?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2012)

The practices and laws in the Member States dealing with the reuse of their information resources differ considerably. A certain level of harmonisation was achieved through Directive 2003/98/EC on reuse of public sector information that was transposed into Greek law by law 3448/2006 (as amended in 2007). The directive builds on national rules for access to information, and focuses on the barriers to re-use. As there continue to be significant differences between conditions for the re-use of information in Member States, the Commission made a proposal to revise the directive in December 2011. Discussions in the European Parliament and in Council are progressing (155).

For more information on the situation in the individual Member States, please see also the Commission-funded website http://epsiplatform.eu.

Implementing Open Data inside public administrations has the potential to lead to considerable cost savings, while at the same time boosting economic activity. While the Commission encourages the use of the appropriate EU funding programmes in order to implement Open Data, there is no obligation to use such funding.

The Impact Assessment (156) accompanying the Commission proposal to revise the PSI Directive. shows the impact of the PSI policy on investment, innovation and entrepreneurship. The studies underpinning the Assessment highlight how changes in reuse policies have had positive effects for public sector bodies and re-users alike (157). For example, in the case of the Austrian cadastral service, a price cut by up to 97% lead to an overall increase in sales of the data by 46%, while triggering a range of innovative uses.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009419/12

aan de Raad

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Uitspraken Schäuble inzake hervorming eurozone

1.

Is de Raad op de hoogte van de uitspraken van minister Schäuble

1.

Is de Raad op de hoogte van de uitspraken van minister Schäuble

 (158)  (159) inzake hervormingen van de eurozone en de installatie van een „valuta commissaris”? Zo ja, deelt hij diens opvattingen? Zo ja op grond waarvan? Zo nee, waarom of welke niet?

2.

Wil of kan de Raad aangeven of minister Schäuble deze plannen vooraf met hem heeft besproken?

3.

Minister Schäuble wil de zogenaamde 

„valuta commissaris” zoveel macht geven, dat hij nationale regeringen en parlementen kan overrulen. Deelt de Raad zijn visie? Zo ja, waarom? Zo nee, waarom niet?

4.

Verder stelt minister Schäuble voor om stemmingen in het Europees Parlement te wijzigen. Voortaan zouden alleen die lidstaten mogen stemmen wier belang door een onderhavige kwestie worden geraakt. Deelt de Raad de opvattingen van minister Schäuble? Zo ja waarom? Zo nee, waarom niet?

Antwoord

(10 december 2012)

De voorzitter van de Europese Raad heeft op 26 juni 2012 het rapport „Naar een echte economische en monetaire unie” (160) gepresenteerd. Het rapport werd in nauwe samenwerking met de voorzitter van de Commissie, de voorzitter van de Eurogroep en de president van de Europese Centrale Bank opgesteld, en is gericht op het formuleren van een visie voor de EMU als waarborg voor stabiliteit en duurzame welvaart. De Europese Raad heeft in juni over deze kwestie van gedachten gewisseld (161). In zijn bijeenkomst van oktober heeft de Europese Raad de bespreking ervan voortgezet op basis van een tussentijds verslag, en geconcludeerd dat hij uitziet naar een specifieke, aan een tijdpad gebonden routekaart die tijdens zijn bijeenkomst van december 2012 zal worden gepresenteerd, teneinde vorderingen te maken met betrekking tot alle essentiële bouwstenen voor een echte EMU (162).

De Raad heeft geen bespreking gewijd aan de specifieke voorstellen voor de instelling van een „valutacommissaris”, en evenmin aan de regeling voor het stemmen in het Europees Parlement. Minister Schäuble heeft een aantal van zijn standpunten betreffende hervormingen gepresenteerd aan de Eurogroep.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009419/12

to the Council

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Statements by Schäuble on reforming the eurozone

1.

Is the Council aware of the statements by the Minister Mr Schäuble

1.

Is the Council aware of the statements by the Minister Mr Schäuble

 (163)  (164) concerning reforms of the eurozone and the establishment of a Commissioner responsible for currency? If so, does it endorse his views? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not, or which does it not endorse?

2.

Will or can the Council indicate whether Mr Schäuble discussed these plans with it in advance?

3.

Mr Schäuble wishes to give the

‘currency Commissioner’ so much power that he can overrule national governments and Parliaments. Does the Council endorse his ideas? If so, why? If not, why not?

4.

Mr Schäuble also proposes altering the system of voting in the European Parliament. In future, only those Member States should be permitted to vote whose interests are affected by the question at issue. Does the Council endorse Mr Schäuble’s views? If so, why? If not, why not?

Reply

(10 December 2012)

On 26 June 2012, the President of the European Council presented the report ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ (165). The report was prepared in close cooperation with the President of the Commission, the President of the Eurogroup and the President of the European Central Bank and aimed at developing a vision for the EMU to ensure stability and sustained prosperity. The European Council held an exchange of views on the matter at its meeting in June (166). In its October meeting, the European Council further discussed the issue on the basis of an interim report and concluded by looking forward to a specific and time-bound roadmap to be presented at its December 2012 meeting, to enable it to move ahead on all essential building blocks on which a genuine EMU should be based (167).

The Council has not discussed the specific proposals of establishing a ‘Commissioner responsible for currency’ nor the system of voting in the European Parliament. Minister Schäuble presented some of his views concerning reforms to the Eurogroup.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-009420/12

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 oktober 2012)

Betreft: Uitspraken Schäuble inzake hervorming eurozone

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de uitspraken van minister Schäuble

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de uitspraken van minister Schäuble

 (168)  (169) inzake hervormingen van de eurozone en de installatie van een „valuta commissaris”? Zo ja, deelt zij diens opvattingen? Zo ja op grond waarvan? Zo nee, waarom of welke niet?

2.

Wil of kunt de Commissie aangeven of minister Schäuble deze plannen vooraf met haar heeft besproken?

3.

Minister Schäuble wil de zogenaamde 

„valuta commissaris” zoveel macht geven, dat hij nationale regeringen en parlementen kan overrulen. Deelt de Commissie zijn visie? Zo ja, waarom? Zo nee, waarom niet?

4.

Verder stelt minister Schäuble voor om stemmingen in het Europees Parlement te wijzigen. Voortaan zouden alleen die lidstaten mogen stemmen wier belang door een onderhavige kwestie worden geraakt. Deelt de Commissie de opvattingen van minister Schäuble? Zo ja waarom? Zo nee, waarom niet?

Antwoord van de heer Rehn namens de Commissie

(14 januari 2013)

De Commissie geeft geen commentaar op in de pers verschenen informele uitspraken van anderen.

De Commissie heeft haar standpunt ten aanzien van zowel de eventuele uitbreiding van de rol van het Commissielid voor Economische en monetaire zaken en de euro, als de mogelijke oprichting van een „eurocommissie” binnen het Europees Parlement uiteengezet in haar mededeling met als titel „Blauwdruk voor een hechte economische en monetaire unie” (170). De redenering achter de in de mededeling over de blauwdruk gepresenteerde opties berust op het beginsel dat de democratische controle op politieke besluiten moet plaatsvinden op hetzelfde niveau als dat waarop deze besluiten worden genomen. Als er een zekere mate van soevereiniteit van de lidstaten aan het Europese niveau wordt overgedragen, moet er derhalve ook tot een evenredige aanpassing van de democratische controle op Europees niveau worden overgegaan. Elke stap in de richting van de integratie van het budgettaire en economische beleid zou een pooling van nationale soevereiniteit inhouden en dus hoe dan ook een Verdragswijziging vereisen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009420/12

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Wolfgang Schäuble's remarks concerning the reform of the eurozone

1.

Is the Commission aware of the remarks made by the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble

1.

Is the Commission aware of the remarks made by the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble

 (171)  (172), concerning the reform of the eurozone and the appointment of a ‘currency Commissioner’? If so, does it share his views, and why? If not, why not? Which of his views does it not share?

2.

Can or will the Commission state whether Mr Schäuble discussed these plans with it in advance?

3.

Mr Schäuble wants to give the so-called

‘currency Commissioner’ so much power that he or she would be able to overrule national governments and parliaments. Does the Commission endorse this approach? If so, why? If not, why not?

4.

What is more, Mr Schäuble wants to change the voting arrangements in the European Parliament. In future, only MEPs from those Member States affected by a given policy proposal would be able to vote on it. Does the Commission share Mr Schäuble’s views? If so, why? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2013)

The Commission does not comment on press reporting about views expressed informally by others.

The Commission has set out its views regarding the possible development of the role of the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs and the Euro as well as the possibility of creating a ‘Euro Committee’ within the European Parliament in its communication ‘A Blueprint for a deep and genuine EMU’ (173). The rationale behind the options presented in the Blueprint Communication results from the principle that the democratic scrutiny of political decisions has to take place at the same level, where these decisions are taken. Hence, to the extent that there is a transfer of sovereignty from the national to the European level, this would also have to be reflected in a commensurate adjustment of the democratic scrutiny at the European level. Any steps towards integration in budgetary and economic policy would imply a pooling of national sovereignty and therefore in any case require a change of the Treaties.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009421/12

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Proposta di legge sulla responsabilità civile per diffamazione in Macedonia quale limite potenziale alla libertà di espressione

Coloro che criticano la proposta di legge sulla «responsabilità civile per gli insulti e la diffamazione» in Macedonia affermano che la sua eventuale applicazione senza modifiche comporterebbe una grave limitazione della libertà di espressione su internet. Le preoccupazioni sollevate riguardano in particolare la possibilità di blocco o filtraggio dei fornitori di servizi internet e la censura di alcuni siti web, tra cui quelli contenenti articoli di giornalisti e commenti dei lettori.

Nel giugno 2012, l'UE ha accolto con favore l'annuncio del governo macedone in merito all'eliminazione della diffamazione dal codice penale, nell'ambito di un accordo con l'associazione dei giornalisti ZNM. La proposta di legge risultante da questo cambiamento sembra tuttavia andare nella direzione sbagliata. La legge attualmente all'esame infatti obbligherebbe i fornitori di servizi e gli autori al «risarcimento dei danni derivanti dal consentire l'accesso a informazioni offensive o diffamatorie». Ciò limiterebbe l'attività giornalistica, i blog nonché la possibilità per i lettori di lasciare liberamente dei commenti su questi siti web.

Alla luce delle considerazioni sopraesposte, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

è la Commissione a conoscenza del fatto che la legge in oggetto ha già superato la prima lettura nel parlamento macedone? In caso di approvazione, quale ritiene possa essere il livello di gravità della limitazione della libertà di espressione imposta da tale legge?

Poiché la libertà di espressione costituisce un valore fondamentale dell'Unione europea, l'approvazione di questa legge potrebbe avere ripercussioni negative sullo status della Macedonia come paese candidato all'adesione all'UE?

Questo nuovo disegno di legge è attualmente discusso nel quadro del dialogo ad alto livello per l’adesione?

Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione

(4 gennaio 2013)

L’allineamento della legislazione sulla diffamazione alle norme giuridiche europee è uno degli argomenti trattati nell'ambito del dialogo ad alto livello sull’adesione tra la Commissione e il governo dell'ex Repubblica iugoslava di Macedonia.

Il 9 novembre 2012 il Parlamento macedone ha emendato il codice penale abrogando gli articoli che criminalizzavano l’insulto e la diffamazione. Il 12 novembre 2012, dopo oltre un anno di consultazione tra il governo e l'associazione dei giornalisti, è stata adottata una nuova legge sulla responsabilità civile per gli insulti e la diffamazione. Il governo ha anche richiesto il parere degli esperti del Consiglio d'Europa.

In base alle informazioni ricevute dalla Commissione, la nuova disposizione legislativa relativa alla responsabilità dei fornitori di servizi internet è volta ad armonizzare la legislazione nazionale con la direttiva sul commercio elettronico (174).

La Commissione seguirà da vicino l'attuazione del nuovo quadro giuridico da parte dei tribunali nazionali che, oltre ad essere vincolati dalla legislazione nazionale, devono altresì rispettare l'articolo 10 della Convenzione europea sui diritti dell'uomo e i principi sanciti dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009421/12

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Draft law on civil liability for defamation in Macedonia could limit freedom of expression

Critics united against the draft law on ‘Civil Liability for Insult and Defamation’ in Macedonia say that if the law is implemented without amendment, freedom of expression via the Internet will be severely limited. Concerns cited focus on the possibility that Internet providers may be blocked or filtered, and that certain websites including journalists’ texts and readers’ comments may be censored.

In June 2012 the EU supported the Macedonian Government’s announcement that it would remove defamation from the penal code as part of an agreement with the Journalists’ Association, ZNM. However, the draft law that resulted from this change appears to be heading in a counter direction. The proposed law makes service providers and authors responsible for ‘compensating for damage arising from providing access to offensive or defamatory information.’ This would limit journalism, blogs, and the ability of the public to comment freely on such websites.

In the light of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:

Is the Commission aware of this law passing its first reading in the Macedonian Parliament? If so, how severely does it believe the law will limit the freedom of expression if it were adopted?

Given that freedom of expression is an essential value of the EU, would the adoption of this law negatively affect Macedonia’s status as a candidate country for accession to the EU?

Is this newly proposed law being discussed as part of the high-level accession dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2013)

Alignment of defamation legislation with European legal standards was one of the topics discussed as part of the High Level Accession Dialogue between the Commission and the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

On 9 November 2012 Parliament adopted amendments to the Criminal Code, repealing articles which criminalised insult and defamation. On 12 November 2012, a new law on Civil Liability for Insult and Defamation was adopted. This resulted from over one year of consultation between the government and the Association of Journalists. The Government also sought expert advice from the Council of Europe.

According to information received by the Commission, the new legal provision relating to liability of Internet services providers aims to harmonise the domestic law with the e-commerce Directive (175).

The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the new legal framework by the national courts, which are not only bound by domestic legislation but must also comply with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principles set out by the European Court of Human Rights.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009422/12

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Nuovi problemi in materia di diritti umani nell'industria cotoniera in Uzbekistan

L'Uzbekistan è uno dei maggiori produttori di cotone al mondo, e l'industria cotoniera rappresenta uno dei pilastri dell'economia del paese. All'inizio del 2012, in risposta all'impegno assunto da alcuni grandi distributori internazionali a favore dell'importazione del cotone da paesi che non utilizzano lavoro minorile, il primo ministro uzbeko ha proibito ai bambini di lavorare nei campi di cotone. Tuttavia, in un paese in cui il governo mantiene uno stretto controllo sulla produzione di cotone e impone quote rigide al fine di velocizzare la raccolta, sono ora costretti a raccogliere il cotone non solo gli impiegati ma anche medici e infermieri.

Quest'anno, infatti, al personale medico uzbeko è stato ordinato di partecipare alla raccolta del cotone. A partire dall'entrata in vigore di questa politica si segnalano casi di pazienti cui sono state negate le cure a causa dell'assenza dei medici, impegnati nel lavoro nei campi di cotone. Le autorità di Tashkent hanno stabilito che ogni distretto debba inviare 330 unità di personale medico. Inoltre, i bambini di età superiore ai 15 anni hanno tuttora l'obbligo di raccogliere la quantità di cotone prevista, che corrisponde a 60 chilogrammi giornalieri ciascuno. Tutti i gruppi che partecipano alla raccolta forzata del cotone sono stati colpiti da vari problemi di salute a causa del duro lavoro e dell'orario eccesivo.

Il documento di strategia regionale per l’Asia centrale 2007-2013 della Commissione indica che le pratiche di sfruttamento messe in atto nella produzione del cotone impediscono un'equa distribuzione del reddito e sono causa di barriere sociali per le donne e le ragazze. Alla luce di quanto sopra e del fatto che l'UE è il terzo maggiore partner commerciale dell'Uzbekistan, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

è a conoscenza della politica della politica di lavoro forzato nei campi di cotone attuata quest'anno dal governo uzbeko nei confronti dei medici e di altri professionisti? Nell'affermativa, qual è la sua posizione in merito?

Intende la Commissione fornire maggiori informazioni nel prossimo documento di strategia regionale in merito alle pratiche di sfruttamento messe in atto in questo settore?

Tenuto conto di queste violazioni dei diritti umani perpetrate dall'Uzbekistan in un settore strettamente legato a quello tessile, può la Commissione illustrare le relazioni commerciali tra l'UE e l'Uzbekistan che coinvolgono l'industria cotoniera di quest'ultimo?

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

(6 dicembre 2012)

L'UE segue attentamente la questione, in particolare per quanto attiene al lavoro minorile.

Il tema è stato ripetutamente sollevato nell'ambito del dialogo politico, e più recentemente in occasione dell'ultimo comitato di cooperazione UE-Uzbekistan nonché nel corso del dialogo annuale UE-Uzbekistan sui diritti umani.

L'AR/VP ha preso atto dell'intenzione delle autorità uzbeke di far rispettare il divieto di ricorrere al lavoro minorile e di intensificare i relativi controlli. L'AR/VP è anche a conoscenza del fatto che quest'anno, per diminuire il ricorso al lavoro minorile, sono state temporaneamente richiamate alcune categorie di dipendenti pubblici.

L'Uzbekistan ha invitato la Commissione e l'OIL a un seminario internazionale che si è svolto a Tashkent il 2 maggio 2012. A margine dell'evento, la Commissione e l'OIL hanno discusso le prospettive insieme alle autorità uzbeke. In occasione del decimo comitato di cooperazione UE-Uzbekistan, riunitosi a Tashkent il 19 luglio 2012, la Commissione ha ribadito la sua posizione alle autorità uzbeke. L'OIL e le autorità uzbeke stanno conducendo discussioni affinché venga consentito all'OIL di monitorare l'attuazione delle convenzioni OIL in Uzbekistan e la Commissione sostiene attivamente questa iniziativa.

I dati raccolti presso varie fonti indicano per quest'anno un contenimento significativo del fenomeno del lavoro minorile, il che rappresenta un importante progresso.

Per quanto riguarda gli scambi commerciali, le relazioni bilaterali UE-Uzbekistan sono complessivamente assai limitate con una netta prevalenza delle esportazioni dell'UE. Il settore tessile rappresenta una quota marginale, pari appena al 14 % delle importazioni dell'UE, ossia al 2 % degli scambi totali tra l'UE e l'Uzbekistan.

L'UE, che ha recentemente istituito una delegazione in Uzbekistan, continuerà senz'altro a seguire con la massima attenzione la questione dell'industria cotoniera.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009422/12

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: New human rights problems posed by Uzbekistan's cotton industry

Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest producers of cotton, and the country’s cotton industry is one of the mainstays of its economy. Earlier in 2012, in response to a pledge by certain large international retailers to source their cotton from countries that do not use child labour, Uzbekistan’s Prime Minister banned children from working in the cotton fields. Instead — in a country where the Government maintains a tight control over cotton production and enforces strict quotas in order to speed the harvest — not only office workers but also doctors and nurses are now being forced to pick cotton.

This year, medical personnel in Uzbekistan have been ordered to help with the cotton harvest. Since this policy has been put into effect, there have been reports of patients being denied medical treatment because their doctors are away in the cotton fields. The authorities in Tashkent have decreed that every district is to contribute 330 medical staff. In addition, children over the age of 15 are still required to each pick the required amount of 60 kilograms of cotton a day. All groups involved in the forced cotton harvest have been affected by various health problems as a result of the heavy work and long hours.

The EC Regional Strategy Paper for Central Asia 2007-2013 lists exploitative practices in cotton production as a barrier to equal income distribution and as causing social barriers for women and girls. In light of the above, and of the fact that the EU is Uzbekistan’s third largest trade partner, can the Commission answer the following:

Is the Commission aware of the Uzbekistan Government’s policy of forcing medical and other professionals to labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton fields this year? If so, what is its stance on this issue?

Does the Commission plan to provide more information on this exploitative industry in its next regional strategy paper?

Considering these human rights violations by Uzbekistan, in an industry closely related to the textile industry, could the Commission outline any trade ties between the EU and Uzbekistan that involve the latter’s cotton industry?

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

(6 December 2012)

The EU has been following very closely this issue, especially the child labour dimension.

It has continuously been raised in political dialogue, most recently on the occasion of the last EU-Uzbekistan Cooperation Committee and during the annual EU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue.

The HR/VP has taken good note of the intention of the Uzbek authorities to enforce the prohibition of child labour and step up their monitoring. The HR/VP is also aware that this year, in order to diminish the reliance on child labour, some categories of public servants have been temporarily called in.

Uzbekistan has invited the Commission and the ILO to an international seminar in Tashkent on 2nd May 2012. In the margins of this event, the Commission and the ILO discussed with the Uzbek authorities the way forward. At the occasion of the 10th EU-Uzbekistan Cooperation Committee, which was held in Tashkent on 19th July 2012, the Commission reiterated its position to the Uzbek authorities. Discussions between the ILO and the Uzbek authorities are ongoing with a view to allow the ILO to observe implementation of ILO Conventions in Uzbekistan. The Commission is actively supporting this process.

The indications gathered from various sources suggest that for the current year the phenomenon of child labour has been significantly curbed, which is a significant step forward.

As regards trade, EU-Uzbekistan bilateral relations are overall very limited and are dominated by EU exports. The textile sector represents a marginal part, merely 14% of EU imports, or 2% of total EU-Uzbek trade.

With its newly established EU Delegation in Uzbekistan, the EU will obviously keep following the issue of the cotton industry very closely.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009423/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Ampliación del embalse de Yesa y carga policial contra los vecinos de Artieda

En el año 1983 se presentó el primer proyecto de recrecimiento del embalse Yesa, embalse situado entre las Comunidades Autónomas de Aragón y Navarra. Desde entonces, cada vez que la Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro trata de desarrollar el proyecto numerosas organizaciones ambientalistas y, especialmente, la población potencialmente afectada del pueblo aragonés de Artieda despliegan su oposición al proyecto.

Este proyecto ha sido reimpulsado por el actual Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente del Gobierno de España sobre la base de los acuerdos del Pacto del Agua derivados de las Cortes de Aragón, pretendiendo desarrollar el proyecto de construcción que data de 1992.

Sobre este proyecto y más allá de las afecciones sociales, patrimoniales o ambientales existentes, se ha dado un hecho que ha cuestionado la construcción del mismo, como es el desplazamiento geológico de las laderas de la futura presa, lo que ha motivado incrementos muy importantes en las partidas económicas.

Por otro lado, hay que señalar que los vecinos de Artieda se habían concentrado el pasado miércoles 10 de octubre para tratar de paralizar las expropiaciones. Sin embargo, pese a la tradición de resistencia pacífica de este movimiento, ha sido brutalmente reprimido por la violenta carga de los antidisturbios de la Guardia Civil.

Ante el avance de este y otros proyectos similares y teniendo en cuenta el procedimiento de infracción por vulneración de la Directiva marco del agua abierto contra España (2010/2083),

¿Considera la Comisión que este proyecto vulnera la Directiva marco del agua? De ser así, ¿tiene alguna fórmula para controlar estas infracciones?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(18 de diciembre de 2012)

La Directiva 2000/60/CE, por la que se establece un marco comunitario de actuación en el ámbito de la política de aguas (176), obliga a los Estados miembros a notificar a la Comisión sus planes hidrológicos de cuenca (PHC), los cuales deben incluir medidas tendentes a evitar el deterioro de las aguas y a lograr un buen estado de estas.

La Comisión desconoce los detalles del proyecto a que alude Su Señoría. La compatibilidad del proyecto con la Directiva Marco del agua debe quedar reflejada en el plan hidrológico de la cuenca del Ebro, pero España no ha presentado todavía este plan.

Una vez presentado el plan, la Comisión analizará si se han observado los requisitos de la DMA.

Debido al retraso en la adopción de los PHC, la Comisión incoó un procedimiento de infracción contra España (asunto 2010/2083) por no haberlos adoptado ni notificado a la Comisión. El 4 de octubre de 2012, el Tribunal de Justicia dictó su sentencia (asunto C-403/11), que condenaba a España por no haber adoptado los planes hidrológicos de cuenca ni haber iniciado las consultas sobre los planes correspondientes a algunas demarcaciones hidrográficas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009423/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Enlargement of the Yesa reservoir and police brutality against the residents of Artieda

The Yesa reservoir is situated between the Autonomous Communities of Aragon and Navarra. In 1983, the first reservoir enlargement project was put forward. Since then, every time the Ebro Hydrographic Confederation attempts to launch the project, many environmental organisations and, most especially, the residents of the village of Artieda in Aragon who might potentially be affected by the scheme, voice their opposition.

The project has been relaunched by the current Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment on the basis of agreements on the Water Pact reached by the Aragon Regional Parliament, which is hoping to carry out the construction project dating from 1992.

Beyond the existing social and environmental objections, as well as the negative impact on the region’s heritage, another factor has called into question this construction project, namely the geological displacement of the slopes surrounding the planned dam. This has meant that the cost of the project has increased significantly.

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012, the residents of Artieda assembled to try to stop the expropriations. However, despite the group’s history of peaceful resistance, the demonstration was brutally repressed by a violent charge by riot police from the Spanish Civil Guard.

In the light of the progress of this and other similar projects, and bearing in mind the infringement procedure opened against Spain for failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive (2010/2083),

Does the Commission believe that this project breaches the Water Framework Directive? If so, does the Commission have a way of monitoring such infringements?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2012)

Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (177) requires Member States to report to the Commission their River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), which should include measures aiming at preventing water status deterioration and at achieving good status.

The Commission is not aware of the details of the project referred to by the Honourable Member. The compatibility of the project with the Water Framework Directive should be reflected in the Ebro River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). However, Spain has not yet submitted this plan.

Once the plan is presented, the Commission will analyse whether the requirements of the WFD have been respected.

Given the delay in the adoption of the Spanish RBMPs, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Spain (Case 2010/2083) for failing to adopt its RBMPs and report them to the Commission. On 4 of October 2012, the Court of Justice issued its ruling (Case C-403/11) condemning Spain for not having adopted the RBMPs and for not having started the consultations on the plans in a number of River Basin Districts (RBDs).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009425/12

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Fomento de la implicación ciudadana en la recogida selectiva de residuos

La Directiva 2008/98/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 19 de noviembre de 2008 sobre residuos considera que la implicación de la ciudadanía en la política de gestión de residuos, especialmente en lo que se refiere a modificación de las pautas de consumo y a la cooperación con las políticas de recogida selectiva de residuos, es un factor decisivo para que se incremente el reciclaje en Europa. Por ello, en su artículo 4 se establece una jerarquía para priorizar la legislación y política en la materia por parte de los Estados miembros y se obliga a que todos ellos garanticen que «el desarrollo de la legislación y política sobre residuos sea un proceso plenamente transparente en el que se observen las normas nacionales relativas a la consulta y participación de los ciudadanos y partes interesadas».

A la vista de estas previsiones,

1.

¿Dispone la Comisión de estudios o información sobre la influencia que la participación de la ciudadanía tiene en el adecuado progreso del reciclado de residuos en Europa? ¿Se ha incluido el nivel de participación como indicador de la idoneidad de la política de gestión de recursos que aplican los Estados miembros?

2.

¿Cuáles considera la Comisión que son los procesos clave en los que la implicación de la ciudadanía es básica para fomentar el éxito del reciclaje?

3.

¿Puede citar la Comisión las características comunes que reúnen los ejemplos de

«buenas prácticas» en este ámbito de las campañas de concienciación de la ciudadanía sobre mejora de hábitos de consumo y prácticas de reciclado? ¿Se incluye entre ellas que las instituciones representativas del nivel administrativo que desarrolle y ejecute las políticas de gestión de recursos aprueben por mayoría dichos planes?

4.

¿Considera la Comisión que debería evitarse en todo caso la imposición de procedimientos, especialmente en ámbitos críticos como la recogida selectiva de residuos, en los que es vital la implicación ciudadana?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(3 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión publicó en 2011 un informe analítico sobre las actitudes de los europeos en relación con la eficiencia en el uso de los recursos.

Los ciudadanos pueden desempeñar un papel crucial en la formulación y aplicación de los planes de gestión de residuos urbanos, desde la elección del emplazamiento de las instalaciones de tratamiento de residuos hasta el éxito de los programas de separación de residuos en los hogares. Un reciclado de alta calidad depende principalmente de los sistemas de recogida selectiva de residuos, los cuales dependen a su vez de la concienciación y el comportamiento de los ciudadanos.

La prevención y el reciclado de residuos son elementos importantes ambos de la Hoja de ruta hacia una Europa eficiente en el uso de los recursos. Cambiar las pautas de consumo de los ciudadanos mediante la política de residuos puede tener un efecto positivo en la prevención de residuos y encaminar más residuos urbanos hacia el reciclado. Los planes de gestión de residuos y los programas de prevención de residuos deben aunarse de cara a estos objetivos. La Comisión tiene conocimiento de varios campañas eficaces de concienciación de los ciudadanos organizadas por las administraciones locales y nacionales, ONG o movimientos cívicos como las «jornadas de limpieza». También ha apoyado campañas de concienciación como la Semana Europea de la Prevención de Residuos.

El artículo 11 de la Directiva marco de residuos exige la organización para 2015 de la recogida selectiva como mínimo del papel, los metales, el plástico y el vidrio para facilitar el cumplimiento del objetivo de reciclado de un 50 % de residuos urbanos para 2020. Corresponde a las autoridades competentes de los Estados miembros formular políticas y planes en que se tenga debidamente en cuenta la participación de los ciudadanos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009425/12

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Encouraging citizen involvement in separate waste collection

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste considers that citizen involvement in waste management policy, especially in regard to changing consumption patterns and cooperating with separate waste collection policies, is a determining factor for increasing recycling in Europe. Therefore, in Article 4 a hierarchy is established to set out a priority order for legislation and policy on waste prevention and management by Member States. It obliges them to ensure that ‘the development of waste legislation and policy is a fully transparent process, observing existing national rules about the consultation and involvement of citizens and stakeholders.’

Given these provisions,

1.

Does the Commission have any studies or information available on how citizeninvolvement affects progress on waste recycling in Europe? Has the level ofinvolvement been used as an indicator to measure the performance of the wastemanagement policies implemented by Member States?

2.

In which main areas does the Commission think that citizen involvement is essential forensuring the success of recycling policies?

3.

Can the Commission specify what the examples of good practice for citizen awarenesscampaigns on changing consumption patterns and recycling practices have in common?Do these shared features include majority approval of waste management policies byrepresentative institutions at the level of the administrative bodies responsible fordrawing up and implementing them?

4.

Does the Commission think that it should avoid imposing procedures, especially in areaswhere citizen involvement is vital, such as separate waste collection?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2012)

In 2011, the Commission published an analytical report (178) on the attitudes of Europeans towards Resource Efficiency.

Citizens can play a crucial role in the drawing and implementation of municipal waste management plans, from choosing the location of waste treatment plants to the success of waste separation schemes involving households. High quality recycling is mainly dependent on waste separate collection schemes, which are in turn dependant also on awareness and behaviour of individual citizens.

Waste prevention and recycling are both important elements of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (179). Changing citizens' consumption patterns through waste policy can have a beneficial impact on waste prevention and can channel more municipal waste into recycling. Waste management plans and waste prevention programmes should work together towards these aims. The Commission is aware of several effective campaigns for citizens' awareness, either organised by local and national administrations, NGOs or civic movements such as ‘Clean up Days’ (180). It has supported awareness campaigns such as the European Week of Waste Reduction (181).

Article 11 of the Waste Framework Directive (182) requests by 2015 the setting up of separate collection for at least: paper, metal, plastic and glass in order to facilitate the fulfilment of the 50% recycling target on municipal waste by 2020. It is up to the competent authorities in Member States to draw up waste policy and plans where the citizens involvement is duly taken into account.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009426/12

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Informes europeos de evaluación en materia de gestión de residuos

La Directiva 2008/98/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 19 de noviembre de 2008 sobre residuos establece en su artículo 17 que los Estados miembros deberán remitir a la Comisión cada tres años un informe sectorial sobre la aplicación de la citada normativa europea. Esta disposición incorpora a las estadísticas que ya se venían efectuando en torno al reciclado y valorización de los residuos en Europa los progresos que se hayan observado en la gestión de aceites usados y los programas de prevención de residuos y medidas adoptadas para fomentar la responsabilidad aplicada del fabricante.

Vistas las previsiones que la propia Directiva incorpora a efectos de trasposición a la legislación de los Estados miembros (2010) y visto el tiempo transcurrido desde la aprobación de dicha norma,

1.

¿Ha recibido la Comisión ya algún informe de evaluación de los previstos en su artículo 17? ¿Cuándo prevé la Comisión que estará disponible el primer informe europeo sobre la ejecución de esta Directiva?

2.

A la vista de los nuevos datos disponibles, ¿en qué Estados se registran las más altas tasas de recogida selectiva de residuos urbanos domésticos en la Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles son los países de la UE que más reciclan?

3.

¿Cuáles son los sistemas de cierre de los procesos de tratamiento que contemplan los países que más reciclan en Europa?

4.

Con las tecnologías y procedimientos existentes en la actualidad, ¿cómo evoluciona el porcentaje entre residuos reciclables o reutilizables y la fracción no reciclable?

5.

Para el tratamiento final de la fracción resto, ¿se considera desde las instituciones europeas que la valorización energética mediante incineración es una solución preferible y más sostenible que el vertedero?

6.

¿Cómo valoraría la Comisión el hecho de almacenar en canteras y en zonas naturales, una vez embalados y secados, los residuos no reciclables? ¿Es esta una buena alternativa a la valorización energética mediante incineración de los residuos no reciclables?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(4 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión no ha recibido todavía ningún informe de evaluación. El próximo informe de aplicación cubrirá el período de 2010-2012. De conformidad con el artículo 37, apartado 4, de la Directiva marco de residuos, el primer informe deberá presentarse para el 12 de diciembre de  2014.

Un reciente estudio de la Comisión (183) indica una correlación lineal entre la utilización de unas prácticas de gestión de residuos sólidas (recogida selectiva de residuos) basadas en instrumentos económicos (impuestos por vertido y prohibiciones) y unos índices altos de reciclado. Austria, Alemania, Suecia, Bélgica, Dinamarca y los Países Bajos son los Estados miembros que depositan en vertederos menos del 5 % de los residuos urbanos y reciclan entre el 45 % (Dinamarca) y más del 70 % (Bélgica).

Los Estados miembros mencionados también están trabajando en materia de prevención de residuos mediante el uso de instrumentos económicos (sistemas de pago por generación de residuos) y regímenes de responsabilidad ampliada de los productores (diseño ecológico).

La tecnología de tratamiento de residuos sigue desarrollándose con vistas a una mayor eficiencia. No obstante, hay que destacar que es posible actuar en origen mediante la responsabilidad ampliada de los productores a fin de prevenir la generación de residuos y facilitar un reciclado de alta calidad.

La incineración con recuperación de energía figura en un lugar más alto de la jerarquía de residuos que el vertido, tal como se establece en el artículo 4 de la Directiva marco de residuos.

Las autoridades competentes pueden autorizar el uso como materiales de relleno siempre que los residuos sean idóneos, se utilicen con fines de regeneración en zonas excavadas o en obras de ingeniería paisajística y sustituyan a materiales que no sean residuos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009426/12

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: European assessment reports on waste management

Article 37 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste provides that Member States shall inform the Commission of the implementation of this directive by submitting a sectoral report every three years. This article provides for the information on the progress achieved in management of waste oil and waste prevention programmes, and the measures adopted to encourage extended producer responsibility, to be added to the statistics which are already being compiled on waste recycling and recovery in Europe.

Given the provisions incorporated into this directive for transposition into legislation in the Member States (2010), and the time that has elapsed since it was adopted,

1.

Has the Commission received any assessment reports, as provided for in Article 37?

When does the Comission envisage that the first European report on the implementationof this directive will be available?

2.

In the light of new data available, which Member States have the highest rates of separatewaste collection from urban households in the EU? Which EU countries recycle themost?

3.

What systems are being considered for putting an end to waste treatment by the countrieswhich recycle the most in Europe?

4.

To what extent does the difference between the percentage of recyclable or reusable wasteand non-recyclable waste change with current technologies and processes?

5.

Do the European institutions think that energy recovery through incineration is a betterand more sustainable solution than waste going to landfill as the final treatment option forthe remaining waste?

6.

What does the Commission think of storing non-recyclable waste in quarries and naturalareas, once it has been baled and dried? Is this a good alternative to energy recoverythrough incineration of non-recyclable waste?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The Commission has not received any assessment reports yet. The upcoming implementation report shall cover the years 2010-2012. According to Article 37 (4) of the Waste Framework Directive (184), the first report intervenes by 12 December 2014.

A recent Commission study (185) shows a linear correlation between the use of sound waste management practices (waste separate collection) underpinned by economic instruments (landfill taxes and bans) and high recycling rates. Austria, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands are Member States that landfill less than 5% of municipal waste and recycle from 45% (DK) to over 70% (BE).

The abovementioned Member States are also working on waste prevention through the use of economic instruments (pay-as-you-throw schemes) and extended producer responsibility (eco-design).

Waste treatment technology continues to be developed in order to gain in efficiency. However, it is noteworthy that it is possible to act upstream through the extended producers' responsibility in order to prevent waste from being generated and facilitate high quality recycling.

Incineration with energy recovery ranks higher in the waste hierarchy than landfilling, as set out in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive.

Backfilling can be authorised by the competent authorities on the proviso that the waste is suitable and used for reclamation purposes in excavated areas or for engineering purposes in landscaping and where the waste is a substitute for non-waste materials.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-009427/12

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 de octubre de 2012)

Asunto: Comunicación de planes de gestión y prevención de residuos

La Directiva 2008/98/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 19 de noviembre de 2008 sobre residuos establece en sus artículos 4, 13, 16, 28 y 29 diversas disposiciones relacionadas con la redacción de planes de gestión de residuos y programas de prevención de residuos que cubran todo el territorio de los Estados miembros y detalla los elementos que dichos planes deben incorporar. Igualmente en el artículo 33 se obliga a los Estados miembros a informar de los planes una vez adoptados o de cualquier revisión sustancial de los planes y programas. Tras la aprobación de esta Directiva y su ya consumada trasposición a las legislaciones estatales (que debía finalizar en 2010),

1.

¿Ha recibido la Comisión información sobre los planes de gestión que se aplican en cada Estado miembro y, en su caso, de los cambios sustanciales producidos en ellos?

2.

Cuando las competencias están descentralizadas, ¿quién es la institución responsable de presentar los planes de gestión ante las autoridades europeas?

3.

En los planes recibidos hasta la fecha y en materia de valoración de la denominada fracción resto, es decir, de los recursos que no se pueden reciclar, ¿cuáles son las fórmulas mayoritariamente adoptadas por los Estados miembros?

4.

En cuanto a la valorización de los biorresiduos, ¿cuáles son las fórmulas mayoritariamente presentes en los planes de gestión declarados por los Estados miembros?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(3 de diciembre de 2012)

La Comisión ha recibido información sobre los planes de gestión de residuos adoptados por algunos Estados miembros. El 27 de septiembre de 2012, se pidió a los que no habían notificado dichos planes que lo hicieran en el plazo de dos meses, de conformidad con el artículo 33 de la Directiva marco sobre residuos (DMR). La Comisión espera recibir los planes restantes a finales de 2012 y luego evaluará en 2013 su contenido, incluidos los métodos de gestión de los residuos más comunes.

La administración central es la autoridad competente responsable de la presentación de los planes de gestión de residuos a la Comisión, aun en los casos en que las competencias están descentralizadas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009427/12

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Communication of waste management and prevention plans

Articles 4, 13, 16, 28 and 29 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste lay down various provisions relating to the drafting of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes by Member States, and specify what elements these plans must include. Equally, Article 33 stipulates that Member States must inform the Commission of these plans and programmes, once adopted, and of any substantial revisions. Following the adoption of Directive 2008/98/EC and its subsequent transposition into national legislation (which was required by 2010),

1.

Has the Commission received information about the waste management plans in place in each Member State, and if so, of any substantial revisions to these plans?

2.

When competences are decentralised, which institution is responsible for presenting waste management plans to the EU authorities?

3.

In the plans received until now, what are the most common methods adopted by Member States for dealing with so-called remaining waste (that is to say, non-recyclable waste)?

4.

In the waste management plans submitted by Member States, what are the most common methods of dealing with bio-waste?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2012)

The Commission has received information about the waste management plans adopted by some Member States. On 27 September 2012, those who had failed to notify such plans were asked to do so within two months in compliance with Article 33 of the Waste Framework Directive (186) (WFD). The Commission expects to receive the remaining plans by the end of 2012 and will then assess their content, including most common waste management methods, during 2013.

The central government is the competent authority responsible for submitting the waste management plans to the Commission, even in cases where competences are decentralised.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-009428/12

Komisi

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(17. října 2012)

Předmět: Satelitní karty Skylink a CS Link a možné klamání evropských spotřebitelů

Společnosti Skylink a CS Link nabízely spotřebitelům v České republice dekódovací karty pro neplacené televizní kanály. Při úhradě jednorázového poplatku byla spotřebitelům dodána karta s deklarovanou zárukou doživotního bezplatného užívání.

Koncem roku 2011 se majitelem obou společností stala firma M77 Group S.A. se sídlem v Lucemburku. V současné době poskytovatelé služeb Skylink a CS Link přistupují ke spotřebitelům z pozice jedné firmy a podle dostupných informací ovládly fúzí přibližně 85 % trhu.

V červnu 2012 obě společnosti uvedly v platnost „Nové obchodní podmínky“ a rozeslaly spotřebitelům oznámení, že podle těchto nových podmínek jsou povinni hradit měsíční poplatek a za další poplatek vyměnit starší karty. V případě neuhrazení hrozí společnosti vypovězením stávající smlouvy a odpojením příjmu ze všech neuhrazených karet.

Podle šetření spotřebitelských organizací existuje podezření, že zavedením měsíčního poplatku u původně avizované bezplatné služby (za podmínky uhrazení jednorázového vysokého poplatku) došlo k oklamání vysokého počtu spotřebitelů.

Ke dnešnímu dni (16.10.) má společnost na stránkách (187) stále reklamní sdělení: „České, slovenské a stovky zahraničních televizních programů i rozhlasových stanic poskytujeme bezplatně. Podmínkou je jen úhrada Servisního poplatku (29 Kč/měsíčně)“.

Na základě výše uvedeného se obracím na Komisi, zda prověřila, jestli:

nedošlo k oklamání spotřebitelů slíbením a následným nedodržením záruky doživotního bezplatného užívání dané služby?

nedošlo ke zneužití dominantního postavení na trhu?

se společnost nedopustila dle směrnice EP a Rady 2009/29/ES klamavých obchodních praktik v souvislosti s použitím termínu „bezplatně“?

Odpověď paní Redingové jménem Komise

(4. prosince 2012)

Směrnice 2005/29/ES obchodníkům zakazuje, aby vůči spotřebitelům používali klamavé a agresivní obchodní praktiky. V souladu s ustanoveními této směrnice by obchodníci měli zavčas poskytnout jasné a srozumitelné závažné informace, které spotřebitelé potřebují k informovanému rozhodnutí o koupi, včetně informací o hlavních znacích a ceně produktu. V příloze 1 směrnice je navíc uveden zákaz, který se za všech okolností použije na praktiky popsané slovy „gratis“, „zdarma“, „bezplatně“ a podobné, pokud musí spotřebitel zaplatit jakékoli jiné náklady než jen nevyhnutelné náklady spojené s reakcí na obchodní praktiku.

Vážená paní poslankyně by si měla být nicméně vědoma toho, že vnitrostátní orgány a soudy mají základní pravomoc prošetřit praktiky konkrétních společností, jež působí na jejich území. Pouze vnitrostátní donucovací orgány mohou při zohlednění všech skutečností a okolností případu posoudit, zda společnost použila nekalé obchodní praktiky nebo klamavou reklamu.

Komise má v úmyslu v blízké době předložit zprávu o uplatňování směrnice 2005/29/ES, která bude zejména obsahovat seznam nejčastějších nekalých obchodních praktik zaznamenaných v členských státech.

Pokud jde o možné zneužívání dominantního postavení některými podniky na českém trhu s placenou satelitní televizí, je třeba připomenout, že uplatnění článku 102 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie závisí na řadě skutkových, právních a hospodářských prvků. Informace, které vážená paní poslankyně poskytla, nám neumožňují dospět k závěru, že popisované chování představuje zneužívání podle článku 102 Smlouvy.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009428/12

to the Commission

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Skylink and CS Link satellite TV cards and possible misleading of European consumers

The companies Skylink and CS Link offered consumers in the Czech Republic decoder cards for free TV channels. On payment of a one-off fee consumers were issued with a decoder card with a stated guarantee of lifetime use free of charge.

At the end of 2011, M77 Group S.A., a firm based in Luxembourg, became the owner of both these companies. Currently, the service providers Skylink and CS Link are both acting as one in their relations with consumers; according to available information, they command about 85% of the market between them through their merger.

In June 2012, both companies introduced ‘new terms of business’ and sent consumers a notification that under these new terms they are required to pay a monthly fee, and in the case of older cards, required to change the card, for a further fee. If the fee is not paid, they threaten to terminate existing contracts and to disconnect all cards for which no fee has been paid.

According to investigations by consumer organisations, introducing a new monthly fee for a service originally announced as free of charge (subject to payment of a substantial, initial one-off charge) has resulted in large numbers of consumers being misled.

At present (16 October), the company still has on its website (188) the following announcement: ‘We provide Czech, Slovak and hundreds of foreign television programes and radio stations free of charge. The only condition is the payment of a service charge (29 Czech crowns per month).’

In the light of the above, can the Commission say if it has verified whether:

promising, and subsequently denying, consumers the guarantee of lifetime use of a service free of charge has not resulted in their being misled?

what has happened is not an abuse of a dominant market position?

the company has not engaged in unfair commercial practices under Directive 2005/29/EC in connection with the use of the term ‘free of charge’?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

Directive 2005/29/EC (189) prohibits traders from engaging in misleading and aggressive commercial practices towards consumers. According to its provisions, traders should provide in a clear, intelligible and timely manner, material information that consumers need in order to make an informed purchase decision, including on the main characteristics and the price of the product. In addition Annex A of the directive prohibits, in all circumstances, the practice of describing as ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything more that the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice.

This being said, the Honourable Member should know that it is the primary competence of the national authorities and courts to investigate the practices of particular companies operating on their territories. Only national enforcement authorities are in a position to assess whether, taking into account all facts and circumstances of a case, a company has engaged in an unfair commercial practice or misleading advertising.

The Commission plans to present shortly a report on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC which will, in particular, provide a list of the most common unfair commercial practices encountered in the Member States.

As regards potential abuses of dominant position by certain undertakings in the Czech satellite pay-tv market, it should be reminded that the application of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union depends on a range of factual, legal and economic elements. The information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow us to conclude that the described behaviour amounts to an abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009429/12

an die Kommission

Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Verschuldung spanischer Fußballklubs

Spaniens Profifußballklubs dürfen nun nach letzten Meldungen auf eine Reduzierung ihrer Steuerschulden hoffen. Laut Sportminister Miguel Cardenal plant die spanische Regierung, zumindest Teile ihrer Steuer‐ und Sozialversicherungsschulden zu erlassen.

1.

Sind der Kommission die Schulden der spanischen Profiklubs bei den Banken und beim Staat bekannt?

Wenn ja, können die Finanzprobleme im spanischen Profisport durch Mittel des Bankenhilfspakets oder andere Finanzhilfen gelöst werden und sind derartige staatliche Beihilfen wettbewerbsrechtlich überhaupt zulässig?

2.

Wie ist in diesem Zusammenhang ein genereller Steuerschuldenerlass bzw. eine Reduzierung der Schulden (Steuerschulden und Sozialversicherungsschulden) von Profiklubs durch den spanischen Staat europarechtlich zu beurteilen?

3.

Muss eine (Teil-)Entschuldung durch den Staat oder sogar ein genereller Schuldenverzicht durch die Gläubiger (Banken, Staat, Sozialversicherung) nach dem europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht als unzulässige staatliche Beihilfe beurteilt werden?

5.

Gibt es zu dieser Beihilfenproblematik im Sport bereits eine Rechtsprechung des EuGH?

Wenn ja, wie werden derartige staatliche Beihilfen im Sport durch den EuGH beurteilt?

6.

Welche Zahlen liegen dem Ressort zur Verschuldung von Profiklubs (Fußball) in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten der EU vor (Aufschlüsselung auf Staaten)?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(27. November 2012)

1.

Die Kommission hat Kenntnis von Presseberichten über Steuer‐ und Sozialversicherungsrückstände spanischer Profifußballvereine sowie von einer Vereinbarung zwischen dem spanischen Sportminister und den Vereinen, die einen Plan für die Begleichung dieser Schulden enthält. Von Plänen, den Vereinen einen Teil dieser Schulden zu erlassen, ist der Kommission nichts bekannt.

2. und 3.

Was die Anwendbarkeit der Beihilfevorschriften auf den Sportbereich betrifft, so gilt das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht insoweit für den Sportsektor, als eine wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit vorliegt. Beim Profifußball ist das zweifelsohne der Fall. Der Begriff der staatlichen Beihilfen umfasst auch entgangene Einnahmen der öffentlichen Hand zugunsten von Unternehmen. In Anbetracht der Vielzahl der Märkte, auf denen Profifußballvereine tätig sind, würden staatliche Beihilfen, durch die einem solchen Verein ein Vorteil gewährt würde, die Gefahr bergen, dass es zu Wettbewerbsbehinderungen und einer Beeinträchtigung des Handels zwischen Mitgliedstaaten im Sinne von Artikel 107 Absatz 1 AEUV kommt. Derartige Beihilfen müssten bei der Kommission angemeldet werden, damit sie nicht als rechtswidrig eingestuft werden. Maßnahmen von Banken stellen hingegen in der Regel keine staatlichen Beihilfen dar, sofern sie nicht dem Staat zuzurechnen sind.

5.

Der Gerichtshof hat noch keinen Anlass gehabt, ein Urteil über staatliche Beihilfen für den Sportbereich zu erlassen. Er hat jedoch angemerkt, dass das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht grundsätzlich auf den Profisport anwendbar sein kann

5.

Der Gerichtshof hat noch keinen Anlass gehabt, ein Urteil über staatliche Beihilfen für den Sportbereich zu erlassen. Er hat jedoch angemerkt, dass das EU-Wettbewerbsrecht grundsätzlich auf den Profisport anwendbar sein kann

 (190).

6.

Im Oktober 2012 haben die Kommissionsdienststellen einige Mitgliedstaaten in einem Schreiben gebeten, ihre Praktiken in Bezug auf die Finanzierung des Profifußballs darzulegen, um sich einen Überblick zu verschaffen und prüfen zu können, welche Auswirkungen die Beihilfevorschriften des AEUV gegebenenfalls auf diese Finanzierung haben. Die Kommission führt kein Verzeichnis zur Verschuldung von Profifußballvereinen. Derartige Angaben sind möglicherweise einschlägigen Berichten der UEFA zu entnehmen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009429/12

to the Commission

Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Indebtedness of Spanish Football clubs

According to recent reports, Spain’s professional football clubs are likely to have their tax debt reduced. Sports Minister Miguel Cardenal has stated that the Spanish Government intends to wipe out, at least in part, the clubs’ tax and social insurance debts.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the debts owed by Spanish professional football clubs to banks and the state?

If so, can the financial problems in Spanish professional sport be solved by means of banking bailout packages or other financial aid, and is such state aid indeed permissible under competition law?

2.

In this context, what would be the implications under EC law of the partial reduction or wholesale expunging of the professional clubs’ tax and social insurance debt by the state?

3.

Would the full or partial expunging of tax debt by the state or creditors (banks, the state and social insurance) constitute illegal state aid under EU competition law?

5.

Has there been a European Court of Justice ruling in respect of financial aid in sport?

If so, what view did the Court of Justice take of such state aid in sport?

6.

In how much debt are professional football clubs in other Member States (give a country-by-country breakdown)?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

1.

The Commission is aware of press reports regarding arrears of taxes and social security contributions by Spanish professional football clubs and of an

agreement between the Sports Minister of Spain and the clubs which sets out a road map for paying off these debts. The Commission is not aware of any decision to wipe out part of those arrears.

2 and 3.

Regarding the application of state aid rules to

sport in general, it is subject to EU competition law insofar as it constitutes an economic activity. This is undoubtedly the case for professional football. The concept of state aid also covers foregone income by public authorities in favour of undertakings. In view of the many markets on which professional football clubs are active, State aid providing such an advantage to a professional football club will in all likelihood have the potential to distort competition and affect trade between Member States in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Such aid would need to be notified to the Commission in order not to become illegal. Actions of banks will normally not constitute state aid unless they are imputable to the State.

5.

The Court of Justice has not had the opportunity to rule in respect of state aid to sport. However it has stated that EU competition rules may in principle apply to professional sport.

5.

The Court of Justice has not had the opportunity to rule in respect of state aid to sport. However it has stated that EU competition rules may in principle apply to professional sport.

 (191)

6.

In October 2012 the Commission services wrote to Member States enquiring about their practices regarding the financing of professional football to obtain an overview on it and to assess possible impact of the state aid rules of the Treaty on this financing. The Commission does not compile a list of debts of professional football clubs but would refer the Honourable Member to the reports published by UEFA.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-009430/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(17 Οκτωβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ανορθολογική χρήση των νερών του Αλιάκμονα για την τροφοδοσία των λιγνιτικών σταθμών της ΔΕΗ

Ως το 1997, ο λιγνιτικός ΑΗΣ (192) Αμυνταίου, στην Περιφέρεια Δυτικής Μακεδονίας τροφοδοτούνταν με 20 hm3 νερού/έτος από τη λίμνη Βεγορίτιδα, πράγμα που συνετέλεσε σημαντικά στην ταπείνωση της στάθμης της λίμνης κατά 32,5 μέτρα από το 1955 έως το 2002 (193). Εξαιτίας αυτού του γεγονότος αλλά και της εξάντλησης του υπόγειου υδροφορέα της περιοχής, το 1997 ο ΑΗΣ Αμυνταίου άρχισε να υδροδοτείται από τον Αλιάκμονα (ταμιευτήρας Πολυφύτου) με περίπου 10 hm3/έτος. Σημειώνεται ότι ο Αλιάκμονας είναι περίπου 60 χλμ. μακριά από τον ΑΗΣ Αμυνταίου, με τον οποίο έχει αρνητική υψομετρική διαφορά 390 μέτρων, πράγμα που επιβαρύνει οικονομικά τη μεταφορά νερού λόγω του κόστους των αγωγών αλλά και των λειτουργικών δαπανών των αντλιοστασίων. Προσφάτως, η ΔΕΗ αποφάσισε να καλύψει εξ ολοκλήρου τις ανάγκες σε νερό των ΑΗΣ Αμυνταίου και Πτολεμαΐδας από τη λίμνη Πολυφύτου που τροφοδοτείται από τον ποταμό Αλιάκμονα. Σύμφωνα με τη ΜΠΕ (194) που αφορά την κατασκευή των αγωγών μεταφοράς του νερού, «οι δεσμευόμενες ποσότητες νερού από τον ταμιευτήρα Πολυφύτου θα αυξηθούν κατά 17 hm3 /έτος σε σχέση με την υφιστάμενη σήμερα κατάσταση ». Αυτή η ποσότητα νερού θα προστεθεί στα 55 hm3 που εκτιμάται ότι ως τώρα η ΔΕΗ αντλεί κάθε χρόνο από τον Αλιάκμονα για την υδροδότηση όλων των ΑΗΣ της στο λεκανοπέδιο Δυτικής Μακεδονίας (195). Επίσης, ο Αλιάκμονας επιβαρύνεται επιπλέον από τα υπάρχοντα 4 μεγάλα υδροηλεκτρικά φράγματα της ΔΕΗ συνολικής ισχύος 922 ΜW (196), ενώ σχεδιάζονται και 2 νέα στο Ελάφιο (135 MW) (197) και το Νεστόριο (7 MW) (198), τη στιγμή που δεν έχει ακόμα εκπονηθεί σχέδιο διαχείρισης για το υδατικό διαμέρισμα (ΥΔ) 09 (Δυτ. Μακεδονία).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει για την προστασία του Αλιάκμονα έως ότου εκπονηθούν τα σχέδια διαχείρισης για το υδατικό διαμέρισμα Δ. Μακεδονίας σύμφωνα με την Οδηγία 2000/60/ΕΚ;

Έχει στη διάθεσή της ή σκοπεύει να ζητήσει στοιχεία από τις ελληνικές αρχές σχετικά με το κόστος υδροδότησης των λιγνιτικών σταθμών της ΔΕΗ;

Σκοπεύει να προτείνει στις ελληνικές αρχές να συμπεριληφθεί η αποκατάσταση της λίμνης Βεγορίτιδας στα προς εκπόνηση σχέδια διαχείρισης του ΥΔ 09, με συγχρηματοδότηση της ΔΕΗ;

Σκοπεύει να ζητήσει από το κράτος μέλος και τη ΔΕΗ την εκπόνηση προγράμματος εξοικονόμησης νερού-ατμού στις λιγνιτικές της μονάδες;

Απάντηση του κ. Potočnik εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(14 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Οι ελληνικές αρχές οφείλουν να καθορίσουν τα ενδεδειγμένα μέτρα στο σχέδιο διαχείρισης της λεκάνης απορροής του ποταμού Αλιάκμονα, όπως απαιτεί η οδηγία-πλαίσιο για τα ύδατα (ΟΠΥ, 2000/60/ΕΚ (199)), ώστε να διασφαλισθεί η καλή κατάσταση όλων των υδάτων μέχρι το 2015. Εν προκειμένω ως καλή κατάσταση νοείται η καλή ποιότητα, προκειμένου για τα επιφανειακά ύδατα, και η καλή ποιότητα και ικανοποιητική ποσότητα, προκειμένου για τα υπόγεια ύδατα. Η επίτευξη του εν λόγω στόχου προϋποθέτει τη θέσπιση προγραμμάτων παρακολούθησης και τη λήψη οικονομικά αποδοτικών μέτρων για την αντιμετώπιση των σοβαρών πιέσεων που επηρεάζουν την κατάσταση των υδάτων.

Η Ελλάδα δεν έχει υποβάλει στην Επιτροπή σχέδια διαχείρισης λεκανών απορροής ποταμών (ΣΔΛΑΠ). Ως εκ τούτου, η Επιτροπή κίνησε διαδικασία επί παραβάσει κατά της Ελλάδας (υπόθεση C‐297/11, απόφαση της 19.4.2012.), επειδή η χώρα δεν είχε θεσπίσει ούτε είχε υποβάλει ΣΔΛΑΠ. Η Ελλάδα έχει ανεπίσημα ενημερώσει την Επιτροπή ότι τα ΣΔΛΑΠ θα υποβληθούν τους προσεχείς μήνες. Μετά τη διαβίβαση των ΣΔΛΑΠ, η Επιτροπή θα τα αξιολογήσει και θα τα αναλύσει ώστε να διαπιστωθεί κατά πόσον τηρήθηκαν οι απαιτήσεις της ΟΠΥ. Εν ανάγκη, η Επιτροπή θα λάβει περαιτέρω μέτρα με βάση την ως άνω αξιολόγηση.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009430/12

to the Commission

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Unjustifiable use of water from the river Aliakmonas to supply the Greek Electricity Board's lignite plants

Until 1997, Amydaio lignite plant (200) in Western Macedonia was supplied with 20 hm3 of water/year from Lake Vegoritida, which contributed significantly to the lowering of the water level by 32.5 metres between 1955 and 2002 (201). Because of this and the depletion of the underground aquifers in the area, in 1997 Amydaio lignite plant began to be supplied from the river Aliakmonas (Polyfyto reservoir) with about 10 hm3/year. It should be noted that the river Aliakmonas is about 60 km away from Amydaio lignite plant, with which it has a negative elevation difference of 390 metres, which increases water transportation costs because of the cost of the pipeline and the operating costs of pumping. Recently, the Greek Electricity Board decided to meet the entire water needs of Amydaio and Ptolemaida plants from Lake Polyfyto which is supplied by the river Aliakmonas. According to the EIA (202) on the construction of the water pipelines, ‘the committed amounts of water from Polyfyto reservoir will increase by 17 hm3/year compared to the current volume.’ This volume of water will be added to the estimated 55 hm3 that the Greek Electricity Board currently draws each year from the river Aliakmonas to supply all the steam-electric power generation plants in Western Macedonia (203). Moreover, there are also 4 large Greek Electricity Board hydroelectric dams on the river Aliakmonas with a total capacity of 922 MW (204), and 2 new dams are planned at Elafio (135 MW) (205) and Nestorio (7 MW) (206), even though no management plan has yet been drawn up for Water Section 09 of West Macedonia.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What steps will it take to protect the river Aliakmonas until management plans have been drawn up for the Water Section of Western Macedonia in line with Directive 2000/60/EC?

Does it have — or does it intend to seek from the Greek authorities — information about the cost of supplying water to the Greek Electricity Board's lignite plants?

Will it propose to the Greek authorities that the rehabilitation of Lake Vegoritida should be included in the Water Section 09 management plans which are due to be drawn up, with Greek Electricity Board co-funding?

Does it intend to ask the Member State concerned and the Greek Electricity Board to draw up a water-steam electricity generation saving programme at its lignite units?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2012)

The Greek authorities have to identify the adequate measures in the River Aliakmonas Basin management Plan, as required by Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC (207)), to ensure good status of all waters by 2015. Good status means good quality for surface water and good quality and quantity for groundwater. To achieve this objective requires monitoring programmes to be established and cost effective measures to be put in place to address significant pressures impacting on the status.

Greece has not reported its River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) to the Commission. The Commission has therefore opened an infringement procedure against Greece (Case C‐297/11, ruling 19.4.2012.), for failing to adopt and report its RBMPs. Greece has informally informed the Commission that the RBMPs will be reported in the coming months. Once the RBMPs will be transmitted, the Commission will assess them and analyse whether the requirements of the WFD have been respected. If appropriate, the Commission will take further steps on the basis of this assessment.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009431/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(17 octobre 2012)

Objet: Google et le traitement des données personnelles des citoyens

Après plusieurs mois d'enquête menée par la CNIL sur les nouvelles règles de confidentialité de Google entrées en vigueur le 1er mars dernier, les autorités européennes de protection des données ont publié leurs conclusions communes. Elles recommandent une information plus claire des personnes et demandent à Google d'offrir aux utilisateurs un meilleur contrôle de la combinaison des données entre les nombreux services que cette société propose. Enfin, elles souhaitent que Google modifie les outils utilisés afin d'éviter une collecte excessive de données.

Deux questionnaires successifs ont été envoyés et Google a fourni ses réponses les 20 avril et 21 juin, plusieurs d'entre elles s'étant avérées incomplètes ou approximatives. En particulier, Google n'a pas fourni de réponses satisfaisantes sur des points essentiels, comme la description de tous les traitements de données personnelles qu'elle opère ou la liste précise de la soixantaine de politiques de confidentialité qui ont été fusionnées dans les nouvelles règles.

1.

Comment la Commission réagit-elle face au fait que Google ne fournisse pas d'informations claires et complètes sur les données qu'elle collecte ni sur les finalités de chacun de ces traitements de données personnelles?

2.

Comment la Commission réagit-elle face au fait que chez Google, la combinaison de données entre services poursuit des finalités différentes, comme la fourniture du service demandé par la personne, le développement de nouveaux produits, la sécurité, la publicité, la création du compte Google ou encore la recherche universitaire?

3.

Comment la Commission réagit-elle face au fait que Google n'octroie pas aux utilisateurs un réel contrôle sur la combinaison de données en centralisant et simplifiant leur droit d'opposition?

4.

Comment la Commission compte-t-elle réagir au fait que Google ait refusé de s'engager sur des durées de conservation pour les données personnelles qu'elle traite?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(21 décembre 2012)

Les règles de confidentialité de Google entrées en vigueur le 1er mars dernier suscitent l'attention particulière de la Commission européenne. La Commission suit avec intérêt l'enquête des autorités européennes de protection de données concernant Google.

En application de la Directive 95/46/CE (208) et sans préjudice des pouvoirs de la Commission en tant que gardienne des traités, il revient aux autorités nationales compétentes de veiller à la mise en œuvre de cet instrument législatif.

Le 16 octobre 2012, 29 autorités européennes de protection des données, ont indiqué dans une lettre conjointe à Google, que l'entreprise ne fournissait pas suffisamment d'information à ses utilisateurs. Elles lui ont ainsi demandé de mettre ses traitements en conformité avec la législation européenne. À cette fin, les autorités ont formulé une série de recommandations à son égard (209).

La Commission européenne se réjouit des mesures prises par la CNIL au nom des 27 autorités nationales de protection des données de l'UE. Ces mesures montrent que les 1 500 personnes qui travaillent au sein de ces autorités en Europe parviennent à relever avec succès les défis en matière de respect de la vie privée et à parler d'une seule voix. Cette collaboration reflète la réalité du monde numérique actuel, dans lequel les décisions d'une seule autorité de protection des données concernent les citoyens de toute l'Europe.

La proposition de Règlement (210) de la Commission du 25 janvier 2012 révise le cadre juridique de la protection des données dans l'Union. Cette proposition réaffirme les principes fondamentaux de licéité, de loyauté, d'information et de transparence des traitements de données et accroît tant la protection des individus que les pouvoirs de sanction des autorités de contrôle nationales. La proposition ouvre également de nouvelles voies de recours aux individus à l'égard des responsables de traitement.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009431/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Google and personal data processing

Following an investigation lasting several months, led by the French National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL), into Google’s new privacy policy, which came into effect on 1 March 2012, the European data protection authorities have published their joint conclusions. They urge Google to provide clearer information to the public and to offer its users greater control over data combination across the company’s many services. Their ultimate aim is for Google to change its practices in order to avoid collecting an unnecessarily large amount of data.

Two questionnaires were sent out, and on 20 April and 21 June 2012 Google submitted its answers, several of which turned out to be incomplete or unclear. In particular, Google failed to give satisfactory answers on some key points, such as providing details of all the types of personal data processing it carries out or a full list of the 60 or so privacy policies which have been combined to form the new one.

1.

What is the Commission’s response to Google’s failure to provide clear and completeinformation on the data which it collects and the purpose of each type of dataprocessing?

2.

What is the Commission’s response to Google’s use of data combination across its servicesfor a range of purposes, such as providing a service requested by a user, developing new products, security, advertising, opening a Google account, or even academic research?

3.

What is the Commission’s response to Google’s failure to give its users real control over data combination, when it could do so by centralising and simplifying the procedures by means of which they can exercise their right to object?

4.

How does the Commission plan to respond to Google’s failure to specify how long the data it processes will be held?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2012)

The European Commission has been paying particular attention to Google’s privacy policy, which came into effect on 1 March 2012, and has been closely following the investigation into Google by the European data protection authorities.

Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC (211), and without prejudice to the powers of the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties, the implementation of this legislative instrument falls within the competence of the national authorities.

On 16 October 2012, 29 European data protection authorities stated in a joint letter to Google that the company did not provide sufficient information to its users. They therefore requested that it bring its processing into line with European legislation. For this purpose, the authorities provided a series of recommendations (212).

The European Commission welcomes the action taken by CNIL on behalf of the 27 national DPAs in the EU. It shows that the 1500 people working in the national DPAs in Europe are successfully addressing global privacy challenges and are able to speak with one voice. This reflects the reality of today's digital world, in which the decisions of one DPA are relevant for citizens all across Europe.

The Commission’s proposal for a regulation (213) of 25 January 2012 revises the legal framework of data protection in the Union. This proposal reaffirms the fundamental principles of lawfulness, fairness, information and transparency of data treatment and increases both the protection of individuals and national authorities’ powers to impose penalties. The proposal also opens up new remedies for individuals in respect of the processors.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009432/12

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Acordo de Pesca UE-República da Guiné-Bissau

— Tendo em conta que o Acordo de Parceria no domínio da Pesca (APP) entre a UE e a República da Guiné-Bissau está suspenso até ao restabelecimento da ordem democrática no país;

— Tendo em conta que durante o anterior acordo foram assinalados pela Comissão problemas ao nível da absorção das verbas referentes ao apoio setorial (assunto já abordado na pergunta E-001574/2011);

Solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

Qual o ponto de situação relativamente às embarcações europeias que exerciam atividade nas águas guineenses ao abrigo deste acordo? Quantas eram essas embarcações e de que países? Estão previstas compensações financeiras para os armadores e pescadores dessas embarcações?

Como avalia a Comissão a aplicação do apoio setorial no acordo anterior, em especial depois de terem sido restabelecidos os pagamentos que a Comissão entendeu a dada altura suspender?

Que medidas foram tomadas no atual Acordo para evitar os problemas surgidos no passado com a absorção dos fundos referentes ao apoio setorial?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

1.

A partir de 16 de junho de 2012, as embarcações europeias que costumavam pescar na zona económica exclusiva (ZEE) da Guiné-Bissau tiveram de suspender a sua atividade na zona, devido ao termo do protocolo anterior e à suspensão do procedimento de adoção do protocolo rubricado em fevereiro de 2012. No início de 2012, possuíam licença de pesca na Guiné-Bissau 65 embarcações da UE: 17 arrastões de peixes ósseos e cefalópodes (da Espanha e da Grécia), 13 camaroeiros (da Espanha e de Portugal), 8 embarcações de pesca com canas (da França e da Espanha) e 23 atuneiros cercadores (da França, da Espanha e de Portugal). Desde que foram interrompidas as atividades de pesca, os Estados‐Membros não receberam compensações financeiras para essas embarcações.

2.

A partir de outubro de 2010, com o início da prestação de assistência técnica, a aplicação do apoio setorial na Guiné-Bissau melhorou muito, justificando o restabelecimento dos pagamentos. Em fevereiro de 2012, a Guiné-Bissau utilizara as três primeiras prestações previstas no protocolo, tendo as duas partes acordado no pagamento parcial da última prestação. Todavia, tal como indicado na pergunta E-1574/2011

2.

A partir de outubro de 2010, com o início da prestação de assistência técnica, a aplicação do apoio setorial na Guiné-Bissau melhorou muito, justificando o restabelecimento dos pagamentos. Em fevereiro de 2012, a Guiné-Bissau utilizara as três primeiras prestações previstas no protocolo, tendo as duas partes acordado no pagamento parcial da última prestação. Todavia, tal como indicado na pergunta E-1574/2011

 (214), na sequência do golpe de Estado de 12 de abril de 2012, este pagamento foi suspenso sine die.

3.

O protocolo rubricado em fevereiro de 2012, coerente com a reforma da política comum das pescas (PCP), reforça ainda mais o controlo e a condicionalidade do apoio setorial (artigos 3.° e 14.°).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009432/12

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: EU-Guinea-Bissau fisheries agreement

The fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) between the EU and Guinea-Bissau is suspended until such time as democracy has been restored in Guinea-Bissau.

During the life of the previous agreement the Commission identified problems as regards the uptake of sectoral support appropriations (that subject was raised in the earlier Question E‐001574/2011).

1.

What is the state of play regarding the European vessels that used to fish in Guinea-Bissau waters under the agreement? How many vessels were involved and from what countries did they come? Is financial compensation being granted to the vessel owners and fishermen concerned?

2.

How successfully does the Commission think that sectoral support was implemented under the previous agreement, especially after the release of the payments which the Commission proposed at one time to suspend?

3.

What steps have been taken under the present agreement to avert any repetition of the take-up problems affecting sectoral support funding?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2012)

1.

Since 16 June 2012, EU vessels that used to fish in Guinea Bissau's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) have had to stop fishing in this area due to the termination of the previous protocol and the suspension of the adoption procedure of the protocol initialled in February 2012. At the beginning of 2012, 65 EU vessels had a licence to fish in Guinea Bissau: 17 fin fish and cephalopods trawlers (from Spain and Greece), 13 shrimp trawlers (from Spain and Portugal), 8 pole and line tuna vessels (from France and Spain) and 23 tuna seiners (from France, Spain and Portugal). Since the interruption of fishing activities, no financial compensation has been granted by Member States to these vessels.

2.

Since the recruitment of a technical assistant in October 2010, the implementation of sectoral support in Guinea Bissau had much improved, justifying the release of the payments. In February 2012, Guinea Bissau had made use of the three first instalments foreseen by the protocol and the two parties agreed to proceed to the partial payment of the last instalment. However, as indicated in the reply to Question E-1574/2011

2.

Since the recruitment of a technical assistant in October 2010, the implementation of sectoral support in Guinea Bissau had much improved, justifying the release of the payments. In February 2012, Guinea Bissau had made use of the three first instalments foreseen by the protocol and the two parties agreed to proceed to the partial payment of the last instalment. However, as indicated in the reply to Question E-1574/2011

 (215), following the coup d'état of 12 April 2012, this payment has been suspended sine die.

3.

Consistent with the common fisheries policy (CFP) reform, the protocol initialled in February 2012 reinforced further the monitoring and the conditionality of sectoral support (Articles 3 and 14).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009433/12

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Luta no setor marítimo-portuário contra a revisão do regime de trabalho

Em Portugal, têm-se sucedido as ações de luta dos trabalhadores do setor marítimo-portuário, contra a alteração do regime laboral do setor, desencadeada pelo Governo. O combate centra‐se na proposta de lei de revisão do regime de trabalho portuário, que o Governo aprovou no dia 20 de setembro, uma semana depois de ter obtido o acordo de organizações sindicais minoritárias. Consideram os trabalhadores que as modificações pretendidas pelo Governo põem em causa os interesses e o emprego dos trabalhadores do setor e contrariam também os interesses do país.

Os portos de todo o País encerraram devido às greves dos pilotos de barra e do pessoal do controlo marítimo, nos dias 17, 18 e 25; dos estivadores, a 19 e 20 (apenas não encerrou o porto de Leixões); dos trabalhadores das administrações portuárias, nos dias 21 e 24.

No dia 25, terça-feira, trabalhadores portuários de vários países da Europa (Espanha, Itália, França, Dinamarca, Grécia, Chipre, Suécia, Malta) realizaram uma greve simbólica de uma hora, em solidariedade com a luta no nosso país.

Várias organizações sindicais de diversos países têm vindo a condenar a postura da Comissão Europeia, por considerarem que estamos perante uma nova tentativa de liberalizar a organização do trabalho portuário, depois de a Diretiva dos Portos ter sido rejeitada já por duas vezes. Afirmam estas organizações que a Comissão estará a pressionar governos, como o português e o grego, para tentar forçar a aplicação, na prática, do conteúdo da Diretiva nestes países, visando depois o seu alargamento progressivo aos demais.

Em face do exposto, pergunto à Comissão:

Qual o envolvimento da Comissão no processo em curso de revisão do regime de trabalho no setor portuário em Portugal?

A rejeição da proposta de Diretiva dos Portos levou a Comissão a abandonar a visão de liberalizar a organização do trabalho portuário ou, pelo contrário, tenciona insistir nas mesmas propostas anteriormente rejeitadas?

Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão

(11 de dezembro de 2012)

1.

A revisão do quadro jurídico que rege o regime laboral no setor portuário português insere‐se no programa de ajustamento económico (PAE) acordado entre a República Portuguesa e a Comissão, o Banco Central Europeu e o Fundo Monetário Internacional (CE/BCE/FMI). Trimestralmente, esta tríade reúne com as autoridades portuguesas para avaliar o cumprimento dos termos e condições definidos no PAE

1.

A revisão do quadro jurídico que rege o regime laboral no setor portuário português insere‐se no programa de ajustamento económico (PAE) acordado entre a República Portuguesa e a Comissão, o Banco Central Europeu e o Fundo Monetário Internacional (CE/BCE/FMI). Trimestralmente, esta tríade reúne com as autoridades portuguesas para avaliar o cumprimento dos termos e condições definidos no PAE

 (216).

2.

Desde a rejeição das propostas da diretiva relativa ao acesso ao mercado dos serviços portuários, em 2003 e 2005, a situação nos portos europeus alterou‐se consideravelmente; vários foram os Estados‐Membros (por exemplo, a Finlândia, a França, a Alemanha e a Espanha) que procederam a reformas importantes. No contexto dos programas de assistência financeira, não só Portugal, mas também a Grécia e a Irlanda, procedem a reformas estruturais nos portos.

Em 2011, a Comissão iniciou uma análise da política portuária da UE, implicando consultas exaustivas às partes interessadas e uma ampla avaliação de impacto. Esta análise está ainda a decorrer, para permitir à Comissão adotar as opções adequadas. O objetivo consiste em contribuir para o crescimento económico, reforçando o mercado interno e desbloqueando simultaneamente o potencial dos portos em termos de emprego e investimento. A Comissão prepara a apresentação de propostas em 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009433/12

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Campaign in the maritime and port sector against the revision of working arrangements

In Portugal, workers in the maritime and port sector have been campaigning against the changes being made to their working arrangements at the instigation of the Government. The main subject of dispute is the draft law revising port working arrangements, which the Government approved on 20 September 2012, a week after it had secured the agreement of minority trade unions. The workers believe that the changes being sought by the Government will jeopardise their interests and employment and also run counter to the national interest.

Ports in all parts of Portugal were closed because of strikes by port pilots and surveillance personnel, on 17, 18, and 25 September 2012, by dockers, on 19 and 20 September 2012 (Leixões was the only port not to be closed), and by port authority employees, on 21 and 24 September 2012.

On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 port workers in several European countries (Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, and Malta) staged a one-hour sympathy strike in support of the Portuguese campaign.

Trade unions in a number of countries have been speaking out against the attitude of the Commission, since they think that a fresh attempt is being made to liberalise port working patterns, the Ports Directive having already been rejected twice. They maintain that the Commission is pressuring the Portuguese, Greek, and other governments into enforcing the substance of the directive, de facto, in their countries, its aim thereafter being to extend the scope of the directive by degrees to encompass the remaining Member States.

In the light of the foregoing:

In what way is the Commission involved in the current revision of port working arrangements in Portugal?

Given that the proposed Ports Directive has been rejected, has the Commission abandoned the idea of liberalising port working patterns or does it intend, on the contrary, to push through the proposals previously rejected?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2012)

1.

The revision of legal framework governing port work in Portugal is part of the Economic Adjustment Programme (EAP) agreed between the Portuguese authorities and the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Every three months, a joint EC/ECB/IMF mission meets with the Portuguese authorities to assess compliance with the terms and conditions set out in the EAP

1.

The revision of legal framework governing port work in Portugal is part of the Economic Adjustment Programme (EAP) agreed between the Portuguese authorities and the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Every three months, a joint EC/ECB/IMF mission meets with the Portuguese authorities to assess compliance with the terms and conditions set out in the EAP

 (217).

2.

Since the rejections of the proposals for a directive on market access to port services in 2003 and 2005, the situation in European ports has changed considerably; different Member States, for example Finland, France, Germany or Spain, undertook important port reforms. In the context of the financial assistance programmes, not only Portugal, but also Greece and Ireland are embarking on structural reforms in ports.

In 2011, the Commission started a review of the EU ports' policy, involving extensive consultation with stakeholders and extended impact assessment. The Commission is still conducting its analysis so as to arrive at appropriate policy options. The aim is to contribute to economic growth by strengthening the internal market, unlocking at the same time the potential of ports in terms of jobs and investments. The Commission will deliver relevant proposals in 2013.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-009434/12

adresată Comisiei

Adrian Severin (NI)

(17 octombrie 2012)

Subiect: Cerere de clarificare a răspunsului Comisiei privind demiterea Președintelui României Traian Băsescu văzută ca puci parlamentar

La data de 10 octombrie 2012 am primit din partea Comisarului pentru Justiție, doamna Viviane Reding, un așa zis răspuns la întrebarea scrisă depusă de mine pe 22 septembrie 2012, cu codul de referință E-007924/12.

Documentul în cauză constă într-o simplă trimitere la răspunsurile date unor întrebări puse de alți deputați din PE (cod ref.: E-007112/2012, E-007534/2012). Cum întrebarea mea avea un cu totul alt sens decât celelalte întrebări vizate, răspunsul oferit acelora nu satisface cererea mea.

Întrebarea mea urmărea să clarifice motivele pentru care Comisarul Reding a definit acțiunea demiterii Președintelui Traian Băsescu ca „puci parlamentar”, respectiv „lovitură de stat”. În acest sens, am cerut doamnei Reding să îi indice pe complotiștii puciului, precum și violențele la care s-au dedat aceștia. De asemenea solicităm argumente și probe, iar nu referiri la zvonuri și prejudecăți, pe baza cărora să se poată concluziona că procedura de demitere a Președintelui României a fost ilegală.

Dincolo de faptul că nu răspunde întrebărilor mele, textul Comisarului Reding conține, involuntar, recunoașterea abuzului săvârșit atunci când CE a cerut Primului Ministru român anularea unor acte care nu încălcau acquis-ul comunitar (referitor la înlocuirea șefilor de instituții, formarea Guvernului sau legiferarea prin ordonanță, CE nu are competențe), împiedicarea președintelui țării să își îndeplinească atribuțiile constituționale (Guvernul nu avea dreptul de a-i cere Președintelui să renunțe la prerogativa grațierii) sau îndreptarea unor greșeli care nu fuseseră comise (pretinsa nerespectare a hotărârilor Curții Constituționale).

În consecință, reiterând cererile anterioare, rugăm Comisia să ne precizeze:

Cine au fost complotiștii „loviturii de stat” din România (perioada iulie-august 2012) și în ce au constat violențele justificând calificativul de „puci”?

Care sunt argumentele care susțin ideea că procedura urmată pentru demiterea Președintelui României a fost ilegală?

În ce fel își asumă dna Comisar Reding răspunderea pentru acuzele nefondate?

Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei

(4 decembrie 2012)

Comisia și-a exprimat poziția cu privire la gravitatea situației politice și instituționale datorate evenimentelor care au avut loc vara trecută în România în răspunsurile sale la întrebările cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-007112/2012 și E-007534/2012 (218).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009434/12

to the Commission

Adrian Severin (NI)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Request for clarification on the dismissal of Traian Băsescu, President of Romania — a parliamentary putsch?

On 10 October 2012, I received a so-called answer from the Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, to my Written Question E-007924/12 of 22 September 2012.

Her answer consists simply of forwarding the replies given to questions tabled by other MEPs (E-007112/2012 and E-007534/2012). Given that my question was quite different from theirs, the answer given to those questions does not provide any response to my own question.

The purpose of my question was to clarify the reasons that led Commissioner Reding to describe the dismissal of President Traian Băsescu as a ‘parliamentary putsch’ or a ‘coup d’état’. Accordingly, I asked her to identify the conspirators involved in the putsch and say in what way they had acted violently. I also requested arguments and evidence, rather than rumours and preconceived ideas, on the basis of which it might be concluded that the procedure followed in connection with the Romanian President's dismissal was not legal.

Leaving aside the fact that she did not answer my questions, Commissioner Reding's reply contains an involuntary recognition of the abuse that occurred when the Commission called on the Romanian Prime Minister to annul acts that did not breach the acquis communautaire (the Commission has no competence in relation to the replacement of heads of institutions, the formation of a government and legislating by decree), prevent the country's president from carrying out constitutional duties (the Government had no right to ask the President to forego prerogatives in relation to pardons) and remedy errors that had not been committed (alleged failure to comply with decisions of the Constitutional Court).

I am therefore once again asking the Commission to answer the following questions:

Who were the conspirators in the ‘coup d’état’ in Romania (in the period July to August 2012), and what acts of violence would justify the use of the term ‘putsch’?

What arguments are there to indicate that the procedure followed in connection with the Romanian President's dismissal was not legal?

How will Commissioner Reding take responsibility for unfounded accusations?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The Commission has expressed its position on the seriousness of the political and institutional developments of last summer in Romania in its reply to written questions E-007112/2012 and E-007534/2012 (219).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009435/12

an die Kommission

Angelika Niebler (PPE)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Fusionskontrollverfahren

In den letzten Jahren sind Entscheidungen zur Fusionskontrolle der Generaldirektion Wettbewerb der Europäischen Kommission mehrfach durch den Gerichtshof auf den Prüfstand gestellt worden. So wurden z. B. im Juli 2007 offenkundige Rechtsverstöße durch die Kommission im Fusionskontrollverfahren zwischen Schneider Electric S.A. und Legrand S.A. festgestellt und die Kommission wurde verurteilt, der Schneider Electric S.A. einen Teil des Schadens zu erstatten, der aufgrund der untersagten Fusion entstanden ist. Die Kommission hatte seinerzeit eine Schadenersatzpflicht u. a. mit dem Argument abgelehnt, sie könne ihre Aufgabe als Wettbewerbshüterin nicht vollumfänglich wahrnehmen, wenn sie dem Risiko von Schadenersatzansprüchen ausgesetzt sei. Die Geltendmachung von Schadenersatzansprüchen könnte sich hemmend auf ihren Entscheidungsspielraum auswirken.

In einem weiteren Fusionskontrollverfahren (MyTravel plc und First Choice plc) wurde eine Schadenersatzklage gegen die Kommission beim Europäischen Gericht angestrengt. Das Gericht kam in dieser Entscheidung jedoch zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Kommission keinen Rechtsverstoß begangen habe, der eine Haftung ausreichend begründen würde.

1.

Haben sich die Bedenken der Kommission gegen eine Haftung für Verstöße wie bei Schneider/Legrand im Rückblick als berechtigt erwiesen? Welche Vorkehrungen trifft die Kommission, um Haftungsrisiken zu minimieren?

2.

Wurden eventuell Zusammenschlüsse zwischen Unternehmen freigegeben aufgrund der Befürchtung, in die Haftung genommen zu werden, obwohl aus wettbewerbsrechtlicher Sicht eine Untersagung der Fusion hätte ausgesprochen werden müssen?

3.

Wurden Verfahrensabläufe im Fusionskontrollverfahren geändert, um Haftungstatbestände zu vermeiden?

4.

Hat sich der Ermittlungs‐ und Begründungsaufwand erhöht, um Entscheidungen besser begründen zu können, und dauern die Prüfverfahren daher länger?

5.

Haben evtl. geänderte Verfahrensabläufe dazu beigetragen, dass es zu keinen weiteren Haftungsfällen nach der Entscheidung Schneider/Legrand kam?

6.

Wurden und werden Vorkehrungen für Haftungsfälle, beispielsweise in Form von Rückstellungen, getroffen?

7.

Hat die Rechtsprechung die Effektivität der fusionskontrollrechtlichen Aufsicht durch die Kommission beeinträchtigt?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(19. Dezember 2012)

1.-5. Schneider Electric und MyTravel reichten eine Schadenersatzklage ein, nachdem das Gericht Entscheidungen, mit denen Unternehmenszusammenschlüsse untersagt worden waren, für nichtig erklärt hatte. Der EuGH urteilte 2009, dass die EU Schneider die Kosten erstatten muss, die dem Unternehmen durch die Wiederaufnahme des Fusionskontrollverfahrens nach der Nichtigerklärung entstanden, wies jedoch die übrigen Schadenersatzanträge von Schneider zurück (220). Die Klage von MyTravel wurde 2008 abgewiesen (221).

Die Tatsache, dass gegen die Kommission Schadenersatzklagen erhoben werden können, hat sich nicht auf die Rolle der Kommission als Wettbewerbsbehörde ausgewirkt. Die Kommission hat nie aus solchen Erwägungen von dem Verbot eines Zusammenschlusses oder der Forderung nach wirksamen Abhilfemaßnahmen Abstand genommen, sondern eine Reihe von Maßnahmen ergriffen, um die Verfahren und die Qualität der Fusionskontrollbeschlüsse zu verbessern.

Auf der Verfahrensebene wurden mehr Prüfinstrumente entwickelt (222) und in der GD Wettbewerb das Team des Chefökonomen eingerichtet. Inhaltlich wurde durch die Fusionskontrollverordnung 139/2004 (223) der Marktbeherrschungstest durch das Kriterium der „erheblichen Behinderung wirksamen Wettbewerbs“ ersetzt, das auf den voraussichtlichen Auswirkungen des Zusammenschlusses auf den Marktwettbewerb basiert. Die Kommission analysiert die einzelnen zu erwartenden Auswirkungen eines jeden Zusammenschlusses, gegebenenfalls mithilfe einer zusätzlichen quantitativen Analyse (224).

Obwohl die Zahl der Prüfverfahren gestiegen ist und die Fälle komplexer geworden sind, prüft die Kommission trotz begrenzter Personalausstattung alle angemeldeten Zusammenschlüsse innerhalb der kurzen vorgeschriebenen Fristen (225). Die überwiegende Mehrheit der Beschlüsse hat der gerichtlichen Überprüfung standgehalten. Seit 2002 hat das Gericht keinen Beschluss zur Untersagung eines Zusammenschlusses für nichtig erklärt (226). Auch wurden in keinem Fall Schadenersatzzahlungen der Kommission wegen etwaiger fehlerhafter Fusionskontrollbeschlüsse angeordnet.

6.

Nein, außer in der Sache Schneider.

7.

Die Kommission kann alle in ihre Zuständigkeit fallenden Zusammenschlüsse wirksam prüfen, selbst wenn eine eingehende gerichtliche Überprüfung folgt

7.

Die Kommission kann alle in ihre Zuständigkeit fallenden Zusammenschlüsse wirksam prüfen, selbst wenn eine eingehende gerichtliche Überprüfung folgt

 (227).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009435/12

to the Commission

Angelika Niebler (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Merger control procedures

In recent years, certain decisions by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition have been challenged in court. In July 2007 the Commission was found to have clearly breached the law in its merger control proceedings against the acquisition by Schneider Electric SA of Legrand SA, and it was ordered to pay Schneider Electric part compensation for the losses occasioned by the prohibition of the merger. The Commission refused to accept that it had any duty to pay compensation, arguing inter alia that it could not properly perform its role of defending competition if it was exposed to claims for damages: the enforcement of such claims could constrain its decision making.

The Commission was also sued for damages in the European Court of Justice in relation to another merger control procedure (MyTravel plc and First Choice plc) but in that case the Court ruled that it had not committed any breach of the law sufficient to establish liability.

1.

In retrospect, were the Commission’s misgivings about liability for breaches of the law as in the Schneider/Legrand case justified? What precautionary measures is the Commission taking to reduce its liability exposure?

2.

Has fear of being held liable for damages led to the granting of permission for any corporate mergers which ought to have been prohibited on competition-related grounds?

3.

Has the Commission changed the way it conducts merger control procedures, so as to avoid practices that could give rise to liability?

4.

Is more effort being expended on investigating cases and justifying decisions, so that the grounds for them are more solid, and are the investigation procedures taking longer?

5.

Have any changes in the conduct of merger control procedures contributed to the avoidance of further liability disputes in the years since the Schneider/Legrand ruling?

6.

Have any precautionary measures — such as the constitution of reserves — been taken with a view to liability disputes and, if so, are they ongoing?

7.

Did the Schneider/Legrand ruling impair the effectiveness of the supervisory function under merger control law?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2012)

1-5. Schneider Electric and MyTravel brought actions for damages after the General Court annulled merger prohibition decisions. The ECJ held in 2009 that the EU must compensate Schneider for costs it incurred in the resumed merger procedure following the annulment, but rejected Schneider’s further claims for damages (228). MyTravel’s claim was dismissed in 2008 (229).

The risk of damage claims affecting the Commission's role as competition authority has not materialised. The Commission has never refrained from prohibiting a merger or requiring effective remedies for that reason, but has taken a number of measures to improve procedures and the quality of merger decisions.

Procedurally, more scrutiny instruments have been developed (230), and the Chief Economist team was set up within DG Competition. In terms of substance, the Merger Regulation 139/2004 (231) replaced the dominance test by the criterion ‘significant impediment to effective competition’ based on the expected impact on competition in the markets. The Commission analyses in detail the specific anticipated effects of each concentration, in appropriate cases by a supplementary quantitative analysis (232).

The workload has grown and cases are more complex. Yet theCommission examines every notified concentration within short legally binding time limits, in spite of limited staff resources and more complex investigations (233). The vast majority of decisions have withstood judicial review. Since 2002, the Court has never annulled a prohibition decision (234), nor has it ordered the Commission to pay damages due to faulty merger decision.

6.

No, except in the Schneider case.

7.

The Commission can effectively examine all mergers in its jurisdiction even under conditions of thorough judicial review

7.

The Commission can effectively examine all mergers in its jurisdiction even under conditions of thorough judicial review

 (235).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009436/12

an die Kommission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Mögliche Flughafeninvestitionen in Österreich

Die Kommission sieht die Notwendigkeit beträchtlicher Investitionen im Flugverkehr, vor allem beim Aus‐ und Aufbau von Drehkreuzen (siehe Memo 12/714 vom 27. September 2012).

1.

Sieht die Kommission für österreichische Flughäfen einen Investitionsbedarf?

2.

Wenn ja, wie hoch schätzt die Kommission den Investitionsbedarf für den jeweiligen Flughafen ein?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(13. Dezember 2012)

Investitionen in Flughafeninfrastrukturen sowie in den Auf‐ und Ausbau von Drehkreuzen sind von entscheidender Bedeutung für die globale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Drehkreuze. Österreich ist ein wichtiges Drehkreuz in Europa und verfügt bereits über eine effiziente und wettbewerbsfähige Luftverkehrsinfrastruktur.

Die derzeitige Regierungskoalition hat im November 2011 einen Entwicklungsplan für die Luftfahrt (Road Map Luftfahrt 2020) gebilligt — ein Hinweis darauf, dass Österreich Maßnahmen trifft, um seine Österreichs Position in diesem Bereich zu festigen. Der kürzlich eröffnete neue Terminal (Skylink) bietet den Fluggästen einen modernen Flughafen, dessen Komfort, Service und Sicherheit sich auf dem neuesten Stand befinden.

Die Kommission hat die Aufgabe, die Mitgliedstaaten und Akteure durch eine Bestandsaufnahme der Lage zu unterstützen. So wird beispielsweise Eurocontrol in Zusammenarbeit mit der Kommission bis Mitte 2013 eine Aktualisierung des Berichts „Challenges to Growth“ fertig stellen, in dem die Lage in Europa, unter anderem in Bezug auf die Flughafenkapazität, analysiert wird. Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse dieses Berichts könnte die Kommission die Mitgliedstaaten auffordern, unter Berücksichtigung aller Auswirkungen auf die Netze und vor allem der Notwendigkeit, den Erfolg des einheitlichen europäischen Luftraums zu gewährleisten, nationale Strategien zur Flughafenkapazität zu entwickeln.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009436/12

to the Commission

Hans-Peter Martin (NI)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Possibility of investment in Austrian airports

The Commission envisages a need for substantial investment in air traffic, especially in establishing and developing hubs (see its memo No 12/714 of 27 September 2012).

1.

Does the Commission consider there is a need for investment in Austrian airports?

2.

If so, what level of investment does it estimate to be necessary at which airports?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2012)

Investments in airport infrastructure and development of hubs are crucial for allowing European hubs to compete in the world. Austria is an important hub in Europe, with an effective and competitive air transport infrastructure.

The current government coalition has approved a development plan for aviation (Road Map Luftfahrt 2020) in November 2011, showing that actions are being taken to secure Austria's position in aviation. The recent opening of the new terminal (Skylink) has offered passengers a modern airport with up-to-date comfort, service and safety.

The role of the Commission is to assist Member States and stakeholders by taking stock of the situation. For instance, Eurocontrol, in conjunction with the Commission, will finalise by mid-2013 an update of the ‘Challenges to Growth’ report that analyses the situation in Europe regarding, among others airport capacity. Based on the results, the Commission could ask Member States to develop and provide national strategies on airport capacity, taking into account all network implications and in particular the need to ensure the success of the SES.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009438/12

an die Kommission

Norbert Neuser (S&D)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Foltervorwürfe in Ruanda

Am 8. Oktober 2012 legte Amnesty International einen Bericht mit dem Titel „Ruanda: Geheim: Rechtswidrige Inhaftierung und Folter durch den militärischen Nachrichtendienst“ vor.

Wie beurteilt die Kommission diese Angelegenheit?

Was hat die Kommission unternommen beziehungsweise was gedenkt sie angesichts dieser schwerwiegenden Foltervorwürfe zu unternehmen?

Welche Folgen hat dies für die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Ruanda?

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

(6. Dezember 2012)

Die EU misst der Achtung der Menschenrechte höchste Priorität bei und unterstützt die Einhaltung der Verpflichtungen, die Ruanda aufgrund der allgemeinen regelmäßigen Überprüfung (UPR) vom 24. Januar 2011 und der damit verknüpften Empfehlungen eingegangen ist. Sie verfolgt die Menschenrechtslage in Ruanda genau und hat den von Amnesty International vorgelegten Bericht über rechtswidrige Inhaftierung und Folter durch den militärischen Geheimdienst mit Besorgnis zur Kenntnis genommen.

Die EU unterhält regelmäßige formelle und informelle Kontakte mit Menschenrechtsorganisationen und Menschenrechtsverteidigern und unterstützt zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen im Rahmen thematischer Haushaltslinien und des EEF. Zudem erörtern die EU und Ruanda Menschenrechtsfragen regelmäßig im Rahmen des politischen Dialogs. Bei der jüngsten Sitzung nach Artikel 8 mit Justizminister Tharcisse Karugarama am 7. November standen die im Bericht von Amnesty International beschriebenen Sachverhalte im Vordergrund.

Die ruandische Regierung hat ein spezielles Team damit beauftragt, die Inhaftierungseinrichtungen landesweit zu überprüfen. Bis Ende des Jahres soll ein Abschlussbericht vorliegen. Regierungsvertreter teilten mit, dass allen Vorwürfen illegaler Inhaftierung und Folter nachgegangen werde und dass gegen die Verantwortlichen bereits Maßnahmen ergriffen worden seien.

Die EU wird diese Angelegenheit weiterhin sehr aufmerksam verfolgen und bei ihren nächsten Gesprächen nach Artikel 8 mit der ruandischen Regierung erneut aufgreifen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009438/12

to the Commission

Norbert Neuser (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Torture allegations in Rwanda

On 8 October 2012, Amnesty International released a report entitled ‘Rwanda: Shrouded in secrecy: Illegal detention and torture by military intelligence’.

What is the Commission’s view on the matter?

What has the Commission done, or what does it plan to do, in response to these serious torture allegations?

What impact does the matter have on EU-Rwanda relations?

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

(6 December 2012)

The protection of human rights is a top priority for the EU and the EU supports the realisation of the commitments that Rwanda made towards implementing the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recommendations of 24 January 2011. The EU is closely monitoring the situation of human rights in Rwanda and is concerned about Amnesty International's report on illegal detention and torture by military intelligence.

The EU maintains regular formal and informal contacts with human rights organisations and defenders and supports civil society organisations through the thematic budget lines and the EDF. Moreover, human rights issues are regularly on the agenda of the political dialogue between the EU and Rwanda. The last Article 8 meeting with the Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama which took place on 7 November focused on the elements contained in Amnesty International's report.

The Rwandan Government has commissioned a team to check detention facilities around the country. A final report should be released by the end of the year. According to government officials, all accusations of illegal detention and torture are being investigated and measures have already been taken against perpetrators.

The EU will continue to follow very closely this case and if necessary will raise it again during the next art 8 dialogue with the Rwandan Government.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009440/12

alla Commissione

Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Incentivi volti a facilitare le assunzioni nelle PMI

Nel territorio dell'Unione europea operano 45 milioni di piccole e medie imprese.

Data la grave crisi economica in atto sembra opportuno prevedere misure innovative per incentivare le assunzioni, in particolare nelle PMI.

L'iniziativa dovrebbe prevedere agevolazioni per le piccole e medie imprese che assumono per un anno una persona che si trova senza lavoro, a prescindere dalla categoria di cui fa parte (non si pensa dunque a sostegni differenziati in base a sesso, età o altri parametri).

Intende la Commissione sperimentare tale azione finalizzata a assumere per un anno una persona per ogni piccola-media impresa?

Risposta di A. Tajani a nome della Commissione

(17 gennaio 2013)

La Commissione riconosce il ruolo cruciale svolto dalle PMI nell'economia europea ed é consapevole di quanto severamente siano state colpite dalla crisi. Per questo ha messo le PMI al centro delle sue politiche, lanciando lo «(Small Business Act») (SBA) per l'Europa nel 2008 e adottandone una revisione nel 2011. L'SBA e la sua revisione hanno istituito una serie completa di misure riguardanti soprattutto tre ambiti prioritari: migliorare l'accesso delle PMI ai finanziamenti, semplificare il contesto normativo e promuovere l'accesso delle PMI ai mercati. Le iniziative della Commissione in tale ambito intendono sostenere la crescita delle PMI migliorando il contesto imprenditoriale in generale. Di conseguenza esse non comprendono sistemi specifici per le PMI che prevedono l'assunzione di un disoccupato per un anno e, attualmente, la Commissione non intende istituire tali sistemi.

Dall'altro lato la Commissione, negli orientamenti per il sostegno all'occupazione in quanto fattore di crescita (236), ha identificato le prassi migliori degli Stati membri in relazione agli incentivi all'assunzione e ha presentato soluzioni innovative per riunire le risorse, ad esempio le strategie sulle risorse umane, grazie alle quali le PMI potrebbero assumere di più.

Nell'Analisi annuale della crescita 2012 la Commissione aveva chiesto che fosse accordata priorità alla promozione di contratti di apprendistato e di tirocinio qualitativamente validi. Nelle raccomandazioni specifiche per paese rivolte agli Stati membri durante quest'anno, oltre la metà degli Stati erano stati invitati ad agevolare il passaggio dalla scuola al mondo del lavoro attraverso incentivi per le imprese che assumono giovani con contratti di apprendistato o attraverso l'apprendimento basato sul lavoro.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009440/12

to the Commission

Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Incentives for SMEs to taken on new staff

There are 45 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union.

In view of the serious economic difficulties Europe is currently experiencing, innovative steps need to be taken to encourage businesses — in particular SMEs — to take on new staff.

This should involve granting SMEs special concessions for taking on an unemployed person for one year, regardless of social group (i.e. the support would not be differentiated on the basis of gender, age or other factors).

Does the Commission intend to introduce such a scheme on a trial basis, with each SME being given an opportunity to take on one unemployed person for one year?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2013)

The Commission recognises the crucial role played by SMEs in the European economy and is well aware that they were severely hit by the crisis. For this reason it has placed the SMEs at the centre of its policies, launching the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (SBA) in 2008 and adopting an SBA Review in 2011. The SBA and its Review set out a comprehensive set of measures focusing on three priority areas: improving SMEs' access to finance, simplifying the regulatory environment and enhancing SMEs' access to markets. The Commission initiatives in this framework seek to support the growth of SMEs by improving the general business environment. They do not include specific schemes for SMEs to take on an unemployed person for one year and the Commission currently does not plan to introduce such schemes.

Conversely, the Commission in its guidance to support labour as a driver of growth (237) identified Member States' best practice in targeting hiring subsidies and put forward innovative ways for pooling resources, such as human resource strategies, which could allow improved recruitment by SMEs.

In its Annual Growth Survey 2012, the Commission called for priorities to be given to the promotion of quality apprenticeships and traineeship contracts. In the country specific recommendations issued to Member States earlier this year more than half of the Member States were encouraged to facilitate the transition from school to work by incentivising companies to hire young people through apprenticeships and work-based learning.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009442/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Biocombustíveis

No contexto do Comité de Segurança Alimentar Mundial 2012, foi publicado um relatório (238) que defende que o uso intensivo de biocombustível é a principal causa na origem do aumento dos preços dos bens alimentares.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento se, na EU, a produção de biocombustíveis está na origem do aumento dos preços dos bens alimentares?

Existem mecanismos, na EU, que garantam que a produção de bens alimentares se destina, antes de mais, à alimentação?

Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão

(4 de dezembro de 2012)

A procura de culturas para produção de biocombustíveis constitui apenas um fator entre muitos outros que podem levar ao aumento e a uma maior volatilidade do preço das culturas, entre os quais se incluem as más colheitas ligadas a fenómenos meteorológicos extremos, os elevados preços da energia e do petróleo que fazem aumentar os custos dos meios de produção alimentar e dos transportes, o rácio reservas-utilização, políticas comerciais restritivas, as condições macroeconómicas, transações especulativas, etc.

A FAO reconheceu em vários documentos que a boa gestão dos biocombustíveis pode também contribuir para o desenvolvimento agrícola e rural e a segurança alimentar, a atenuação das alterações climáticas e a segurança energética (239).

A análise da Comissão mostra que o impacto, em termos de preços, da política da UE em matéria de energias renováveis é muito limitado para os cereais e moderado para os óleos vegetais. A UE utiliza atualmente cerca de 3 % da sua colheita de cereais para o fabrico de etanol que, ao mesmo tempo, permite fornecer alimentos proteicos para animais que funcionam como substitutos de outras fontes proteicas, incluindo a farinha de soja importada da América do Sul (240).

A Diretiva Energias Renováveis da UE (241) 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.

No que se refere às ações da UE para resolver o problema do aumento e da volatilidade dos preços dos produtos alimentares, a Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a resposta à pergunta escrita E-007644/2012 do Deputado Franz Obermayer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009442/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Biofuels

In the context of the Committee on World Food Security 2012, a report was published arguing that the intensive use of biofuels is the main cause of the rise in food prices.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Is it aware whether, in the EU, the production of biofuels is behind the rise in food prices?

Are there mechanisms in the EU to ensure that foodstuff production is primarily for consumption as food?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

Demand for crops for making biofuels is but one factor among many others that may lead to increased crop price and volatility, including poor harvests linked to extreme weather events, high oil and energy prices raising the cost of inputs for food production and transport, stock-to-use ratio, restrictive trade policies, macroeconomic conditions, speculative transactions, etc.

FAO has recognised in several documents that well-managed biofuels can also contribute to agricultural and rural development and food security, climate change mitigation and energy security (242).

The Commission's analysis shows that the price impact of the EU's renewable energy policy is very limited for cereals and moderate for vegetable oils. The EU currently uses about 3% of its grain harvest for making ethanol which at the same time delivers protein-rich feed that acts as a substitute for other protein sources, including imported soybean meal from South America (243).

The EU Renewable Energy Directive (244) 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.

As regards EU actions to address the issue of food price increase and volatility, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-007644/2012 by M. Obermayer.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009444/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Direitos dos animais

Tendo em conta o grande número de petições de cidadãos da UE que solicitam a criação de um quadro jurídico da UE para a proteção dos animais de companhia e dos animais vadios,

Tendo em conta o benefício reconhecido da interação entre as pessoas e os animais de companhia, nomeadamente em termos de saúde física e mental,

Tendo em conta a diversidade de tratamento em relação aos animais nos países da UE, muitos deles indescritíveis e inqualificáveis,

Pergunto à Comissão:

Pretende intervir a nível da harmonização das regras europeias no sentido de proteger os animais domésticos?

Pretende criar regras que proíbam a matança de animais vadios e que interditem os canis sem estabelecimento legal?

Concorda com que a proteção dos animais domésticos deve passar pela responsabilização dos donos dos animais?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

A Comissão remete para as respostas às perguntas escritas E‐006543/2011, E-007161/2011, E-009002/2011 e E-002062/2012, e E-008179/2012 (245).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009444/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Animal rights

Considering the large number of petitions from EU citizens requesting the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals,

Considering the recognised benefit which people gain from interaction with pets, not least in terms of physical and mental health,

Considering the differences in the way animals are treated in the EU Member States, many of which are so bad as to defy description,

I would like to ask the Commission:

Does it intend to take action with a view to harmonising EU rules on the protection of domestic animals?

Does it intend to create rules prohibiting the killing of stray animals and outlawing illicit kennels?

Does it agree that making pet owners more responsible is an essential step in the protection of domestic animals?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2012)

The Commission refers to the answers to written questions E‐006543/2011, E-007161/2011, E-009002/2011 and E-002062/2012, and E-008179/2012 (246).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009450/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Sustentabilidade da indústria pesqueira da UE

Notícias recentes dão conta de um relatório da WWF realizado pela consultora holandesa Framian BV, segundo o qual, a manter-se o presente esforço de pesca, os navios europeus pescarão 1,4 milhões de toneladas em 2022, o que equivaleria a menos 30 % do que é atualmente pescado.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento deste estudo?

Que comentários lhe merece? Acha-o credível?

Considera que as medidas entretanto tomadas pela Comissão minoram adequadamente o risco de semelhante decréscimo de capturas?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(26 de novembro de 2012)

A Comissão tem conhecimento deste relatório do WWF, que analisa as consequências económicas decorrentes de níveis diferentes para as unidades populacionais de peixes. O estudo examina diversos cenários, concluindo que a deterioração das unidades populacionais produzirá um decréscimo do valor dos desembarques, do tamanho da frota, do emprego e do valor no setor. Conclui também que a recuperação das unidades populacionais de peixes produzirá um acréscimo dos desembarques, um pequeno decréscimo do número de navios na frota e um acréscimo do valor do setor.

Na avaliação de impacto da reforma da política comum das pescas (247), foi estudado o impacto das várias opções estratégicas na presumível evolução das unidades populacionais, atendendo simultaneamente aos aspetos comerciais. Com base nessa avaliação de impacto, a Comissão propôs um pacote de reforma da PCP que visa muito mais do que simplesmente atenuar o impacto de uma evolução negativa das unidades populacionais. Na verdade, o referido pacote visa recuperar de uma evolução negativa das unidades ou preveni-la, pescando a níveis que não ponham em perigo o potencial produtivo das unidades e, desse modo, gerando um rendimento máximo sustentável (MSY) para as gerações vindouras.

A Comissão considera o estudo credível e pode apontar exemplos da sua experiência recente. Em 2009, só 5 unidades populacionais de peixe foram capturadas com atenção ao nível do rendimento máximo sustentável. Atualmente, a quantidade eleva-se a 27 unidades populacionais, graças ao que foi possível aumentar as quotas de captura, gerando para o setor da pesca um acréscimo de 135 milhões de euros em desembarques.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009450/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Sustainability of the EU fishing industry

According to a recent WWF report produced by the Dutch consultancy firm Framian BV, if the current fishing effort is maintained, EU boats will land 1.4 million tonnes (or 30%) less fish in 2022 than they currently land.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this study?

2.

What comments does it have to make about it? Does it think it is credible?

3.

Does it believe that the measures taken by the Commission in the meantime sufficiently mitigate the risk of such a decline in catches?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

The Commission is aware of this particular report by WWF which analyses the economic implications of having fish stocks at different levels. The study examines different scenarios and concludes that the deterioration of fish stocks will lead to decreased landings value, decreased size of fleet, less employment and value in the sector. It also concludes that the recovery of fish stocks will lead to increased landings of fish, a small decrease in the number of vessels in the fleet, as well as an increase in the value of the sector.

In its Impact Assessment on the reform of the common fisheries policy (248), the impact of various policy options has been considered on the likely evolution of fish stocks, while taking market aspects into consideration. On the basis of this impact assessment, the Commission has proposed a CFP reform package which aims at much more than simply mitigating the impact of a negative evolution of the stocks. Instead, the CFP reform package aims at preventing or recovering from a negative evolution of the stocks by fishing at levels that do not endanger the productive potential of these stocks, thus generating maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for generations to come.

The Commission finds the study credible and can point to examples from recent experience. In 2009 only five fish stocks were fished in a way taking into account the sustainable MSY level. Today this figure has increased to 27 stocks fished sustainably. Thanks to this it was possible to increase fish quotas, which has brought an additional 135 million EUR in landings to the fishing industry.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009451/12

ao Conselho (Presidente do Conselho Europeu)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: PCE/PEC — Prémio Nobel da Paz 2012

O Comité Nobel concedeu o Prémio da Paz 2012 à União Europeia pelo seu papel na promoção da unidade e da reconciliação.

Assim, pergunto ao Presidente do Conselho:

Que apreciação faz desta atribuição? Que comentário lhe merece?

Que principais conquistas destaca e que desafios assinala à União enquanto promotora da paz a nível interno e externo?

Que papel deve assumir o Presidente do Conselho neste aspeto?

Resposta

(3 de dezembro de 2012)

Relativamente às duas primeiras perguntas, o Presidente remete o Sr. Deputado para as suas observações sobre a questão feitas durante o debate realizado no Parlamento Europeu em 23 de outubro, assim como para o comunicado à imprensa conjunto com o Presidente Barroso, de 12 de outubro, que são do domínio público.

Quanto à pergunta n.° 3, o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, juntamente com o Presidente da Comissão, é responsável pela representação externa da União ao nível mais elevado e ambos vão receber, o prémio em nome da União. Juntar‐se‐lhes‐á o Presidente do Parlamento Europeu.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009451/12

to the Council (President of the European Council)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: PCE/PEC — 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union for its role in promoting unity and reconciliation.

1.

What does the President of the European Council think of this award? What comments does he have to make about it?

2.

In his view, what are the European Union’s main achievements and what challenges does it face as an advocate of peace within and outside the EU?

3.

What role should the President of the European Council play in this regard?

Reply

(3 December 2012)

Concerning Questions 1 and 2, the President would refer the Honourable Member to his comments on this during the European Parliament's debate on 23 October and his joint press statement with President Barroso of 12 October, both of which are on the public record (249).

Concerning Question 3, the President of the European Council, along with the President of the Commission, is responsible for the external representation of the Union at the highest level and they will jointly receive the prize on the Union's behalf. They will be joined by the President of the European Parliament.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009452/12

ao Conselho

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Prémio Nobel da Paz 2012

O Comité Nobel concedeu o Prémio da Paz 2012 à União Europeia pelo seu papel na promoção da unidade e da reconciliação.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Que apreciação faz desta atribuição? Que comentário lhe merece?

Que principais conquistas destaca e que desafios assinala à União enquanto promotora da paz a nível interno e externo?

Que papel deve assumir o Conselho neste aspeto?

Resposta

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

No dia 15 de outubro, o Conselho congratulou‐se com a histórica atribuição do Prémio Nobel da Paz à União Europeia, em reconhecimento pelo seu trabalho em prol da reconciliação, da democracia, da promoção dos direitos humanos e do alargamento da área de paz e estabilidade no continente. O Conselho sublinhou que o prémio representava também um reconhecimento de que a União Europeia é, historicamente e à escala mundial, um projeto único de integração regional e alargamento levado a cabo na Europa, onde antigos inimigos estão hoje reunidos como amigos à volta de um conjunto de valores fundamentais. O Conselho comprometeu‐se a continuar a trabalhar incansavelmente em prol da paz e da promoção dos direitos e valores fundamentais e a desenvolver esforços para que a sua ação externa seja mais coerente, mais abrangente e mais eficaz.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009452/12

to the Council

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union for its role in promoting unity and reconciliation.

1.

What does the Council think of this award? What comments does it have to make about it?

2.

In its view, what are the European Union’s main achievements and what challenges does it face as an advocate of peace within and outside the EU?

3.

What role should the Council play in this regard?

Reply

(10 December 2012)

On 15 October, the Council welcomed the historic award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union in recognition of its work on reconciliation, democracy, promotion of human rights and in enlarging the area of peace and stability across the continent. The Council underlined that the prize also recognises the historically and globally unique project of regional integration and enlargement in Europe, where former enemies today are united as friends around a core set of values. The Council undertook to continue to work tirelessly for peace and in the promotion of fundamental rights and values and to strive to make its external action more coherent, comprehensive and effective.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009453/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Prémio Nobel da Paz 2012

O Comité Nobel concedeu o Prémio da Paz 2012 à União Europeia pelo seu papel na promoção da unidade e da reconciliação.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que apreciação faz desta atribuição? Que comentário lhe merece?

Que principais conquistas destaca e que desafios assinala à União enquanto promotora da paz a nível interno e externo?

Que papel deve assumir a Comissão neste aspeto?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009454/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Prémio Nobel da Paz 2012

O Comité Nobel concedeu o Prémio da Paz 2012 à União Europeia pelo seu papel na promoção da unidade e da reconciliação.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que apreciação faz desta atribuição? Que comentário lhe merece?

Que principais conquistas destaca e que desafios assinala à União enquanto promotora da paz a nível interno e externo?

Que papel deve assumir o Serviço Europeu para a Ação Externa neste aspeto?

Resposta conjunta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Ashton em nome da Comissão

(16 de janeiro de 2013)

A atribuição do Prémio Nobel da Paz 2012 à UE é uma enorme honra e constitui o máximo reconhecimento possível do papel da União na promoção de um continente de paz e prosperidade. Trata-se de um prémio não só para as instituições da UE mas também para os Estados-Membros e os seus 500 milhões de cidadãos.

As principais conquistas da UE nos últimos cinquenta anos podem resumir-se em duas palavras: paz e prosperidade.

Por intermédio das suas instituições e políticas, a UE conseguiu que a guerra se tornasse algo de impensável para os seus membros. A UE desempenhou um papel histórico, ao reconciliar o nosso continente, dividido após a queda do comunismo. Garantiu que todos os Estados‐Membros aprovam e apoiam o Estado de direito e promovem os mais elevados padrões de governação democrática e os direitos humanos. Criou igualmente o mais vasto mercado interno de bens e serviços do mundo, que trouxe êxito económico a grande parte do continente. Promoveu também uma «Europa social», que ajuda os mais necessitados. Está na vanguarda dos esforços mundiais de luta contra as alterações climáticas. Além disso, a UE incentivou a resolução de conflitos em todo o mundo e é o maior prestador mundial de ajuda ao desenvolvimento e ajuda humanitária.

A Comissão dedica-se à sua tarefa fundamental, que consiste em agir como guardiã dos tratados, procurando o bem comum da Europa e promovendo uma união mais estreita dos seus povos. Na presente fase de grandes mudanças na UE, a Comissão representa a justiça e a igualdade de tratamento entre os Estados-Membros. Além disso, compreende a importância de reforçar o bem-estar dos cidadãos da UE e de garantir a supremacia da União na comunidade internacional, promovendo soluções de cooperação para desafios comuns, nomeadamente alterações climáticas, energia e segurança alimentar, ou criminalidade transnacional.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009453/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union for its role in promoting unity and reconciliation.

1.

What does the Commission think of this award? What comments does it have to make about it?

2.

In its view, what are the European Union’s main achievements and what challenges does it face as an advocate of peace within and outside the EU?

3.

What role should the Commission play in this regard?

Question for written answer E-009454/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union for its role in promoting unity and reconciliation.

1.

What does the Vice-President/High Representative think of this award? What comments does she have to make about it?

2.

In her view, what are the European Union’s main achievements and what challenges does it face as an advocate of peace within and outside the EU?

3.

What role should the European External Action Service play in this regard?

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

(16 January 2013)

The award of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the EU is a tremendous honour. It is the strongest possible recognition of the role of the Union in promoting a continent of peace and prosperity. It is a Prize not just for the institutions of the EU, but also for its Member States and 500 million citizens.

The main achievements of the EU over the past fifty years or so can be summed up in two words — peace and prosperity.

The EU, through its institutions and policies, has made war unthinkable among its members. It has played an historic role in reuniting our divided continent following the collapse of communism. It has ensured that all Member States uphold and abide by the rule of law and promote the highest standards of democratic governance and human rights. It has also created the world's largest internal market for goods and services which has brought economic success to much of the continent. It has also underpinned a ‘social Europe’ helping those most in need. It is at the forefront of global efforts to fight climate change. In addition, the EU has encouraged conflict resolution across the world and is the world's largest provider of development assistance and humanitarian aid.

The Commission is dedicated to its fundamental task of acting as guardian of the treaties, seeking the European common good and fostering a closer union of the peoples of Europe. At this time of enormous change in the EU, the Commission stands for fairness and equality of treatment among the Member States. It also understands the importance of advancing the well-being of the EU citizens and ensuring the Union stands tall in the international community, by promoting cooperative solutions on common challenges such as climate change, energy and food security, or transnational crime.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009455/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Ajuda financeira a Cuba

A Comissão tem apoiado diversos projetos em Cuba:

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Pode indicar quais são os projetos desenvolvidos em Cuba com fundos provenientes de fontes comunitárias e o respetivo montante?

O governo cubano recebe dinheiro dos contribuintes da UE?

Está em condições de confirmar que estes fundos, caso existam, se destinam efetivamente à sociedade civil e às organizações não-governamentais?

Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão

(14 de dezembro de 2012)

A ajuda e a cooperação com Cuba foram retomadas em 2008, com a disponibilização de 80 milhões de euros para os programas de cooperação para o período 2008-2013.

Do montante acima referido, foram atribuídos 56,5 milhões de euros para o período 2008-2010, sendo 12 milhões de euros reservados para a resposta a furacões e a preparação para emergências, 8,2 milhões de euros para a segurança alimentar, 6,9 milhões de euros para o ambiente e 9,4 milhões de euros para a cultura, a educação e os serviços sociais. Foi disponibilizado um montante adicional de 20 milhões de euros para o período 2011-2013, com 7 milhões de euros previstos para a adaptação às alterações climáticas, 9,5 milhões de euros para a segurança alimentar e 3,5 milhões de euros para o intercâmbio de experiências, a formação e os estudos.

Foram reservados fundos adicionais no âmbito do programa temático dos intervenientes não estatais e das autoridades locais para o período 2011-2013 (total de 5 milhões de euros, dos quais 3,9 milhões de euros para os primeiros e 1,1 milhões de euros para as segundas).

Em anexo, é apresentada uma panorâmica dos contratos em curso em Cuba. Na sua maioria, os projetos são executados por organizações internacionais ou intervenientes não estatais europeus (geralmente em parceria com os homólogos locais). Existem dois contratos com intervenientes não estatais cubanos (a Caritas e o Centro Cristiano de Reflexión y Diálogo) e um contrato com o Museu Nacional da Música. O governo cubano não beneficia de qualquer financiamento da UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009455/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Financial aid to Cuba

The Commission has supported various projects in Cuba.

1.

Can the Vice‐President/High Representative tell us which projects are being implemented in Cuba using funds from EU sources and the corresponding amount?

2.

Does the Cuban Government receive money from EU taxpayers?

3.

Can the Vice‐President/High Representative confirm, where applicable, that, if these funds do exist, they are in fact directed to civil society and NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2012)

EU assistance and cooperation with Cuba resumed in 2008, with EUR 80 million available for cooperation programmes in Cuba for the period 2008-2013.

EUR 56.5 million out of the above amount was allocated for the period 2008-2010, earmarked for hurricane response and disaster preparedness (EUR 12 million), food security (EUR 8.2 million), the environment (EUR 6.9 million) and the culture, education and social sector (EUR 9.4 million). A further EUR 20 million were made available for the period 2011-2013, with EUR 7 million earmarked for adaptation to climate change, EUR 9.5 million for food security and EUR 3.5 million for expertise exchange, training and studies.

Additional funds were set aside under the Non State Actors (NSAs) and Local Authorities (LA) thematic programme for the period 2011-2013 (total of EUR 5 million, of which EUR 3.9 million for NSAs and EUR 1.1 million for LA).

Attached is an overview of open contracts in Cuba. Most projects are either implemented by international organisations or by European NSAs (usually working with local counterparts). There are two contracts with Cuban NSAs (CARITAS and the ‘Centro Cristiano de Reflexión y Diálogo’), and there is one contract with the National Music Museum. The Cuban Government as such does not receive EU funding.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009457/12

ao Conselho (Presidente do Conselho Europeu)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: PCE/PEC — Alterações institucionais à União Europeia: necessárias ou contraproducentes

O Presidente do Conselho declarou recentemente — em Copenhaga, no dia 11 de maio de 2012 — estar «ciente de que, numa tentativa de abordar algumas das questões de legitimidade desencadeadas pela crise, alguns círculos retomaram reflexões sobre a arquitetura institucional da União Europeia», mas que as considerava desajustadas («off the mark», no original), uma vez que a prioridade deveria consistir em pôr as nossas economias a crescer novamente.

Assim, pergunto ao Presidente do Conselho:

Considera que as presentes instituições europeias são adequadas à resolução da crise que afeta as economias da União?

O dispêndio de tempo e dinheiro com a discussão de uma nova arquitetura institucional, na presente e crítica fase em que nos encontramos, poderia pôr em questão a necessária prioridade a dar à retoma económica?

De que modo crê que mais facilmente se poderia aproximar os cidadãos das instituições e do projeto europeu sem que isso implicasse um rearranjo institucional?

Resposta

(26 de novembro de 2012)

O Presidente do Conselho Europeu considera que os tratados em vigor proporcionam uma margem de manobra substancial para reagir à crise económica e assegurar a legitimidade democrática das decisões; todavia, se no quadro das deliberações em curso sobre o aprofundamento da união económica e monetária, se concluir pela necessidade de novos instrumentos e procedimentos que só possam ser introduzidos através de uma alteração dos tratados, terá então de ser iniciado um processo de revisão dos tratados. Em todo a caso, é essencial assegurar a legitimidade democrática das decisões.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009457/12

to the Council (President of the European Council)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: PCE/PEC — Institutional changes to the European Union: necessary or counterproductive

The President of the Council recently stated — in Copenhagen on 11 May 2012 — that he was ‘aware that, in an attempt to address some of the legitimacy questions triggered by the crisis, some circles have reopened reflections on the European Union's institutional set-up’ but that he considered this ‘off the mark’ as the priority should be to get our economies going again.

I would therefore ask the President of the Council:

Does he consider that the present European institutions are suitable for solving the crisis affecting the Union's economies?

In the current critical period we are going through, could the time and money expended on discussing a new institutional set-up jeopardise the priority we should be giving to economic recovery?

What does he think would be the easiest way of making the public feel closer to the institutions and the EU venture, without altering the institutional set-up?

Reply

(26 November 2012)

The PEC considers that the current treaties offer significant scope to address the economic crisis and ensure the democratic legitimacy of decisions, but that if, in the course of the deliberations underway on deepening economic and monetary union, it is concluded that new instruments and procedures are needed that could only be introduced through treaty change, then a procedure to amend the treaties would have to be launched. In any case, ensuring the democratic legitimacy of decisions is essential.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009458/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Cuba — Reuniões com a oposição

Por diversas vezes foi declarado por responsáveis políticos da União que esta não pretendia interromper os contactos com a dissidência cubana e, antes pelo contrário, iria manter reuniões com a oposição democrática em Cuba.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

No presente ano, realizaram-se reuniões de representantes da UE ou de Estados‐Membros com a oposição democrática cubana, nomeadamente na delegação da Comissão em Havana ou noutro local? Em concreto, quantas? E no ano anterior?

Foi possível obter perspetivas otimistas quanto à próxima libertação dos presos políticos e à evolução da situação em Cuba, numa perspetiva de transição democrática e de respeito pelos direitos humanos?

Já estão marcadas reuniões futuras? Quantas?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(29 de novembro de 2012)

1.

O Grupo de trabalho local da UE para os direitos humanos inclui a delegação da UE e todos os mensalmente, podendo igualmente ser convocado para reuniões ad hoc. As reuniões realizam-se na delegação da UE. Até à chegada do chefe da delegação da UE, as reuniões foram presididas pelo Estado-Membro que ocupava nesse momento a Presidência rotativa da UE. A partir de novembro de 2012 as reuniões serão presididas pela delegação da UE.

Este grupo de trabalho convida regularmente representantes da oposição democrática cubana e defensores dos direitos humanos. Em 2011 e 2012, foram realizadas diversas reuniões com pessoas e organizações tais como o vencedor do prémio Sakharov, O. Paya e as Damas de Blanco.

Entre os convidados anteriores incluíram-se membros do corpo diplomático e das agências da ONU, analistas políticos e outros membros da sociedade civil cubana.

Os Estados-Membros da UE e a delegação da UE também se reúnem de forma bilateral com os membros da oposição.

2.

A União Europeia congratulou-se com a libertação, juntamente com outros prisioneiros, de todos os presos políticos que foram condenados em 2003. A Amnistia Internacional denunciou a existência de um prisioneiro de consciência atualmente em Cuba. A UE reiterou em diversas ocasiões a importância que atribui aos progressos realizados pelas autoridades cubanas no sentido de respeitar plenamente os direitos políticos e civis do povo cubano, incluindo a liberdade de expressão e de reunião.

3.

O Grupo de trabalho local da UE e a delegação da UE continuarão a reunir-se regularmente com representantes da oposição democrática e os defensores dos direitos humanos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009458/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Cuba — Meetings with the opposition

On several occasions, the political leaders of the EU have stated that the Union does not plan to break off contacts with the Cuban dissidents and that, on the contrary, it would maintain relations with the Cuban democratic opposition.

1.

Have any meetings been held this year between representatives of the EU or the Member States and the Cuban democratic opposition, in particular at the Commission delegation in Havana or elsewhere? Can the Vice‐President/High Representative provide details of these meetings? What about last year?

2.

Was there scope for optimism regarding the release of political prisoners in the near future and the development of the situation in Cuba, with a view to democratic transition and respect for human rights?

3.

Have any future meetings been scheduled yet? How many?

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

(29 November 2012)

1.

The EU Working Group on Human Rights includes the EU Delegation and all the Member States represented in Havana. It meets on a monthly basis and ad hoc meetings can also be called. The meetings take place at the EU Delegation. Until the arrival of the EU Head of Delegation, the meetings were chaired by the Member State holding the rotating EU Presidency. From November 2012 the meetings will be chaired by the EU Delegation.

This Working Group regularly invites representatives of the Cuban democratic opposition and Human Right Defenders. In 2011 and 2012, it held several meetings with individuals and organisations such as the Sakharov Prize winner O. Paya and the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White).

Other guests have included members of the diplomatic corps and UN agencies, political analysts and other members of Cuban civil society.

EU Member States and the EU Delegation also meet bilaterally with members of the opposition.

2.

The EU welcomed the release of all political prisoners sentenced in 2003, together with other prisoners. Amnesty International says there is at present one prisoner of conscience in Cuba. The EU has reiterated on several occasions the importance it attaches to progress by the Cuban authorities in fully respecting the political and civil rights of the Cuban people, including freedom of expression and assembly.

3.

The EU Working Group and the EU Delegation will continue to meet on a regular basis with representatives of the democratic opposition and Human Rights Defenders.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009459/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Perseguição às minorias religiosas — Egito

Notícias preocupantes dão conta de perseguições às minorias religiosas no Egito, em particular aos cristãos.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Está a acompanhar a situação dos direitos humanos fundamentais das minorias religiosas no Egito?

Que apreciação faz da atuação do Estado e das forças de segurança, que deveriam zelar pela sua segurança?

Tem razões para crer que o Estado de direito e a proteção dos direitos humanos, tal como consagrados no direito egípcio e nas Convenções das Nações Unidas, serão assegurados equitativamente a todas as secções da sociedade e que os culpados pelos crimes serão rapidamente traduzidos em justiça?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(7 de dezembro de 2012)

A AR/VP condenou repetidamente os atos de violência cometidos contra as minorias religiosas e seus locais de culto no Egito, exortando as autoridades egípcias a assegurar que a liberdade de religião ou de convicção é respeitada no país. É crucial que o Presidente Morsi respeite os seus compromissos de representar todos os Egípcios, independentemente do seu credo. Nas suas conclusões de 27 de fevereiro de 2012 sobre o Egito, o Conselho dos Negócios Estrangeiros salientou a importância de garantir a proteção das liberdades fundamentais e de investigar os atos de violação dessas liberdades, incluindo os perpetrados contra as comunidades religiosas.

A UE está a recorrer a toda a panóplia de instrumentos diplomáticos e de cooperação de que dispõe a fim de promover a liberdade de religião e de convicção. Por conseguinte, o SEAE tem vindo a acompanhar com a máxima atenção a situação em matéria de liberdade de religião e de convicção no país através da sua delegação, que mantém contactos constantes com a sociedade civil, suscitando regularmente a questão junto dos interlocutores pertinentes. Desde a eleição do Presidente Morsi, há sinais de que as autoridades egípcias estão determinadas a abordar as questões da liberdade de religião e de convicção de uma forma mais credível. Por exemplo, na sequência dos recentes ataques violentos contra famílias cristãs no norte do Sinai, o Presidente Morsi deslocou-se rapidamente à região para apoiar o regresso das famílias coptas em fuga e assegurar que os direitos dos cristãos serão protegidos, que a sua segurança será garantida e que as investigações serão devidamente realizadas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009459/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of religious minorities in Egypt

There are worrying reports of religious minorities, particularly Christians, being persecuted in Egypt.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative monitoring the fundamental human rights of religious minorities in Egypt?

2.

What is her opinion on the actions of the State and the security forces, which should ensure the safety of these religious minorities?

3.

Does she have reason to believe that the rule of law and the protection of human rights, as enshrined in Egyptian law and United Nations conventions, will be fairly upheld for all sections of society and that those guilty of crimes will be quickly brought to justice?

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

(7 December 2012)

The HR/VP has condemned repeatedly the acts of violence committed against the religious minorities and their places of worship in Egypt, calling on the Egyptian authorities to ensure that Freedom of religion or belief is respected in the country. It is crucial that President Morsi fulfil his commitments to represent all Egyptians, independently of their faith. In its Conclusions of 27 February 2012 on Egypt, the Foreign Affairs Council emphasised the importance of ensuring the protection of fundamental freedoms and of investigating violation of such freedoms, including those perpetrated against religious communities.

The EU is using the full range of its diplomatic and cooperation instruments to promote Freedom of religion or belief. Accordingly, the EEAS monitors the situation of Freedom of religion and belief in the country with the closest attention through its Delegation which maintains constant contacts with civil society and raises the matter regularly with relevant interlocutors. Since the election of President Morsi, there are signs that the Egyptian authorities are determined to address Freedom of religion or belief issues in a more credible manner. For instance, following the recent violent attacks against Christian families in Northern Sinai, President Morsi travelled swiftly to the region to support the return of fleeing Coptic families and to assure that the rights of Christians will be protected, that their security will be ensured and that investigations will be carried out appropriately.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009460/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Perseguição às minorias religiosas — Iraque

Notícias preocupantes dão conta de perseguições às minorias religiosas no Iraque, em particular aos cristãos.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Está a acompanhar a situação dos direitos humanos fundamentais das minorias religiosas no Iraque?

Que apreciação faz da atuação do Estado e das forças de segurança, que deveriam zelar pela sua segurança?

Tem razões para crer que o Estado de direito e a proteção dos direitos humanos, tal como consagrados no direito iraquiano e nas Convenções das NU, serão assegurados equitativamente a todas as secções da sociedade e que os culpados pelos crimes serão rapidamente traduzidos em justiça?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(7 de dezembro de 2012)

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente acompanha de perto a situação das minorias religiosas e dos direitos humanos no Iraque: a UE tem sublinhado repetidamente a necessidade de preservar um ambiente propício a uma participação inclusiva das minorias, necessária para a reconciliação nacional.

Neste contexto, sempre que possível, a UE exprime a sua preocupação junto das autoridades iraquianas a respeito da situação dos direitos humanos, incluindo a liberdade de religião ou de crença e a eliminação de todas as formas de discriminação e de intolerância. A UE continua a exortar o Iraque a cumprir os seus compromissos internacionais, incluindo os assumidos na sequência da revisão periódica universal pelo Conselho dos Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas, em fevereiro de 2010.

A UE coopera na promoção do Estado de direito e da proteção dos direitos humanos no Iraque, através da assistência técnica prestada pela Missão Integrada da União Europeia para o Estado de Direito no Iraque (Eujust LEX-IRAQ), bem como de outros projetos em matéria de direitos humanos. Neste contexto, a criação da Alta Comissão Independente dos Direitos do Homem é muito positiva e contribuirá para garantir que os eventuais casos de violações dos direitos humanos sejam devidamente investigados. O Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação assinado recentemente prevê também uma nova plataforma para discussões bilaterais em matéria de direitos humanos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009460/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of religious minorities in Iraq

There are worrying reports of religious minorities, particularly Christians, being persecuted in Iraq.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative monitoring the fundamental human rights of religious minorities in Iraq?

2.

What is her opinion on the actions of the State and the security forces, which should ensure the safety of these religious minorities?

3.

Does she have reason to believe that the rule of law and the protection of human rights, as enshrined in Iraqi law and United Nations conventions, will be fairly upheld for all sections of society and that those guilty of crimes will be quickly brought to justice?

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

(7 December 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President closely follows the situation of the religious minorities and human rights in Iraq: The EU has repeatedly stressed the need to safeguard an environment of inclusive participation of minorities as needed in the pursuit of national reconciliation.

In this context, the EU voices its concerns on human rights, including on freedom of religion or belief and elimination of all forms of discrimination and intolerance, with Iraqi authorities at every possible occasion. The EU continues to engage Iraq on its international commitments including those following the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review on Iraq in February 2010.

The EU cooperates in promoting the rule of law and protection of human rights in Iraq, through technical assistance provided by the EU integrated Rule of Law mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX-IRAQ) as well as some other projects on human rights. In this context, the establishment of the Independent High Commission for Human Rights is welcomed and will be helpful to ensure that any reports of human rights violations are properly investigated. The recently signed Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will also provide for a new avenue for bilateral discussions on human rights.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009461/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Cybersquatting — ponto da situação

O fenómeno do «cybersquatting» (ciberocupação : usurpação de identidades alheias através de sítios na internet mediante o registo e utilização fraudulenta de domínios) é um risco constante num mundo cada vez mais dependente da e confiante na informação disponibilizada pela internet.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Como avalia a evolução do cybersquatting a nível global e, em particular, na União Europeia?

Nomeadamente, quanto ao domínio .eu, como avalia os resultados das medidas que tomou para evitar o seu abuso?

Considera adequadas e suficientes as medidas tomadas? Ou prevê adotar outras?

Resposta dada por Neelie Kroes em nome da Comissão

(4 de dezembro de 2012)

A Comissão encara a ciberespeculação («cybersquatting») no contexto do problema mais vasto da usurpação de identidade, frequentemente motivada por objetivos fraudulentos ou mal intencionados. A Comissão tem examinado esta questão e financiou um estudo que deverá ser publicado nos próximos meses.

O EURid, o registo que gere o domínio de topo .eu, adota uma série de medidas destinadas a garantir a segurança. Aplica importantes protocolos de securização como o Dnssec; combate os registos mal intencionados através do exame rigoroso dos nomes de domínio .eu recentemente registados e colabora com as autoridades no combate à cibercriminalidade. O número comunicado de nomes de domínio utilizados para fins de fraude eletrónica («phishing») é bastante baixo: 68 no segundo trimestre de 2012 e 115 no terceiro trimestre, de entre um total de mais de 3,7 milhões de domínios registados. O serviço jurídico do EURid retira, a título preventivo, os nomes de domínio alegadamente utilizados para atividades de «phishing». Esses nomes de domínio são anulados após verificação da elegibilidade do requerente (Regulamento (CE) n.° 874/2004, artigo 3.°) ou após notificação de uma decisão do tribunal. Em resultado da ação do EURid, aumentou o número de nomes de domínio detetados e comunicados como indevidamente utilizados, bem como o número de nomes de domínio retirados por utilização indevida.

A ação do EURid é desempenhada no âmbito das competências que lhe são conferidas por força do Regulamento (CE) n.° 733/2002 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho e do Regulamento (CE) n.° 874/2004 da Comissão. Outras iniciativas incluem a colaboração com a equipa de resposta a emergências informáticas da UE (Computer Emergency Response Team, CERT-EU), que permitirá partilhar os dados provenientes de domínios .eu alegadamente utilizados de forma abusiva; serão desenvolvidas parcerias semelhantes com a Google e a Architelos.

A estratégia da UE em matéria de cibersegurança que a Comissão tenciona adotar, juntamente com a Alta Representante da União para os Negócios Estrangeiros e a Política de Segurança, apresentará uma visão e anunciará medidas políticas para garantir a cibersegurança, promovendo ao mesmo tempo os direitos fundamentais.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009461/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Cybersquatting — state of play

Cybersquatting (usurping the identity of others through Internet sites, fraudulently registering and using domain names) is an ever-present risk in a world that is increasingly dependent on information provided via the Internet.

I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following questions:

How does it assess the evolution of cybersquatting across the world and, in particular, within the European Union?

Specifically regarding the .eu domain, how does it assess the results of the measures it has taken to prevent improper use?

Does it consider the measures taken to be appropriate and sufficient? Or is it planning to take further measures?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2012)

The Commission considers cybersquatting under the more general issue of identity theft that is often motivated by fraudulent or malicious purposes. The Commission has examined this issue and funded a study which is expected to be published in the next months.

EURid, the Registry managing the .eu Top-Level Domain, adopts a number of measures to ensure security. It implements key security protocols such as DNSSEC; it combats malicious registrations by actively screening newly registered .eu domain names and works with law enforcement to fight cybercrime. The number of reported domain names used for phishing is quite low: 68 in the second quarter and 115 in the third quarter of 2012, out of over 3.7 million registered domains. EURid's legal department preventively withdraws domain names allegedly used for phishing activities. These domain names are revoked after the so-called registrant eligibility check (EC Regulation 874/2004, Article 3) or upon notification of a Court decision. EURid's action has resulted in an increase of detected and reported domain names used improperly, as well as of withdrawn domain names that were used improperly.

The actions of EURid are carried out within the capacities given to it through Regulation 733/2002 (250) and Commission Regulation 874/2004 (251). Further initiatives include collaboration with CERT-EU that will allow sharing data of .eu domains with alleged misuse issues; similar partnerships will be developed with Google and Architelos.

The EU Cybersecurity Strategy that the Commission plans to adopt together with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will present a vision and announce policy actions to ensure cybersecurity while promoting fundamental rights.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009462/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Phishing — Ponto da situação

O fenómeno do phishing (fraude eletrónica caracterizada por tentativas de adquirir dados pessoais de diversos tipos) é um risco constante num mundo cada vez mais dependente da informação disponibilizada pela Internet e que confia na mesma.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Como avalia a evolução do phishing a nível global e, em particular, na União Europeia?

E nomeadamente quanto à segurança das transações bancárias e das compras em linha?

Tomou ou prevê tomar novas medidas a este respeito?

Resposta dada por Neelie Kroes em nome da Comissão

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

Não estão geralmente disponíveis na UE informações fiáveis do setor privado sobre os investimentos em segurança, os incidentes ocorridos e os riscos reais, uma vez que as empresas não querem partilhar esta informação devido ao receio de danos à sua reputação e responsabilidade, bem como de perda de oportunidades comerciais. Quanto às tendências, os resultados do Eurobarómetro sobre Cibersegurança de 2012 (252) revelam que 56,8 % dos inquiridos tiveram, durante o último ano, incidentes com impacto grave nas suas atividades. Os dois problemas mais frequentes dos utilizadores da Internet na UE são o roubo o a utilização indevida de dados pessoais e a segurança dos pagamentos em linha (40 % e 38 % respetivamente). A Agência Europeia para a Segurança das Redes e da Informação tem chamado a atenção para o papel da ciberiscagem direcionada — (spear phishing) — nas operações bancárias em linha (253).

A Comissão, com a Alta Representante da União para os Negócios Estrangeiros e a Política de Segurança, apresentará em breve uma estratégia da UE em matéria de cibersegurança. Esta estratégia deveria incluir uma proposta legislativa que exija aos responsáveis pela gestão de infraestruturas de informação de importância crítica ou pela prestação de serviços essenciais para o funcionamento das nossas sociedades que adotem práticas de gestão dos riscos de segurança e comuniquem os incidentes significativos às autoridades nacionais competentes.

Além disso, a Comissão propôs uma reforma das regras da UE de 1995 em matéria de proteção de dados, a fim de reforçar a proteção da vida privada em linha e de dinamizar a economia digital da Europa. A proposta inclui a obrigação de notificar as autoridades competentes e os indivíduos afetados por violações de dados.

Ambas as iniciativas visam uma maior responsabilização de quem procede à recolha e ao tratamento de informações, incluindo dados pessoais, e deverão contribuir para reforçar a confiança dos consumidores nos serviços em linha.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009462/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Phishing — latest developments

Phishing (electronic fraud involving attempts to obtain various types of personal data) is a constant risk in a world that increasingly relies on, and trusts, information made available on the Internet.

I would therefore like to ask the Commission:

What is its assessment of the trends in phishing, both globally and, in particular, in the European Union?

More particularly, what is its assessment of the security of banking transactions and online purchases?

Has it taken, or does it plan to take, any new measures in this respect?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2012)

Reliable information on security investments by the private sector, incidents occurred and actual risks is generally not available in the EU as companies are unwilling to share this information due to fear of reputational damages, liability and loss of business opportunities. Regarding trends, the results of the 2012 Eurobarometer on cybersecurity (254) shows that 56.8% of the respondents have experienced over the last year incidents with a serious impact on their activities. The two most common concerns of EU Internet users are theft or misuse of personal data and security of online payments (40% and 38% respectively). The European Agency for Network and Information Security has drawn attention to the role of (spear) phishing in online banking (255).

The Commission with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will soon present an EU Cyber Security Strategy. It should include a legislative proposal requiring players managing critical information infrastructure or providing services that are essential to the functioning of our societies to adopt security risk management practices and report significant incidents to the relevant national competent authorities.

In addition, the Commission has proposed a reform of the EU's 1995 data protection rules to strengthen online privacy rights and boost Europe's digital economy. The proposal includes an obligation to notify competent authorities and individuals concerned of data breaches.

Both initiatives should increase the responsibilities of those who collect and process information, including personal data, which should help to strengthen consumer confidence in online services.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009463/12

ao Conselho (Presidente do Conselho Europeu)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: PCE/PEC — XII Cimeira UE-Índia — resultados práticos

Na última cimeira UE-Índia os líderes respetivos, entre os quais o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, manifestaram o seu empenhamento em trabalhar em conjunto com base em valores comuns, visando reforçar a cooperação bilateral, de modo a coordenarem adequadamente respostas a questões regionais e enfrentarem os desafios internacionais, incluindo a atual crise financeira.

Assim, pergunto ao Presidente do Conselho Europeu:

Que apreciação faz da concretização deste propósito subscrito pela União e pela Índia?

Que papel deve assumir o Presidente do Conselho Europeu neste tocante?

Resposta

(19 de novembro de 2012)

O seguimento prático a dar a tais cimeiras compete, conforme o caso, ao Conselho, à Alta Representante assistida pelo SEAE, à Comissão ou aos Estados‐Membros. O Presidente do Conselho Europeu é informado desse seguimento e, se necessário, atua em conformidade com as suas responsabilidades.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009463/12

to the Council (President of the European Council)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: PCE/PEC — 12th EU-India summit — practical results

At the last EU-India summit, the respective leaders, including the President of the European Council, expressed their intention to work together on the basis of shared values with the aim of strengthening bilateral cooperation so as to coordinate responses to regional issues and tackle international challenges, including the current financial crisis.

1.

What is the President of the European Council's assessment of the action taken in order to carry out the intention expressed by the EU and by India?

2.

What role should the President of the European Council play in this regard?

Reply

(19 November 2012)

The practical follow-up to such summit meetings is for the Council, the High Representative assisted by the EEAS, the Commission or the Member States, as appropriate. The President of the European Council is informed of the follow-up and, if necessary, will take action in accordance with his responsibilities.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009464/12

ao Conselho

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: XII Cimeira UE-Índia — resultados práticos

Na última cimeira UE-Índia os líderes respetivos, entre os quais o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, manifestaram o seu empenhamento em trabalhar em conjunto com base em valores comuns, visando reforçar a cooperação bilateral, de modo a coordenarem adequadamente respostas a questões regionais e enfrentarem os desafios internacionais, incluindo a atual crise financeira.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Que apreciação faz da concretização deste propósito subscrito pela União e pela Índia?

Que papel deve assumir o Conselho da União Europeia neste tocante?

Resposta

(21 de janeiro de 2013)

Enquanto parceiros estratégicos, a UE e a Índia partilham uma ampla gama de interesses e valores. A Índia é realmente importante para a UE, não apenas em termos políticos, económicos, tecnológicos e comerciais, mas também devido ao relevante papel que desempenha tanto no plano regional, na Ásia, como a nível global.

Espera‐‐se que dos trabalhos empreendidos no contexto das Consultas de Política Externa UE‐Índia — no âmbito dos quais são analisadas tanto as questões regionais como as globais — e do Diálogo UE‐Índia sobre Segurança resultem iniciativas importantes que poderão ser anunciadas aos líderes na próxima Cimeira. Essas iniciativas estão diretamente relacionadas com as conclusões da Cimeira e incluem, por exemplo, o intercâmbio a nível de peritos em domínios tais como a luta contra o terrorismo, a cibersegurança, e a não‐‐proliferação e o desarmamento. Representam o início de uma cooperação operacional e a formulação de posições comuns no debate global sobre essas questões.

No contexto da atual crise financeira, a negociação de um Acordo de Comércio Livre deverá contribuir para a dinamizar o emprego e a prosperidade na UE e na Índia, servindo assim de exemplo e incentivo para o resto de Mundo. Foi igualmente instituído um Diálogo bilateral Macroeconómico e Financeiro a fim de proporcionar a oportunidade de abordar questões de interesse comum atualmente em análise no âmbito do G20.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009464/12

to the Council

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: 12th EU-India summit — practical results

At the last EU-India summit, the respective leaders, including the President of the European Council, expressed their intention to work together on the basis of shared values with the aim of strengthening bilateral cooperation so as to coordinate responses to regional issues and tackle international challenges, including the current financial crisis.

1.

What is the Council's assessment of the action taken in order to carry out the intention expressed by the EU and by India?

2.

What role should the Council play in this regard?

Reply

(21 January 2013)

As strategic partners, the EU and India share a wide range of interests and values. India is indeed important for the EU, not only in political, economic, technological and commercial terms, but also because of the important role it plays both at regional level, in Asia, and at a global level.

The work being undertaken in the context of the EU-India Foreign Policy Consultations — in which both regional and global issues are discussed — and the EU-India Security Dialogue is expected to result in important initiatives that can be announced to leaders at the next Summit. These are directly related to the Summit conclusions and include, for example, expert-level exchanges in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security, and non-proliferation and disarmament. Such initiatives represent the start of operational cooperation and the formulation of joint positions in the global debate on these issues.

Against the background of the present financial crisis, the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement should help to boost employment and prosperity in the EU and India and thus serve as an example and incentive to the rest of the world. A bilateral Macroeconomic and Financial Dialogue has also been set up to provide an opportunity to address matters of common interest being discussed in the framework of the G20.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009465/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: XII Cimeira UE-Índia — resultados práticos

Na última cimeira UE-Índia os líderes respetivos, entre os quais o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, manifestaram o seu empenhamento em trabalhar em conjunto com base em valores comuns, visando reforçar a cooperação bilateral, de modo a coordenarem adequadamente respostas a questões regionais e enfrentarem os desafios internacionais, incluindo a atual crise financeira.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que apreciação faz da concretização deste propósito subscrito pela União e pela Índia?

Que papel deve assumir a Comissão neste tocante?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009466/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — XII Cimeira UE-Índia — resultados práticos

Na última cimeira UE-Índia os líderes respetivos, entre os quais o Presidente do Conselho Europeu, manifestaram o seu empenhamento em trabalhar em conjunto com base em valores comuns, visando reforçar a cooperação bilateral, de modo a coordenarem adequadamente respostas a questões regionais e enfrentarem os desafios internacionais, incluindo a atual crise financeira.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que apreciação faz da concretização deste propósito subscrito pela União e pela Índia?

Que papel deve assumir a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante e o Serviço Europeu para a Ação Externa neste tocante?

Resposta conjunta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(14 de dezembro de 2012)

As intenções expressas na última cimeira UE-Índia espelham o reconhecimento de que, enquanto parceiros estratégicos, a UE e a Índia partilham de um grande número de interesses e valores. A Índia é efetivamente importante para a UE, não apenas em termos políticos, económicos, tecnológicos e comerciais, mas também devido ao papel relevante que desempenha na Ásia tanto a nível regional como mundial.

A AR/VP está confiante que os trabalhos em curso entre a UE e a Índia no contexto das consultas de política externa — nas quais são debatidas questões regionais e globais — e do diálogo UE-Índia sobre segurança resultarão em iniciativas importantes que poderão ser comunicadas aos líderes na próxima cimeira. Estas iniciativas estão diretamente relacionadas com as conclusões da Cimeira e abrangem, por exemplo, o intercâmbio de peritos em domínios como o combate ao terrorismo, a cibersegurança, a não proliferação e o desarmamento, constituindo um ponto de partida para a cooperação operacional e a adoção de posições comuns sobre estas questões no debate a nível mundial.

No contexto da crise financeira atual, a Comissão está a negociar um acordo de comércio livre, com o objetivo de fomentar o emprego e a prosperidade na UE e na Índia, servindo assim de exemplo e de estímulo para o resto do mundo, e através do diálogo macroeconómico e financeiro bilateral procura criar oportunidades para dar resposta às questões de interesse comum que estão a ser debatidas no âmbito do G20.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009465/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: 12th EU-India summit — practical results

At the last EU-India summit, the respective leaders, including the President of the European Council, expressed their intention to work together on the basis of shared values with the aim of strengthening bilateral cooperation so as to coordinate responses to regional issues and tackle international challenges, including the current financial crisis.

1.

What is the Commission's assessment of the action taken in order to carry out the intention expressed by the EU and by India?

2.

What role should the Commission play in this regard?

Question for written answer E-009466/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — 12th EU-India summit — practical results

At the last EU-India summit, the respective leaders, including the President of the European Council, expressed their intention to work together on the basis of shared values with the aim of strengthening bilateral cooperation so as to coordinate responses to regional issues and tackle international challenges, including the current financial crisis.

1.

What is Vice-President/High Representative's assessment of the action taken in order to carry out the intention expressed by the EU and by India?

2.

What role should the Vice-President/High Representative and the European External Action Service play in this regard?

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

(14 December 2012)

The intentions expressed at the last EU-India Summit were made in recognition of the fact that, as strategic partners, the EU and India share a wide range of interests and values. India is indeed important for the EU, not only in political, economic, technological and commercial terms, but also because of the important role it plays in Asia both at the regional and global level.

The HR/VP is confident that the work being carried in the context of the EU-India Foreign Policy Consultations — in which both regional and global issues are discussed — and of the EU-India Security Dialogue will result in important initiatives that can be reported to leaders at the next Summit. These are directly related to the Summit conclusions and cover, for example, expert-level exchanges in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security, and non-proliferation and disarmament. Such initiatives represent a start to operational cooperation and the building of joint positions in the global debate on these issues.

Against the background of the present financial crisis, the Commission is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement in order to boost employment and prosperity in the EU and India and thus to serve as an example and a stimulus to the rest of the world, and in the bilateral Macroeconomic and Financial Dialogue, which provides an opportunity to address matters of common interest being discussed in the framework of the G20.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009467/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Parceria União Europeia — Unesco

A União Europeia, por intermédio de Catherine Ashton e Andris Piebalgs, e a Unesco assinaram recentemente um acordo de cooperação nos domínios da educação, da ciência e da cultura, bem como da liberdade de imprensa e dos direitos humanos.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Como qualifica o estado das relações entre a União e a Unesco?

Que apreciação faz do acordo assinado?

Quais as suas potencialidades e virtudes?

Que aspetos destaca?

Que resultados espera obter com a sua aplicação?

De que modo este acordo poderá potenciar a ação da União Europeia nas temáticas por ele cobertas?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009468/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Parceria União Europeia — Unesco

A União Europeia, por intermédio de Catherine Ashton e Andris Piebalgs, e a Unesco assinaram recentemente um acordo de cooperação em educação, ciência e cultura bem como quanto à liberdade de imprensa e aos direitos humanos.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Como qualifica o estado das relações entre a União e a Unesco

Que apreciação faz do acordo assinado?

Quais as suas potencialidades e virtudes?

Que aspetos destaca?

Que resultados espera obter com a sua aplicação?

De que modo este acordo poderá potenciar a ação da União Europeia nas temáticas por ele cobertas?

Resposta conjunta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(14 de dezembro de 2012)

A União Europeia e a Unesco cooperam desde há muito e o referido memorando de entendimento tem por base anteriores trocas de cartas, bem como as Disposições aplicáveis à cooperação entre a Comissão e a Unesco (1995) e o Acordo-Quadro Financeiro e Administrativo entre a Comunidade Europeia e as Nações Unidas, assinado em 29 de abril de 2003, ao qual a Unesco aderiu em 23 de fevereiro de 2004.

A parceria renovada, ao promover um maior diálogo político, proporcionará maiores oportunidades para responder aos desafios locais, regionais e mundiais.

A parceria visa uma maior coerência, eficiência, qualidade e impacto das atividades da UE e da Unesco.

O memorando de entendimento tem as seguintes áreas prioritárias: educação e cultura, nomeadamente o respetivo potencial como veículos de desenvolvimento; meios de comunicação social, em especial, meios audiovisuais; ciência, tecnologia e inovação; política marítima integrada; direitos humanos, em particular, liberdade de expressão; bioética e ética das ciências e novas tecnologias.

Os objetivos serão atingidos mediante o incentivo da colaboração em matéria de estratégias de desenvolvimento de políticas e de recomendações; a melhoria do diálogo e da partilha de conhecimentos; a promoção de boas práticas; e a criação de sinergias, sempre que adequado.

O memorando de entendimento prevê que sejam empreendidos esforços especiais a nível nacional para melhorar a cooperação entre as delegações da UE e os gabinetes e institutos locais da Unesco.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009467/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — European Union-Unesco partnership

The European Union, represented by Catherine Ashton and Andris Piebalgs, and Unesco recently signed a cooperation agreement on education, science, culture, press freedom and human rights.

1.

How would the Vice-President/High Representative describe the state of relations between the Union and Unesco?

2.

What is her assessment of the above agreement?

3.

What potential and advantages does the agreement offer?

4.

What aspects would she particularly highlight?

5.

What results does she expect to achieve from the agreement's application?

6.

In what way will this agreement make it possible to boost European Union action in the areas covered by it?

Question for written answer E-009468/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: European Union-Unesco partnership

The European Union, represented by Catherine Ashton and Andris Piebalgs, and Unesco recently signed a cooperation agreement on education, science, culture, press freedom and human rights.

1.

How would the Commission describe the state of relations between the Union and Unesco?

2.

What is its assessment of the above agreement?

3.

What potential and advantages does the agreement offer?

4.

What aspects would it particularly highlight?

5.

What results does it expect to achieve from the agreement's application?

6.

In what way will this agreement make it possible to boost European Union action in the areas covered by it?

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

(14 December 2012)

There is longstanding cooperation between the European Union and Unesco, and this Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) builds on previous exchanges of letters such as the Provisions applicable to Cooperation between the Commission and Unesco (1995) and the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement between the European Community and the United Nations signed on 29 April 2003, to which Unesco acceded on 23 February 2004.

The renewed partnership will offer — through encouraging increased policy dialogue — better opportunities to address local, regional and global challenges.

The partnership will aim at an increased coherence and efficiency, as well as at an enhanced quality and impact, of the activities of the EU and Unesco.

This MoU focuses on priority areas: education and culture, including their potential as vectors for development; media, in particular audiovisual media; science, technology and innovation; integrated maritime policy; human rights, in particular freedom of expression; bioethics and ethics of science and new technologies.

The objectives will be achieved through fostering collaboration on approaches to policy development and recommendations; improving dialogue and knowledge sharing; promoting best practices; and creating synergies where appropriate.

The MoU foresees a particular effort to enhance cooperation between EU Delegations and Unesco field offices and institutes at country level.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009471/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Adesão da Croácia à União Europeia — ponto da situação

Notícias recentes dão conta de que Norbert Lammert, presidente do Bundestag, declarou que a Croácia ainda não estava pronta para aderir à União Europeia e que o processo conducente à sua efetiva entrada deveria ser parado.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que apreciação faz das declarações de Norbert Lammert?

Concorda com elas ou mantém a posição favorável à adesão que ainda recentemente manifestou?

Resposta dada por Štefan Füle em nome da Comissão

(14 de dezembro de 2012)

A adesão da Croácia à UE em 1 de julho de 2013 constitui o resultado de mais de dez anos de trabalho intensivo, que exigiu o cumprimento de condições rigorosas em todas as fases do processo de adesão.

Este trabalho permitiu que todos os Estados-Membros concordassem com o encerramento das negociações de adesão em junho de 2011 e assinassem o Tratado de Adesão em 9 de dezembro de 2011.

Com base nos resultados de uma metodologia de negociação rigorosa, a Comissão considera que a Croácia está a avançar bem nos preparativos para a adesão. No seu recente relatório global de acompanhamento, a Comissão forneceu orientações relativamente aos domínios a que a Croácia deve prestar particular atenção nos próximos meses. A Comissão considera que a Croácia está a dar prioridade a estas questões e estará, por isso, pronta para assumir as obrigações decorrentes da adesão à UE em 1 de julho de 2013. A Comissão apresentará o relatório de avaliação final na primavera de 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009471/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Croatia's accession to the European Union — state of play

Recent news items have reported statements made by Norbert Lammert, President of the Bundestag, who said that Croatia is not yet ready to join the European Union and that the accession process should be frozen.

1.

What is the Commission's assessment of Norbert Lammert's statements?

2.

Does it agree with these statements, or does it maintain its recently declared favourable position on Croatia's accession?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2012)

Croatia's accession to the EU on 1 July 2013 is the result of more than 10 years of hard work, where strict conditions had to be met at all stages of the accession process.

This has allowed all Member States to agree to closing the accession negotiations in June 2011 and signing the Accession Treaty on 9 December 2011.

Based on the results of a rigorous negotiating methodology, the Commission considers that Croatia is well-advanced in the accession preparations. In its recent Comprehensive Monitoring Report, the Commission has provided guidance to Croatia on the areas to which it has to pay particular attention in the coming months. The Commission believes that Croatia is addressing these issues as a matter of priority and, therefore, will be ready to assume the obligations of EU membership on 1 July 2013. The Commission will present the final Monitoring Report in spring 2013.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009472/12

ao Conselho

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Relançamento da indústria europeia

A Comissão apresentou recentemente a sua Comunicação «Reforçar a indústria europeia em prol do crescimento e da recuperação económica» [COM(2012)0582]. No referido documento reconhece-se que uma «forte base industrial é vital para uma Europa rica e bem sucedida do ponto de vista económico».

Não obstante, tem sido evidente a tendência de perda de capacidade industrial europeia e a consequente deslocalização das unidades produtivas deste continente para outros locais onde os fatores de produção são significativamente mais baratos, entre os quais avulta o trabalho.

Na comunicação refere-se ser «urgente a necessidade de novos investimentos para estimular a recuperação económica e trazer a inovação e as novas tecnologias de volta às fábricas.»

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Que elementos destaca como mais problemáticos para o relançamento da indústria europeia?

Considera que os caminhos apontados são adequados e suficientes para promover uma efetiva retoma da capacidade produtiva da União?

Resposta

(7 de janeiro de 2013)

A economia europeia debate‐‐se atualmente com desafios difíceis. A crise económica teve um impacto severo na economia mundial e o papel da indústria na economia da UE tem declinado ao ponto de representar hoje em dia apenas 16 % do PIB. O Conselho reconhece que uma política industrial efetiva, que facilite o acesso ao conhecimento e aumente a eficiência no uso dos recursos, é essencial para estimular o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego e, assim, conduzir à consecução dos objetivos da Estratégia Europa 2020.

Diferentes fatores foram identificados como obstáculos potenciais à revitalização da indústria europeia, incluindo os preços relativamente altos da energia, tendo sido sublinhada a necessidade de tomar medidas em várias frentes. Destacam‐‐se, entre elas, a promoção do investimento em inovação e em tecnologias ambientais e eficientes na utilização dos recursos, a conversão da investigação na UE em vantagem industrial cobrindo toda a cadeia de valor, o reforço do mercado único, a promoção de um acesso mais fácil aos mercados financeiros e de capitais, especialmente no caso das PME, e o desenvolvimento de uma adequada reserva de competências (capital humano). Medidas adequadas para setores específicos estão também a ser consideradas. Neste contexto, espera‐‐se que o Conselho venha a adotar, em dezembro de 2012, conclusões sobre uma política industrial atualizada.

Nas suas conclusões de 18 e 19 de outubro de 2012, o Conselho Europeu reconheceu que foram efetuados progressos significativos na execução da Estratégia Europa 2020 para o crescimento e o emprego. Contudo, o Conselho reconheceu também que são necessários maiores esforços em certas áreas. Na área da investigação e da inovação, o Conselho Europeu chamou a atenção para a importância de assegurar que a investigação e a inovação se traduzam em ganhos de competitividade. Na área da competitividade da indústria, destacou a importância de desenvolver uma abordagem integrada a fim de reforçar a competitividade industrial para apoiar o crescimento e o emprego e, simultaneamente, aumentar a eficiência energética e dos recursos. Neste sentido, o Conselho Europeu sublinhou que é essencial que a União Europeia concentre todos os esforços na rápida execução das medidas acordadas ao longo dos últimos meses para relançar o crescimento, o investimento e o emprego, restabelecer a confiança e tornar a Europa mais competitiva enquanto espaço de produção e investimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009472/12

to the Council

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Revitalising European industry

The Commission recently published its communication ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery’ (COM(2012)0582). That document recognises that ‘a strong industrial base is essential for a wealthy and economically successful Europe’.

Nevertheless, there has been a clear trend for European industrial capacity to be lost, with production being relocated from Europe to other places where production factors, notably labour, are significantly cheaper.

The above communication stresses that ‘new investment is now urgently needed to stimulate economic recovery and bring innovation and new technologies back onto factory floors’.

1.

What elements does the Council see as being most problematic in relation to revitalising European industry?

2.

Does it consider the approaches currently being following to be adequate and sufficient in order to promote a real recovery of production capacity in the EU?

Reply

(7 January 2013)

The European economy is facing difficult challenges. The economic crisis has had a severe impact on the global economy and the role of industry in the EU economy has been declining, until today it represents only 16% of GDP. The Council recognises that an effective industrial policy that facilitates access to knowledge and enhances resource efficiency is essential to stimulate growth and jobs and thereby lead to the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Different issues have been identified as potential obstacles to revitalising European industry, including relatively highly energy prices, and the need for action in various areas has been underlined. Promotion of investment in innovation and in resource-efficient and environmental technologies, translation of EU research into industrial advantage to cover the entire value-chain, strengthening the single market, facilitating access to finance and capital markets, especially for SMEs, and development of an appropriate pool of skills (human capital) are among the main ones. Appropriate measures are also considered for specific sectors. In this context, the Council is expected to adopt conclusions on an updated industrial policy in December 2012.

The European Council acknowledged in its conclusions of 18/19 October 2012 that significant progress has been achieved so far towards the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs. However, it also recognised that greater efforts were required in certain areas. In the area of research and innovation, the European Council called for it to be ensured that research and innovation were translated into competitive gains. In the field of industrial competitiveness, it stressed the importance of developing an integrated approach in order to strengthen industrial competitiveness to underpin growth and jobs, whilst improving energy and resource efficiency. The European Council underlined that it was therefore essential for the European Union to make every effort rapidly to implement the measures agreed over recent months to relaunch growth, investment and employment, restore confidence and make Europe more competitive as a location for production and investment.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009473/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Relançamento da indústria europeia

A Comissão apresentou recentemente a sua Comunicação «Reforçar a indústria europeia em prol do crescimento e da recuperação económica» [COM(2012)0582]. No referido documento reconhece-se que uma «forte base industrial é vital para uma Europa rica e bem sucedida do ponto de vista económico».

Não obstante, tem sido evidente a tendência de perda de capacidade industrial europeia e a consequente deslocalização das unidades produtivas deste continente para outros locais onde os fatores de produção são significativamente mais baratos, entre os quais avulta o trabalho.

Na comunicação refere-se ser «urgente a necessidade de novos investimentos para estimular a recuperação económica e trazer a inovação e as novas tecnologias de volta às fábricas.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Que elementos destaca como mais problemáticos para o relançamento da indústria europeia?

Considera que os caminhos que aponta são adequados e suficientes para promover uma efetiva retoma da capacidade produtiva da União?

De que modo crê ser possível a captação e realização dos novos investimentos para estimular a recuperação económica? Tem já presentes alguns? Quais?

Crê que o «espírito de reciprocidade e benefício mútuo», que diz animá-la, será partilhado pelas economias emergentes e que estas não procurarão manter a tendência para concentrar nelas as indústrias que vêm abandonando a Europa?

Como inverterá esta tendência?

Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão

(10 de dezembro de 2012)

A Comissão identificou quatro desafios importantes: falta de investimento e reduzida inovação, melhoria das oportunidades nos mercados interno e global, acesso ao financiamento e disponibilidade de capital humano especializado. Numa comunicação recente (256) analisa-se igualmente um quinto elemento, os elevados custos energéticos.

O verdadeiro problema não é a capacidade mas a produção, o emprego e, sobretudo, a competitividade. A nova comunicação reforça a nossa estratégia de política industrial com ações a curto prazo. É consentânea com a grande importância dada pela Comissão ao crescimento e à criação de postos de trabalho e com o papel crucial da indústria em matéria de crescimento, segundo as conclusões do Conselho Europeu.

Propõem-se seis áreas prioritárias para o investimento na inovação em seis setores essenciais, sendo necessária a cooperação com a indústria e os Estados-Membros. Todavia, a atuação estatal pode facilitar, mas não substituir os investimentos privados necessários.

A comunicação torna claro que a Comissão está a trabalhar no sentido de abrir mercados e ligar a Europa às principais fontes e regiões de crescimento global. Este objetivo será alcançado num espírito de reciprocidade e benefício mútuo, com um calendário de aplicação abrangente. É ainda imperativo aumentar a atratividade dos investimentos na UE.

No futuro, a competitividade da indústria transformadora dependerá menos das diferenças salariais e mais da utilização eficiente dos recursos, incluindo a energia. Deste modo, a indústria da UE tem boas hipóteses de restabelecer a atratividade da Europa como localização de atividades produtivas, desde que possa capitalizar as oportunidades proporcionadas pelas novas tecnologias e o mercado da UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009473/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Revitalising European industry

The Commission recently published its communication ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery’ (COM(2012)0582). That document recognises that ‘a strong industrial base is essential for a wealthy and economically successful Europe’.

Nevertheless, there has been a clear trend for European industrial capacity to be lost, with production being relocated from Europe to other places where production factors, notably labour, are significantly cheaper.

The above communication stresses that ‘new investment is now urgently needed to stimulate economic recovery and bring innovation and new technologies back onto factory floors’.

1.

What elements does the Commission see as being most problematic in relation to revitalising European industry?

2.

Does it consider the approaches it is following to be adequate and sufficient in order to promote a real recovery of production capacity in the EU?

3.

In what way will it be possible to secure and implement new investment to stimulate economic recovery? Is some such investment already available? If so, what investment is involved?

4.

Does it believe that the

‘spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit’ that it identifies as its driving force will be shared by the emerging economies, and will they not seek to maintain the trend whereby industries that are abandoning Europe are being concentrated in those countries?

5.

How will it reverse this trend?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2012)

The Commission has identified 4 key challenges: lack of investment and low innovation, better opportunities in the internal and global markets, access to finance and availability of skilled human capital. A fifth element, high energy costs, is also mentioned and dealt with in a recent Communication (257).

The real problem is not capacity but production, employment and most importantly, competitiveness. The new Communication reinforces our Industrial Policy strategy with short-term actions. It is in line with the enhanced emphasis by the Commission on growth and jobs and the important role of industry for growth by European Council conclusions.

Six priority areas for investment in innovation in key sectors are proposed to be taken in cooperation with industry and Member States. However, public action can only facilitate and not replace the necessary private investments.

The communication makes it clear that the Commission works to open markets and connect Europe to main sources and regions of global growth. This will be done in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit as well as a comprehensive enforcement agenda. It is also essential to further increase the attractiveness of investing in the EU.

In the future, competitiveness in manufacturing will depend less on low wage differentials and more on more efficient use of resources, including energy. EU industry thus has a good chance to restore the attractiveness of Europe as a location for production, provided it can capitalise on opportunities offered by new technologies and the EU market.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009474/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Bracconaggio diffuso e persistente e possibili nuove deroghe a Malta in violazione della direttiva 2009/147/CE «Uccelli»

L'abbattimento e la cattura di specie protette è una pratica venatoria diffusa sistematicamente a Malta, punto di passaggio strategico («stepstone») per numerosissime specie di uccelli migratori, che vi stazionano per riprendere le forze durante la migrazione autunnale e quella primaverile. In questo periodo sulle isole maltesi transitano uccelli da almeno 48 diversi paesi (36 in Europa e 12 in Africa) (258) . Stime di esperti parlano di circa 500 000 uccelli migratori, la maggior parte dei quali appartenenti a specie protette, abbattuti ogni anno fra Malta e Gozo (259). BirdLife Malta segnala di aver preso in carico 23 uccelli protetti abbattuti nell'arco di un mese circa (260) , mentre fra il 2009 e il 2010 sono state ritrovate le carcasse di 280 uccelli appartenenti a specie protette nel cosiddetto «cimitero degli uccelli» di Mizieb (261) . La caccia illegale così largamente praticata in un'area strategica per i flussi migratori contrasta gli sforzi compiuti da altri Stati membri dell'Unione europea nell'ambito della salvaguardia della fauna selvatica protetta. Per cercare di arginare il fenomeno, organizzazioni quali CABS (262) e BirdLife Malta conducono ad ogni stagione migratoria campi anti-bracconaggio con l'obiettivo di dissuadere il bracconaggio e realizzare video che documentino i continui abbattimenti di rapaci e altri uccelli protetti (263). In quindici giorni, i due gruppi hanno registrato ben 119 tentativi di uccidere specie protette e un totale di 469 episodi di caccia illegale, anche attraverso l'uso di richiami elettroacustici.

A fine settembre 2012 ho partecipato alle attività anti-bracconaggio del CABS, constatando personalmente la gravità della caccia illegale a Malta e incontrato anche il capo dell'unità di polizia Administrative Law Enforcement (ALE), il quale mi ha riferito di una sola denuncia per abbattimento di specie protette a fronte di migliaia di abbattimenti illegali, a dimostrazione dell'inefficacia dei controlli. Il governo maltese, da parte sua, starebbe valutando l'approvazione di una deroga per consentire, durante la stagione di caccia in corso, la cattura con reti — metodo proibito dalla direttiva 2009/147/CE — del Tordo bottaccio (Turdus philomelos) e del Piviere dorato (Pluvialis apricaria), che però sul campo consentirebbe in pratica di catturare anche i fringillidi.

Ritiene opportuno la Commissione intervenire urgentemente presso le autorità maltesi per garantire il rispetto della direttiva «Uccelli»? A questo proposito quali misure sta adottando al momento e quali intende intraprendere in avvenire?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(12 dicembre 2012)

La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole parlamentare alla propria risposta all’interrogazione scritta E‐5511/2012 (264) presentata da Syed Kamall.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009474/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Widespread, ongoing poaching and potential new derogations in Malta which breach the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

The shooting and catching of protected species is a type of hunting that is widespread and systematic in Malta, which is an important stepping stone for the countless species of migratory bird which stop over there to regain their strength during migration in autumn and spring. In this period, birds from at least 48 different countries (36 in Europe and 12 in Africa) (265) pass through the Maltese islands. Expert estimates talk of about 500 000 migratory birds, most of which are protected species, being shot each year in Malta and Gozo (266). BirdLife Malta says that it dealt with 23 protected birds that had been shot in the space of about a month (267), while in 2009 and 2010 the bodies of 280 birds were found from protected species in what are known as the ‘bird cemeteries’ in Mizieb (268). The illegal hunting that is so widespread in a key area for migration flows goes against the efforts of other European Union Member States to preserve protected wildlife. In order to try and curb the practice, organisations such as CABS (269) and BirdLife Malta run anti-poaching camps in each migration season with the aim of keeping poachers away and making videos documenting the ongoing shooting of birds of prey and other protected birds (270). Over 15 days the two groups recorded a good 119 attempts to kill protected species and a total of 469 episodes of illegal hunting, including the use of electronic tape lures.

In late September 2012 I took part in CABS anti-poaching activities, and observed in person the seriousness of illegal hunting in Malta. I also met the head of the Administrative Law Enforcement (ALE) police unit, who told me of only one report of killing of protected species, despite thousands of illegal cases, which shows how ineffective the controls are. For its part, the Maltese government is said to be evaluating whether to adopt a derogation in order to allow trapping — a method prohibited by Directive 2009/147/EC — of song thrushes (Turdus philomelos) and golden plovers (Pluvialis apricaria), which would in practice mean finches could be caught as well.

Does the Commission believe that an urgent approach needs to be made to the Maltese government to enforce the Birds Directive? In this regard, what measures is it currently taking and what measures does it intend to take in the future?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E-5511/2012 (271) by Syed Kamall.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení P-009475/12

Komisi

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(17. října 2012)

Předmět: Používání indických nitroočních čoček Aurolab na vnitřním trhu

Od 1. října 2012 jsou pacientům v České republice dle nového úhradového katalogu standardní péče v rámci zdravotního pojištění při operaci očí zaváděny nitrooční čočky indické společnosti Aurolab. Jejich cena je třikrát nižší než u doposud používaného typu nitroočních čoček.

Dle internetových stránek společnosti jsou jejími odbytovými trhy Indie, státy Afriky, Latinské Ameriky, Střední Ameriky a jihovýchodní Asie.

Při systematickém vyhledávání v nejběžněji užívané medicínské databázi Medline, dále v databázi Americké oftalmologické akademie, ASCRS a ESCRS se objevují citace pouze indických autorů. Výsledky implantací čočky firmy Aurolab byly tedy publikovány, ale tyto čočky byly použity pouze v Indii. Nejsou známy žádné klinické studie evropských a amerických autorů o bezpečnosti a účinnosti těchto čoček.

Odborné kruhy (např. Česká společnost refrakční a kataraktové chirurgie či Česká oftalmologická společnost) se od používání těchto čoček distancují a nepovažují za stávajících podmínek tento typ standardní péče za kvalitní.

Má Komise povědomí o používání těchto čoček v jednotlivých členských státech?

Existují dostupné klinické studie, které umožňují bezpečné používání těchto čoček v rámci vnitřního trhu EU?

Byly splněny podmínky používání zdravotnického materiálu ze třetích zemí v rámci evropského vnitřního trhu s ohledem na zajištění bezpečnosti pacientů?

Odpověď Maroše Šefčoviče jménem Komise

(19. listopadu 2012)

Komise nemá žádné konkrétní informace o čočkách, které zmiňuje paní poslankyně, ani o jejich užití v jednotlivých členských státech.

Výrobci zdravotnických prostředků uváděných na trh Evropské unie musí nicméně prokázat, že jejich prostředky splňují požadavky směrnice 93/42/EHS (272) o zdravotnických prostředcích. V rámci tohoto procesu jsou dokazovány vlastnosti prostředku a jeho funkční způsobilost za běžných podmínek užívání, jsou vyhodnocovány vedlejší účinky a přijatelnost poměru mezi přínosy a riziky daného zdravotnického prostředku. Dokazování musí být podloženo klinickými údaji hodnocenými na základě jasně daného a metodologicky platného postupu. U implantabilních prostředků se klinické zkoušky provádějí vždy, s výjimkou řádně odůvodněných případů, kdy se lze spolehnout na existující klinické údaje. Směrnice 93/42/EHS dále stanoví postupy, kterými by se měly řídit vnitrostátní orgány, domnívají-li se, že daný zdravotnický prostředek není bezpečný a musí být stažen z trhu, nebo že neoprávněně užívá nebo naopak neužívá označení CE.

Návrh zabývající se zdravotnickými prostředky (273) přijatý dne 26. září 2012 předpokládá zřízení Evropské databanky zdravotnických prostředků (Eudamed), která veřejnosti poskytne lepší přístup k informacím o prostředcích uváděných na trh, včetně informací o provedených klinických zkouškách. Návrh rovněž předpokládá, že výrobci vysoce rizikových a implantabilních prostředků budou mít povinnost uveřejnit v databance Eudamed shrnutí informací o bezpečnosti a funkční způsobilosti jejich prostředků.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-009475/12

to the Commission

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Use on the EU internal market of Indian-made Aurolab intraocular lenses

As of 1 October 2012, intraocular lenses made by the Indian manufacturer Aurolab have become available to patients in the Czech Republic undergoing eye operations under the new reimbursement catalogue for standard medical care in the framework of the health insurance fund. Their price is three times less than that of type of intraocular lens used hitherto.

According to the company's website, Aurolab's sales markets are, apart from India, countries in Africa, Latin America, Central America and South-East Asia.

A systematic search of the most widely used medical database Medline and of the database of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, ASCRS and ESCRS has, however, come up with citations only from Indian authors. The results of Aurolab lens implants have certainly been published there, but the lenses in question were used only in India. No clinical studies of the safety and effectiveness of these lenses by European or US authors are known.

Experts in the field (for example, the Czech Society of Refractive and Cataract Surgery or the Czech Society of Ophthalmology) are distancing themselves from the use of these lenses and do not consider this type of standard care to be of high quality in the current circumstances.

Does the Commission have information on the use of these lenses in individual Member States?

Are there any clinical studies which would allow these lenses to be used safely in the EU internal market?

Have the conditions for the use of medical products from third countries on the EU internal market been fulfilled in respect of ensuring patient safety?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2012)

The Commission does not have any specific information on the lenses referred to by the Honourable Member, nor on their use in individual Member States.

However, manufacturers of medical devices placed on the European Union market must demonstrate that their devices comply with the requirements of Directive 93/42/EEC (274) concerning medical devices. This includes the demonstration of the characteristics and performances of the device, under the normal conditions of use, the evaluation of the side-effects and of the acceptability of the benefit/risk ratio. Such demonstration shall be based on clinical data, the evaluation of which must follow a defined and methodologically sound procedure. In the case of implantable devices clinical investigations shall be performed unless it is duly justified to rely on existing clinical data. Directive 93/42/EEC also establishes the procedures which national authorities should follow when they consider that an unsafe medical device must be withdrawn from the market or when a CE marking is unjustifiably affixed to a device or missing.

The proposal on medical devices (275), adopted on 26 September 2012, foresees the development of the European databank on medical devices (Eudamed) to enable the public to be better informed on devices placed on the market, including on the clinical investigations conducted. It also contains an obligation for manufacturers of high-risk and implantable devices to make publicly available in Eudamed a summary of safety and performance of their devices.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-009476/12

to the Commission

Nessa Childers (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Tax relief for microbreweries versus micro cider producers

A relief of 50% of the Alcohol Products Tax paid applies to beer produced in microbreweries located within the European Union. Micro-breweries in Europe are eligible for a relief in excise duty providing they produce under 20 000 hectolitres per year (http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/leaflets/pn1888.html).

There seems to be no EU provision allowing for a lower rate of duty on micro-produced cider (while such a provision obviously exists for beer). If I understand correctly, this means that according to EU competition law this duty system is providing an unfair advantage to one group of producers over another. Consumers believe that artisan/micro cider producers are comparable with artisan/micro brewers.

What is the situation regarding the status and inclusion of cider producers within this legislation, to rebalance the disadvantage currently being experienced by artisan/micro cider producers?

Is any form of relief available exclusively to artisan/micro cider producers?

Has any committee or report addressed this anomaly?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2012)

Under Council Directive 92/83/EEC (276) Member States may apply reduced rates to beer produced by independent small breweries (Article 4) and to ethyl alcohol (spirits) produced by small distilleries (Article 22). No corresponding provision is laid down for micro cider producers.

However, Member States may apply reduced rates to fermented beverage products with a low alcohol content not exceeding 8.5% (277), such as cider. Member States are however not obliged to apply such reduction. If they do so, they have to comply with the minimum rates of excise duty laid down in Directive 92/84/EEC (278). Provided that Member States comply with the provisions of the directives and their rules do not directly or indirectly discriminate in favour of domestic products, they may determine the rates of duty for each category of alcoholic beverage as they see fit.

The Commission is not aware of any committee or reports addressing the issue of micro cider producers.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-009477/12

to the Commission

Robert Sturdy (ECR)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Negotiation of EU-Canada trade agreement and Canadian liquor boards

If negotiations are successful, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will be the first free trade agreement concluded by the EU with a developed country. Such an agreement would grant ambitious concessions in areas beyond tariff elimination. However, Canadian liquor monopolies have developed unfair practices vis-à-vis European products.

Could the Commission provide details on how the CETA will secure:

A fair, transparent and non-discriminatory application of provincial mark-ups levied by some liquor boards?

Guarantees that the commercial activities of liquor boards will be legally and financially separated from their monopolistic actions, just as strictly and clearly as was stipulated for the retail monopolies of Sweden and Finland when they joined the EU in 1995?

This is an issue of reciprocity, as Canadian whisky sold in Europe does not compete with subsidised state-owned spirits as is the case for European wines and spirits sold in Canada.

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2012)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of the questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning EU exports of wines and spirits to Canada. It is for this reason that the Commission notably aims as an outcome of the CETA negotiations with Canada at a non-discriminatory, transparent and non-ad valorem application by the Canadian liquor boards of the mark-ups applied on imports of related EU products. More generally, the Commission is seeking commitments which provide a fair opportunity for European exporters to compete on an equal footing in this sector, and a robust dispute settlement mechanism. Achieving significant progress in this respect will be an important component in securing an ambitious and balanced agreement.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009478/12

an die Kommission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Gentechnik-Konzerne unterwandern US-Gesetzgebung — Gefahr für Konsumenten in der EU?

Hinter dem Kürzel 2,4-D (Dichlorphenoxyessigsäure) verbirgt sich eine hochgiftige Chemikalie, eine Komponente des im Vietnamkrieg zum Einsatz gelangten Entlaubungsmittels „Agent Orange“. Da die in der gentechnischen Landwirtschaft bereits gebräuchlichen Gifte wie Glyphosat offenbar nicht mehr ausreichen, um Schädlingsbefall und Superunkräuter hintanzuhalten, liegen im Washingtoner Landwirtschaftsministerium Medienberichten zufolge bereits zwei Zulassungsanträge für 2,4-D-tolerante Pflanzen, eine Gentech-Soja-Sorte und eine Genmais-Sorte, vor. US-Behörden sind anscheinend sehr großzügig, was die Zulassungen angeht. Gentechnik-Konzerne wie Monsanto nehmen in den USA aktiv auf die Gesetzgebung Einfluss. So debattiert das Abgeordnetenhaus in Washington zurzeit ein neues Agrargesetz, in das Monsanto mutmaßlich Formulierungen nach seinen wirtschaftlichen Bedürfnissen hinein reklamiert, um künftige Zulassungen zu beschleunigen.

1.

Birgt diese Entwicklung nicht auch Gefahren für europäische Konsumenten, da mit dem geplanten transatlantischen Binnenmarkt TAFTA auch gemeinsame Zulassungskriterien vorgesehen sind?

2.

Wenn ein mutmaßlich die Gesundheit gefährdendes und Ökosysteme schädigendes Gentechnik-Produkt in den USA zugelassen wäre, welche Handhabe hat die EU dann überhaupt noch, dieses schädliche Mittel von unseren Äckern fernzuhalten?

3.

Wie sollen nach Meinung der Kommission dementsprechende Risikobewertungen in Zukunft ablaufen, besonders wenn man bedenkt, dass sie nach der bereits heute geübten Praxis schon de facto abgeschafft wurden, zumal nach maximal 18 Monaten eine automatische Zulassung erfolgen soll?

4.

Wie will die Kommission durch den mit den USA geplanten Binnenmarkt TAFTA objektive, dem Vorsorgeprinzip, also dem Konsumenten‐ und Naturschutz, entsprechende Zulassungskriterien sicherstellen?

Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission

(26. November 2012)

1., 2., 4. Die Europäische Union hat ihre eigenen strengen und von den Zulassungsverfahren in Drittländern völlig unabhängigen Sicherheitskriterien für die Risikobewertung und die Zulassung von GVO gesetzlich festgelegt  (279). In der EU darf kein GVO eingeführt und verwendet werden, der nicht zuvor nach Abschluss dieses strengen Risikobewertungsverfahrens zugelassen wurde. Ein bilaterales Handelsabkommen mit dem Drittland, das den betreffenden GVO ausführt, wirkt sich nicht auf dieses Zulassungsverfahren aus.

3.

Die Kommission gibt grundsätzlich keine Stellungnahme zu internen Angelegenheiten von Drittstaaten ab.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009478/12

to the Commission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Genetic technology companies are influencing US lawmaking — are consumers in the EU in danger?

The substance behind the innocent abbreviation 2,4-D (dichlorophenylhydrazine hydrochloride) is a highly toxic chemical which was one component of the defoliant Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War. Poisons such as glyphosate, which are already commonly used by farmers who grow genetically modified crops, are apparently no longer powerful enough to deal with pests and halt the spread of super weeds. As a result, according to media reports two applications have already been submitted to the US Agriculture Department seeking authorisation to cultivate 2,4-D-tolerant plants, a soya variety and a maize variety, both of which have been genetically modified. The US authorities are apparently very generous when it comes to granting approval, and genetic engineering firms such as Monsanto exert real influence on the lawmaking process in the US. For example, the House of Representatives is currently debating a new farm law in the face of an alleged campaign by Monsanto to secure the inclusion of clauses which would serve its economic needs by speeding up future approval procedures.

1.

Does this development not also spell danger for European consumers, since one measure to be introduced as part of the proposed trans-Atlantic internal market (TAFTA) would be joint approval criteria?

2.

If a genetically modified product which allegedly poses a danger to health and to ecosystems were to be approved in the USA, would the EU then be in any position to prevent it from being used by European farmers?

3.

In the Commission’s view, what form should the relevant risk assessments take in the future, given that they have essentially already been abolished in de facto terms and the standard practice is to grant automatic approval after a maximum of 18 months?

4.

In the context of the planned internal market involving the USA, how does the Commission intend to ensure that objective approval criteria consistent with the precautionary principle, i.e. which take account of the need to protect consumers and the environment, are employed?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

1, 2, 4. The European Union has set by law (280) its own strict safety criteria for risk assessment and authorisation of GMOs, which are fully independent of third countries' authorisation procedures. No GMO can be imported and used in the EU if not having been granted an authorisation first, after successful completion of this stringent risk assessment process. The existence of a bilateral trade agreement with the third country exporting the GMO at stake does not impact this authorisation procedure.

3.

It is Commission policy not to comment on the internal affairs of third countries.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-009480/12

an den Rat

Werner Schulz (Verts/ALE) und Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE)

(17. Oktober 2012)

Betrifft: Einreiseverbot der litauischen Behörden gegen zwei belarussische Aktivisten der Zivilgesellschaft

Am 26. September 2012 wurde zwei belarussischen Staatsbürgern und Aktivisten der Zivilgesellschaft — Mikalaj Ulassewitsch, Koordinator der Öffentlichkeitskampagne „Das Atomkraftwerk Astrawez ist ein Verbrechen!“, und Tazzjana Nowikawa, Koordinatorin der belarussischen Anti-Atomkraft-Bewegung, die Einreise in das Staatsgebiet der Republik Litauen verweigert. Sie wurden mit der Begründung zu unerwünschten Personen erklärt, sie könnten die öffentliche Ordnung und die innere Sicherheit Litauens und anderer EU-Mitgliedstaaten gefährden.

Die beiden angesehenen Umweltaktivisten waren als Organisatoren mehrerer Konferenzen in EU-Mitgliedstaaten und als Berater für politische Stiftungen in der EU tätig.

1.

Ist dem Rat bekannt, dass diese beiden Aktivisten in Belarus ständig Unterdrückungs‐ und Schikanierungsmaßnahmen ausgesetzt sind?

2.

Haben die litauischen Behörden Angaben hierzu gemacht oder sich mit dem Rat oder anderen EU-Mitgliedstaaten beraten, bevor oder nachdem sie die eingangs genannten Maßnahmen gegen Ulassewitsch und Nowikawa ergriffen haben?

3.

Wie bewertet und betrachtet der Rat die Entscheidung der litauischen Behörden? Hinzuweisen ist in diesem Zusammenhang auf die enge Zusammenarbeit mit der belarussischen Zivilgesellschaft, die im Rahmen der Östlichen Partnerschaft auch entsprechende Unterstützung erfährt, und auf die Bemühungen der Kommission und des EAD im Rahmen des Dialogs über Modernisierung mit Belarus.

4.

Welche Maßnahmen oder Verbesserungen der internen Zusammenarbeit in der EU zieht der Rat in Betracht, damit Aktivisten der belarussischen Zivilgesellschaft nicht erneut infolge von Maßnahmen von EU-Mitgliedstaaten Gefahren ausgesetzt werden? Immerhin hat es vor kurzem mehrere Zwischenfälle bei der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Staatsorganen von Belarus und Einrichtungen der EU (vgl. den Fall Ales Bjaljazki) gegeben.

Antwort

(17. Dezember 2012)

Der Rat hat diese spezielle Frage, die die beiden Abgeordneten ansprechen, nicht erörtert. Ferner ist es nicht Sache des Rates, sich zu Entscheidungen der Mitgliedstaaten zu äußern, die die Aufrechterhaltung der öffentlichen Ordnung und den Schutz der inneren Sicherheit betreffen, da diese Aufgaben in die einzelstaatliche Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten fallen.

Generell bekräftigt der Rat seine feste Entschlossenheit, das Engagement der EU gegenüber der Bevölkerung und der Zivilgesellschaft von Belarus zu verstärken, wie er in mehreren Schlussfolgerungen — zuletzt in seinen Schlussfolgerungen zu Belarus vom 15. Oktober 2012 — wiederholt erklärt hat.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009480/12

to the Council

Werner Schulz (Verts/ALE) and Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Entry ban on two Belarusian civil society activists by Lithuanian authorities

On 26 September 2012, Belarusian citizens and civil society activists Mikalai Ulasevich, coordinator of the public campaign ‘Astraviec Nuclear Power Plant is a Crime!’, and Tatsiana Novikava, coordinator of the Belarusian anti-nuclear campaign, were prevented from entering the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and declared personae non-gratae on the grounds that they could threaten the public order and internal security of Lithuania and other EU countries.

The two environmental activists have a good reputation and have worked as organisers of several conferences in EU Member States and as advisers to political foundations in the EU.

1.

Is the Council aware of the fact that these two activists face ongoing repression and harassment in Belarus?

2.

Did the Lithuanian authorities provide any information or consult with the Council or EU Member States before or after these measures were taken?

3.

Given the close cooperation with and support for Belarusian civil society within the Eastern Partnership and the efforts undertaken by the European Commission/EEAS as part of the Dialogue on Modernisation with Belarus, how does the Council evaluate and view the decision of the Lithuanian authorities?

4.

In the light of a number of recent incidents relating to cooperation between Belarusian and EU authorities (e.g. the case of Ales Bialiatski), what measures or improvements in internal EU cooperation is the Council considering in order to prevent any further endangerment of Belarusian civil society activists by EU Member States?

Reply

(17 December 2012)

The Council has not discussed the specific matter to which the Honourable Members refer. Furthermore, it is not for the Council to comment on Member States' decisions regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security, which fall within Member States' national competence.

More generally, the Council recalls its firm commitment to strengthening the EU's engagement with the Belarusian people and civil society, as set out in successive Council conclusions and most recently in its conclusions on Belarus of 15 October 2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009481/12

to the Commission

Struan Stevenson (ECR)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Timeshare selling in perpetuity

Timeshare contracts entitle owners to a unit of holiday accommodation, which they can use during certain periods of the year. In addition, owners under these contracts must share the cost of upkeep and maintenance.

Nevertheless, timeshare contracts usually include a ‘perpetuity clause’. This means that other family members become burdened with liability for payment when the original owner dies, unlike when a person dies in debt.

Directive 2008/122/EC extends consumer protection in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts. However, it deals primarily with the stage at which an original contract is made, including rights of withdrawal, yet not with how a contract may be terminated.

Could the Commission review this directive in order to protect sellers and resellers by including an article allowing fair arbitration in endeavours to cancel ownership contracts?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2012)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-9028/12 (281) dealing with the same issues.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009482/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Stagisti minorenni presso aziende cinesi produttrici di tecnologia

Il 17 ottobre 2012, varie fonti di notizie, hanno riferito che il più grande produttore al mondo di elettronica, Foxconn, che è fornitore di Apple, Samsung e Microsoft, aveva ammesso che stagisti di appena quattordici anni lavorano in alcuni dei suoi stabilimenti cinesi. Secondo un'indagine interna svolta dalla società, «alcuni dei partecipanti al programma di stage a breve termine per studenti che si svolge nel nostro campus di Yantai, provincia di Shandong, hanno meno dell'età lavorativa legale di 16 anni». La società ha detto che ciò è in contrasto sia con le norme del diritto del lavoro cinese sia con le norme lavorative applicate dalla società stessa. Gli stagisti rappresentano il 2,7 % degli 1,2 milioni di dipendenti della Foxconn in Cina. Tuttavia, la società ha giustificato il programma di stage dicendo che è svolto in collaborazione con scuole professionali e altre istituzioni educative.

La Foxconn era nei media nel 2010, a seguito di una ondata di suicidi di lavoratori. Nel 2011, c'è stata un'esplosione nella fabbrica Foxconn che produce gli iPad2 di Apple. All'inizio di questo mese, presso lo stabilimento di Zhenghzhou, i media di stato cinesi hanno riferito di un'interruzione del lavoro dovuta a «richieste eccessivamente severe» per la produzione degli iPhone di Apple. La società dichiara di aver aumentato i salari dei lavoratori, e di aver introdotto consiglieri e servizi per i lavoratori per allentare la pressione.

1.

Alla luce delle nuove segnalazioni di lavoratori minorenni presso gli impianti Foxconn in Cina, quali passi è disposta ad effettuare la Commissione per sollevare queste preoccupazioni con il governo cinese?

2.

Nel corso degli ultimi due anni, quali progressi ha fatto la Commissione nel trattare con il governo cinese i problemi relativi alle condizioni di lavoro alla Foxconn?

3.

La Commissione si ritiene rassicurata che Foxconn stia effettuando dei passi per affrontare adeguatamente le questioni di salute e di sicurezza nei suoi stabilimenti?

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

(22 gennaio 2013)

L’Unione europea è a conoscenza delle accuse riguardanti le dure condizioni di lavoro nello stabilimento della Foxconn di Taiyuan (provincia di Shanxi), nonché delle proteste e dei suicidi che ciò ha provocato negli ultimi tempi e a seguito dei quali la Foxconn ha recentemente accettato di ridurre le ore di lavoro, tutelare le retribuzioni e migliorare la rappresentanza del personale.

La Commissione si adopera per eliminare le forme proibite di lavoro minorile, basandosi sulle conclusioni del Consiglio sul lavoro minorile del 2010, sulla comunicazione sul programma dell’UE per i diritti dei minori del 2011 e sul programma internazionale dell’OIL relativo all’eliminazione del lavoro minorile. L’UE ne affronta le cause fondamentali, quali la povertà e le carenze dell’istruzione, grazie a un quadro normativo generale, e promuove la ratifica dei due protocolli opzionali alla Convenzione sui diritti dell’infanzia e delle convenzioni dell’OIL n. 182 e 138. Il quadro strategico dell’UE sui diritti umani del 2012 e il relativo piano di azione prevedono la partecipazione dell’UE alla conferenza mondiale sul lavoro minorile del 2013, nonché la promozione dell’aggiornamento degli elenchi di lavori pericolosi figuranti nella convenzione dell’OIL n. 182.

L’UE dispone inoltre di una politica in materia di responsabilità sociale delle imprese (RSI), formalizzata in una comunicazione della Commissione del 2011 (282), che esorta al rispetto assoluto degli orientamenti internazionali in materia di RSI. Uno di questi orientamenti, i Principi guida su impresa e diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, è particolarmente rilevante ed è già attuato dall’Unione europea.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009482/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Under-age interns in Chinese technology manufacturing companies

On 17 October 2012, various news sources reported that the world’s largest manufacturer of electronics, Foxconn, which is a supplier to Apple, Samsung and Microsoft, had admitted that interns as young as 14 years old were working at some of its Chinese plants. According to an internal investigation carried out by the company, ‘some participants in the short-term student internship programme that is administered at our campus in Yantai, Shandong Province, are under the legal working age of 16 years’. The company has said that this is against both Chinese labour law and the company’s own labour laws. Interns account for 2.7% of Foxconn’s 1.2 million employees in China. Yet the company has justified the internship programme by saying that it is carried out in cooperation with vocational schools and other educational institutions.

Foxconn was in the media in 2010 following a spate of worker suicides. In 2011, there was an explosion at the Foxconn plant which manufactures Apple’s iPad2. Earlier this month, at the Zhenghzhou plant, Chinese state media reported a work stoppage due to ‘overly strict demands’ for production of Apple’s iPhone. The company claims that it has increased workers’ pay and introduced counsellors and facilities for workers to let off steam.

1.

In light of the new reports of under-age workers at Foxconn plants in China, what steps is the Commission prepared to take towards raising these concerns with the Chinese Government?

2.

Over the past two years, what progress has the Commission made with the Chinese Government in relation to its handling of problems attributed to the working conditions at Foxconn?

3.

Is the Commission reassured that Foxconn is taking steps to adequately tackle health and safety issues at its plants?

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

(22 January 2013)

The European Union is aware of accusations of the harsh working conditions in the Foxconn Factory in Taiyuan (Shanxi province), and recent protests and suicides in response, in reaction to which, Foxconn has recently agreed to reduce hours, protect pay and improve staff representation.

The Commission works towards elimination of prohibited forms of child labour, based on the 2010 Council conclusions on Child Labour, the 2011 Communication on an EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child and the ILO International Programme on Elimination of Child Labour. EU addresses root causes such as poverty and education through a comprehensive framework and promotes ratification of two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Conventions Nos. 182 and 138. The 2012 EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights foresee EU participation in the 2013 Global Conference on Child Labour and promotion of updated hazardous work lists under ILO Convention No 182.

The European Union also has a policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR) which the Commission formalised in a communication in 2011 (283). This urges the utmost respect for international CSR guidelines. One of these guidelines is particularly relevant — the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on business and human rights — which the European Union has begun to implement.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009483/12

à la Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 octobre 2012)

Objet: Déploiement des autoroutes de la mer entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée

Les autoroutes de la mer sont à ce jour simplement envisagées en lien avec leur effet sur la réduction du trafic terrestre et l'alternative qu'elles offrent au fret routier. Au-delà de l'absence gênante de toute autre définition et de tout critère objectif les caractérisant, il est regrettable que cette vision exclue de facto les liaisons maritimes entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée, car elles ne se substitueraient en l'espèce à aucune liaison terrestre.

Or, les autoroutes de la mer doivent pouvoir s'inscrire dans une dimension euro-méditerranéenne, pour être un vecteur d'intégration régionale et d'aménagement harmonieux du territoire dans cette zone stratégique.

L'Union a lancé le programme Meda-MoS, puis Meda-MoS II, pour apporter une expertise en la matière et soutenir les porteurs de projets d'autoroute de la mer grâce à une évaluation des besoins et des conseils de mise en œuvre.

Le Forum Euromed Transport agit en parallèle pour approfondir l'intégration de la région euro-méditerranéenne par les transports, afin de prolonger les RTE-T vers le Sud de la Méditerranée.

L'Union pour la Méditerranée poursuit par ailleurs l'objectif de déployer des autoroutes de la mer, par le biais de projets qu'elle labelliserait.

Malheureusement, en dépit de ces initiatives, force est de regretter que les autoroutes de la mer, telles qu'elles sont envisagées aujourd'hui, ne peuvent concerner les échanges Nord-Sud en Méditerranée, car elles sont limitées à de simples liaisons maritimes intra-communautaires de courte distance.

À la lumière de ces éléments:

La Commission soutient-elle le déploiement d'autoroutes de la mer entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée? Si oui, dans quelle mesure?

Comment la Commission entend-elle adapter le concept d'autoroute de la mer au contexte euro-méditerranéen?

Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission

(12 décembre 2012)

En ce qui concerne le développement des autoroutes de la mer, la Commission souhaite aider le commerce intérieur de l'Union européenne ainsi que le commerce international. Dans ce contexte, la Commission soutient le développement des autoroutes de la mer entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée et reconnaît le rôle essentiel qu'elles jouent dans tout système de transport développé dans le cadre de l'Union pour la Méditerranée.

En ce qui concerne le financement des activités liées aux autoroutes de la mer, la Commission estime qu'il devrait être poursuivi dans le cadre d'un programme approprié et spécifique, à savoir le programme Meda-SoS, qui est conçu pour répondre aux besoins de développement spécifiques des rives de la Méditerranée qui ne font pas partie de l'Union européenne. Ce programme devrait être financé dans le cadre de l'initiative «Union pour la Méditerranée» et, au moyen de fonds de l'Union spécifiques tels que le RTE-T, obtenir un niveau de financement égal à celui destiné au développement des autoroutes de la mer en Europe. Il est toutefois nécessaire de coordonner ces deux fonds afin de développer une zone de transport euroméditerranéenne.

Comme l'Honorable Parlementaire le sait certainement, les nouvelles orientations RTE-T porteront sur les éléments suivants:

La coopération internationale, en particulier avec les «pays limitrophes», qui faciliterait le développement d'actions complémentaires mutuellement bénéfiques dans le domaine des autoroutes de la mer et

Un nouveau concept d'autoroutes de la mer, qui ne se fonde pas uniquement sur le transfert modal de la route vers la voie maritime, mais servirait plutôt à favoriser le transport maritime en tant moteur de développement des échanges, grâce à l'utilisation d'une logistique des transports efficace. Cette approche comprend la mise en place de corridors de transport intégrés soutenus par les autoroutes de la mer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009483/12

to the Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Development of motorways of the sea between the two shores of the Mediterranean

Motorways of the sea are currently viewed simply as a way of reducing the volume of traffic on land and as an alternative to road freight haulage. Besides the unhelpful lack of any other objective criteria which could be used to define what motorways of the sea actually are, it is unfortunate that in practice this concept serves to exclude maritime links between the two shores of the Mediterranean, for the simple reason that these would not replace land transport links.

If they are to be a force for regional integration and harmonious regional development in this strategically important area, motorways of the sea must be part of a broader Euro-Mediterranean approach to transport.

The EU launched the Meda-MoS programme, and subsequently the Meda-MoS II programme, in order to draw on expertise in this area and to support motorway-of-the-sea projects by carrying out needs assessments and giving advice on implementation.

The Euromed Transport Forum is working alongside the EU to further integration in the Euro-Mediterranean area by means of improved transport links, and with the aim of extending the trans-European transport network towards the Southern Mediterranean.

The Union for the Mediterranean is pursuing the goal of developing motorways of the sea through projects which it endorses.

Despite these initiatives, it is unfortunate that the current plans for motorways of the sea take no account of North-South Mediterranean trade, confining the role of the motorways to providing short-sea links within the EU.

1.

Does the Commission support the development of motorways of the sea between the two shores of the Mediterranean? If so, to what extent?

2.

How does the Commission propose to adapt the concept of the motorway of the sea to take account of needs in the Euro-Mediterranean area?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2012)

Regarding the development of Motorways of the Sea (MoS), the Commission aims to support the EU's internal trade as well as international trade. In this context the Commission supports the development of the MoS between both shores of the Mediterranean and recognises their key role on any transportation system developed under the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean.

Concerning the funding of MoS activities, the Commission considers that it should be continued under the framework of an adequate and dedicated program i.e. Meda-MoS, geared to meet the specific development requirements of the non-EU shores of the Mediterranean. This program should get its budget under the framework of the initiative — Union for the Mediterranean, and match MoS development in Europe, under dedicated EU funds such as the TEN-T. However those two funds need to be coordinated in order to develop a Euro-Mediterranean transport area.

The Honourable Member of the Parliament is certainly aware that the new TEN-T Guidelines will cover:

International cooperation, in particular with ‘neighbouring countries’ which would facilitate the development of mutually beneficial complementary MoS actions and

a new concept of MoS which is not based solely on modal shift ‘from road to sea’, but on supporting maritime transport as a tool to foster the development of trade through the use of efficient transport logistics. This approach includes the development of integrated transport corridors supported by MoS.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-009484/12

à la Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 octobre 2012)

Objet: Définition et critères objectifs d'une autoroute de la mer

Promues pour la première fois dans le Livre Blanc sur la politique des transports de 2001, les autoroutes de la mer tardent à être véritablement déployées, quand bien même leur intérêt est manifeste. L'objectif est connu: le report modal de la route vers la mer, afin de décongestionner les réseaux terrestres et de réduire les émissions du transport routier.

Malheureusement, depuis leur lancement en 2001, et malgré leur inclusion dans les orientations du RTE-T en 2004, un constat d'échec est évident, la faute à l'absence de toute définition ou de critères objectifs pour les caractériser.

Aucune définition précise des autoroutes de la mer n'existe, si ce n'est à travers les objectifs qu'elles sont censées atteindre en termes de report modal ou de cohésion territoriale (Livre Blanc 2001, Orientations RTE-T 2004), ou de fluidité de la chaîne logistique en liaison avec la partie maritime de cette chaîne (coordinateur européen pour les autoroutes de la mer, M. Valente de Oliviera).

Le flou juridique qui entoure les autoroutes de la mer induit un flou opérationnel et cela est de nature à décourager les acteurs du transport maritime, ou les autorités nationales et locales, de soutenir leur déploiement.

Quelques exemples existent ou ont existé, mais, à chaque fois, parce que ces liaisons maritimes sont ou étaient subventionnées, la fin du financement européen a conduit à la fin de l'autoroute de la mer.

L'enjeu est d'importance pour que les autoroutes de la mer répondent au besoin de prolonger la route vers la mer, pour qu'elles s'inscrivent dans une politique ambitieuse d'aménagement du territoire et ne bénéficient pas d'une simple aide au démarrage.

Au regard de ces éléments:

Pour quelles raisons la Commission n'a-t-elle jamais donné à ce jour de définition précise ni proposé des critères objectifs pour caractériser ce qu'est une autoroute de la mer?

Au-delà de l'effet sur le report modal et de la haute qualité des services maritimes, quels sont les critères objectifs et opérationnels retenus par la Commission pour qualifier une liaison maritime d'autoroute de la mer?

Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission

(5 décembre 2012)

L'article 13 de la décision sur les orientations pour le développement du réseau transeuropéen de transport (RTE-T) (284) fournit un cadre juridique pour le financement des projets relatifs aux autoroutes de la mer, qui visent à concentrer les flux de fret sur des itinéraires maritimes à vocation logistique, à améliorer les liaisons maritimes existantes et à établir de nouvelles liaisons viables, régulières et fréquentes. Les principaux objectifs sont de réduire la congestion routière et d'améliorer la desserte des régions périphériques ou insulaires. Des critères supplémentaires ont été définis dans le règlement établissant le programme «Marco Polo II» (285).

En 2007, la Commission a lancé une consultation auprès d'opérateurs du transport maritime et d'administrations nationales en vue d'améliorer le concept d'autoroute de la mer. Les questions posées concernaient notamment l'établissement d'indicateurs clés de performance et d'un label fixant des critères minimaux en matière d'ouverture, de fréquence et de fiabilité des services de transport maritime, de performance des chaînes logistiques, de qualité des services portuaires et de rapidité des procédures administratives. La consultation a révélé de grandes différences sur les plans de la fréquence des services, du volume des marchandises transportées, de la longueur des tronçons maritimes et des types d'activité économique dans les différentes zones reliées par des autoroutes de la mer. Aucun élément n'a démontré que la définition de critères qualitatifs généraux apporterait une valeur ajoutée au concept.

La Commission ne pense pas que l'absence de critères précis pour caractériser les autoroutes de la mer ait freiné l'évolution du concept. De tels critères n'auraient pas été perçus comme un encouragement à la création de services de transport maritime à courte distance.

En octobre 2011, la Commission européenne a présenté une nouvelle proposition relative au réseau RTE-T (286). Celle-ci donne une définition détaillée des autoroutes de la mer, selon laquelle ces derniers représentent la dimension maritime du réseau transeuropéen de transport (287). À ce stade, la Commission ne juge pas nécessaire de mettre en place des critères opérationnels supplémentaires pour définir les autoroutes de la mer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009484/12

to the Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Objective criteria to define motorways of the sea

Although the idea of motorways of the sea was first mooted in the 2001 White Paper on transport policy, and despite their obvious importance, it is taking some time to put the idea into practice. The objective is well known: to bring about a shift from road to maritime transport, in order to reduce congestion on road networks and emissions from road transport.

Unfortunately, since the idea was launched in 2001, and despite motorways of the sea being identified as a TEN-T priority project in 2004, real progress has been thwarted by the lack of objective criteria which can be used to define what a motorway of the sea actually is.

No exact definition of motorways of the sea exists, although one can perhaps be inferred from the goals set of bringing about a shift in the dominant mode of transport, enhancing regional cohesion (White Paper 1001, Priority Projects TEN-T 2004), and creating a seamless logistics chain which fully integrates the maritime component (European coordinator for motorways of the sea, Luis Valente de Oliviera).

The legal uncertainty surrounding the motorways of the sea is giving rise to operational imponderables, which are discouraging maritime transport operators, or local and national authorities, from supporting their development.

Some examples exist or used to exist; however, since maritime transport links are or were subsidised, each time European funding has ended, it has led to the demise of the motorway in question.

Effective support for motorways of the sea is essential if they are to perform their proper role of providing a seamless link between land and maritime transport, if they are to form part of an ambitious regional development policy, and if funding for them is not to be confined to start-up assistance.

1.

Why has the Commission never given an exact definition of or proposed objective criteria which could be used to define motorways of the sea?

2.

Setting aside the fact that they should promote a modal shift and guarantee the provision of high-quality maritime transport services, what are the Commission’s objective and operational criteria for defining a motorway of the sea?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2012)

Article 13 of the TEN-T guidelines (288) provides a legal framework for funding Motorways of the Sea projects with a view to concentrate freight flows on sea based logistical routes, improve existing maritime links and establish viable, regular and frequent maritime links. Main objectives are to reduce road congestion and improve access to peripheral and island regions. Additional criteria have also been set in the regulation establishing the Marco Polo II programme (289).

In 2007, the Commission consulted shipping operators and national administrations to improve the concept. This included establishing ‘key performance indicators’ and a ‘label’ including minimum criteria on openess, frequency and reliability of shipping services, efficient logistic chains, high quality port services and rapid administrative procedures. The consultation showed that the frequency of services and the volume of goods carried, the length of the maritime leg and the types of economic activity of the areas connected by Motorways of the Sea vary greatly. There was no evidence that establishing general qualitative criteria would bring added value to the concept.

The Commision does not believe that not establishing precise criteria for Motorways of the Sea has slowed down the progress of the concept. Such criteria would not have been perceived as an incentive to stimulate the creation of additional short sea services.

In October 2011 the European Commission presented a new proposal for the TEN-T network (290) where Motorways of the Sea have a comprehensive definition and represent the maritime dimension of the Trans-European Transport Network (291). The Commission does not see the need to establish additional operational criteria to define motorways of the sea at this stage.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-009485/12

alla Commissione

Tiziano Motti (PPE)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Revisione della direttiva 2006/24/CE sulla conservazione dei dati

Alla luce della sua relazione di valutazione sulla direttiva 2006/24/CE riguardante la conservazione dei dati, il 18 aprile 2011 la Commissione ha dichiarato che avrebbe proposto una revisione dell'attuale quadro giuridico in materia di conservazione dei dati. Nel suo piano d'azione per l'attuazione del programma di Stoccolma, la Commissione ha annunciato una proposta di revisione per il 2012.

La direttiva 2006/24/CE fu proposta sulla scia emotiva e sulle esigenze tecniche di lotta al terrorismo manifestatesi in forma eclatante nel 2001 con la strage delle Torri gemelle a New York e, negli anni a seguire, in Spagna e a Londra.

Da allora il Parlamento europeo ha approvato, il 23 giugno 2010, una risoluzione basata sulla dichiarazione scritta n. 29 «volta a creare un sistema di allarme rapido contro pedofili e molestatori sessuali» chiedendo alla Commissione, fra le altre misure, l'estensione dell'applicazione della direttiva 2006/24/CE anche ai motori di ricerca, mentre il 23 ottobre 2011 ha approvato la risoluzione legislativa contro l'abuso e lo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori e la pornografia minorile n. P7_TA (2011)0468 con cui si introduce il reato di grooming ovvero l'adescamento di minori tramite la rete.

1.

Intende la Commissione tenere fede al suo impegno di proporre una revisione della direttiva in oggetto entro il 2012?

2.

Alla luce delle potenziali minacce per i minori in particolare, ma non solo, rappresentate dalla violazione della legge grazie all'utilizzo anonimo di Internet, provvederà la Commissione a basare la propria proposta riveduta su una valutazione approfondita e fattuale delle ripercussioni sul diritto alla riservatezza?

3.

In che modo intende migliorare la direttiva rendendo possibile l'identificazione di autori di reati attraverso il web, alla luce delle insufficienze tecniche evidenziate dal Parlamento?

Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione

(26 novembre 2012)

Come già precisato nelle sue risposte alle interrogazioni orali O-124/12, O-125/12, O-126/12, O-128/12 e O-154/12 (292), la Commissione sta elaborando una proposta di revisione del quadro giuridico in materia di conservazione dei dati, anche se, date la complessità tecnica e giuridica e la sensibilità politica della materia, è probabile che non sarà presentata a breve. Secondo la Commissione, la revisione della direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati deve garantire che i dati conservati siano utilizzati esclusivamente per i fini previsti dalla direttiva stessa e non per altri scopi, come attualmente permesso dalla direttiva relativa alla vita privata e alle comunicazioni elettroniche (293). La Commissione mira pertanto a proporre una revisione della direttiva sulla conservazione dei dati, da presentare contestualmente a una futura revisione della direttiva relativa alla vita privata e alle comunicazioni elettroniche. Qualsiasi proposta di riforma di quest’ultima prenderà in considerazione l’esito delle discussioni sulla riforma del regime dell’UE in materia di protezione dei dati, di competenza della commissaria per la giustizia, i diritti fondamentali e la cittadinanza. La valutazione d’impatto che accompagnerà la proposta includerà un’analisi esaustiva degli effetti sulla vita privata e su altri diritti fondamentali pertinenti e presenterà le opzioni disponibili per fare in modo che le autorità responsabili abbiano un accesso tempestivo ai dati ritenuti necessari e proporzionati ai fini di prevenzione, indagine, accertamento e perseguimento di reati gravi.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-009485/12

to the Commission

Tiziano Motti (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Review of Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data

In the light of its evaluation report on Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data, the Commission stated on 18 April 2011 that it would review the current legal framework on data retention. In its action plan implementing the Stockholm programme, the Commission announced that there would be a proposal for revision in 2012.

Directive 2006/24/EC was tabled in the emotional aftermath of the 2001 attack on the New York twin towers and the attacks in the following years in Spain and London, and was geared to the technical needs of the fight against terrorism.

Since then, on 23 June 2010 the European Parliament adopted a resolution based on written declaration 29 ‘setting up a European early warning system for paedophiles and sex offenders’, in which it asked the Commission inter alia to extend the application of Directive 2006/24/EC to search engines; and on 23 October 2011 it adopted a legislative resolution on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (No P7_TA (2011)0468), introducing the crime of grooming minors over the Internet.

1.

Does the Commission intend to fulfil its commitment to propose a revision of the directive in question during 2012?

2.

In the light of the potential threats for minors in particular — but not only minors — represented by breaches of the law through anonymous use of the Internet, will the Commission be sure to base its proposed revision on a thorough, factual assessment of the repercussions on the right to privacy?

3.

In what way does it intend to improve the directive by making it possible to identify the perpetrators of crime over the Internet, in the light of the technical shortcomings highlighted by Parliament?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2012)

As stated in its response to oral questions O-124/12, O-125/12, O-126/12 , O-128/12 and O-154/12 (294), the Commission is preparing a proposal to reform the data retention framework, although, given the technical and legal complexity and political sensitivity of this matter, it is likely to take some time before the Commission is in a position to present its proposal. The Commission considers that any revision of the Data Retention Directive should ensure that retained data will be used exclusively for the purposes foreseen in this directive, and not for other purposes as currently allowed by the E-Privacy Directive (295). The Commission therefore aims to propose a revision of the Data Retention Directive, to be presented at the same time as a future revision of the E-Privacy Directive. Any proposal reforming the E-Privacy Directive will take into account the result of the negotiations on the reform of the EU data protection regime, which is under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. The impact assessment accompanying that proposal will include a full discussion of the impact on privacy and other relevant fundamental rights, and consider options for ensuring that competent authorities have swift access to the communications data which are necessary and proportionate for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009486/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Negociações Colômbia — FARC

No passado dia 28 de agosto de 2012, a Alta Representante manifestou publicamente o seu contentamento pelo início do processo negocial do Estado colombiano com as FARC e a sua convicção de que apenas uma solução negociada trará a tão desejada paz duradoura à Colômbia.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que apreciação faz da evolução do processo negocial?

Que aspetos destaca?

A União participará nestas negociações? Com que estatuto?

A União Europeia estará disponível para auxiliar e mediar as partes envolvidas caso lhe seja solicitado?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(13 de dezembro de 2012)

A União Europeia está a acompanhar com especial atenção as negociações de paz. Como a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente manifestou nas declarações de 28 de agosto e 4 de setembro de 2012, esta é uma oportunidade única para pôr fim a várias décadas de confrontos que têm atrasado o desenvolvimento e infligido um grande sofrimento ao povo da Colômbia.

Tendo em conta a delicadeza e confidencialidade deste processo, que envolve apenas as duas partes, bem como os países que atuam na qualidade de garantes ou aqueles que acompanham a situação, a UE não deve ainda pronunciar-se sobre a evolução das conversações.

A União Europeia está pronta a ajudar o governo colombiano, as suas instituições e a sociedade civil, prestando apoio a ações que promovam a paz, a verdade, a justiça, a reparação e a reconciliação.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009486/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Negotiations between Columbia and the FARC

On 28 August 2012, the High Representative publicly welcomed the launch of negotiations between the Colombian State and the FARC and stated her conviction that only a negotiated solution could provide the basis for the long sought-after lasting peace in Colombia.

1.

What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of the progress of the negotiation process?

2.

What does she consider to be the salient points?

3.

Will the EU take part in these negotiations? In what capacity?

4.

Is the European Union prepared to assist and mediate for the parties concerned should they so wish?

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

(13 December 2012)

The EU is following the peace negotiations with close attention. As the HR/VP has expressed in her statements of 28 August and 4 September 2012, there is now a unique window of opportunity to put an end to this decades-old confrontation which has held back development and inflicted unspeakable suffering on the Colombian people.

In view of the delicate and confidential nature of the process, which involves only the two parties, as well as the countries acting as guarantors or in an accompanying role, the EU should not comment on the progress of the talks at the present point in time.

The EU stands ready to assist the Colombian government, state institutions and civil society in providing support for activities that promote peace, truth, justice, reparation and reconciliation.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009487/12

ao Conselho

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Cuba — Eliminação da autorização de saída — Prémios Sakharov

Em 4 de setembro de 2003, durante a sessão plenária em Estrasburgo, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou, por vastíssima maioria, uma Resolução relativamente a Cuba, em cujo § 12 se lê:

«Solicita que Oswaldo Payá, laureado em 2002 com o prémio Sakharov para a liberdade de pensamento, seja oficialmente convidado a encontrar-se com a Presidência da UE, o Alto Representante para a PESC, o Presidente da Comissão e os Comissários competentes; apoia a decisão tomada pela sua Comissão dos Assuntos Externos, dos Direitos do Homem, da Segurança Comum e da Política de Defesa de convidar Oswaldo Payá e solicita às autoridades cubanas que não coloquem obstáculos a esta visita».

O Presidente da Comissão, o Secretário-Geral do Conselho e o Alto-Comissário para a PESC e a então Presidência italiana manifestaram igualmente na altura por escrito idêntico desejo e disponibilidade.

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-006904/2012, a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante declarou que «O Parlamento convidou as Damas de Branco e Guillermo Fariñas para se deslocarem a Bruxelas. Uma vez que a sua deslocação não foi autorizada, um convite para vir a Bruxelas está atualmente fora de questão.» Cuba anunciou, a 16 de outubro de 2012, a eliminação das autorizações de saída dos seus cidadãos para o estrangeiro.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Está disposto a convidar as «Damas de Blanco» e Guillermo Fariñas a deslocarem-se às instituições europeias para que possam testemunhar, de viva voz, acerca do estado de coisas em Cuba?

Que grau de energia está disposto a empregar nesse sentido, nomeadamente em coordenação com a Comissão e com os Estados-Membros?

Encara o Conselho poder associar-se expressamente ao «convite aberto» anteriormente expresso pelo Parlamento Europeu para que se desloquem à União Europeia se isso lhes for efetivamente permitido?

Resposta

(25 de fevereiro de 2013)

O Conselho não debateu esta questão.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009487/12

to the Council

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Cuba — Abolition of exit permits — Sakharov Prize winners

On 4 September 2003, at the plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on Cuba by a vast majority. Paragraph 12 reads as follows:

‘Asks that Mr Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, be officially invited to Europe […] in order to meet in person with the EU Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP, the President of the Commission and the relevant Commissioners; supports the decision taken by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to invite Mr Sardiñas, and asks the Cuban authorities not to prevent his presence’.

The President of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council and the High Commissioner for the CFSP and the entire Italian Presidency also expressed the same wish and availability in writing at the time.

In response to my Question E-006904/2012, the Vice-President/High Representative said that ‘The Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas were invited by the Parliament to Brussels. Given that their travel was not permitted, an invitation to Brussels is currently not under consideration.’ Cuba announced on 16 October 2012 that its citizens would no longer require exit permits to travel abroad.

1.

Is the Council willing to invite the Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas to travel to the EU institutions to personally testify on the state of affairs in Cuba?

2.

How much effort is the Council willing to devote to this, in cooperation with the Commission and the Member States?

3.

Does the Council plan to associate itself specifically with the

‘open invitation’ previously extended by the European Parliament to travel to the European Union if they were allowed to do so?

Reply

(25 February 2013)

The Council has not discussed this issue.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009488/12

à Comissão

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: Cuba — Eliminação da autorização de saída — Prémios Sakharov

Em 4 de setembro de 2003, durante a sessão plenária em Estrasburgo, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou, por vastíssima maioria, uma Resolução relativamente a Cuba, em cujo § 12 se lê:

«Solicita que Oswaldo Payá, laureado em 2002 com o prémio Sakharov para a liberdade de pensamento, seja oficialmente convidado a encontrar-se com a Presidência da UE, o Alto Representante para a PESC, o Presidente da Comissão e os Comissários competentes; apoia a decisão tomada pela sua Comissão dos Assuntos Externos, dos Direitos do Homem, da Segurança Comum e da Política de Defesa de convidar Oswaldo Payá e solicita às autoridades cubanas que não coloquem obstáculos a esta visita».

O Presidente da Comissão, o Secretário-Geral do Conselho e o Alto-Comissário para a PESC e a então Presidência italiana manifestaram igualmente na altura por escrito idêntico desejo e disponibilidade.

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-006904/2012, a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante declarou que «O Parlamento convidou as Damas de Branco e Guillermo Fariñas para se deslocarem a Bruxelas. Uma vez que a sua deslocação não foi autorizada, um convite para vir a Bruxelas está atualmente fora de questão.» Cuba anunciou, a 16 de outubro de 2012, a eliminação das autorizações de saída dos seus cidadãos para o estrangeiro.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Está disposta a convidar as «Damas de Blanco» e Guillermo Fariñas a deslocarem-se às instituições europeias para que possam testemunhar, de viva voz, acerca do estado de coisas em Cuba?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(7 de fevereiro de 2013)

Segundo a prática habitual, são as delegações da UE em países terceiros que conduzem os contactos com a oposição pacífica. Não foram enviados convites a representantes cubanos para participar em reuniões em Bruxelas. Se o Parlamento Europeu, que atribui o Prémio Sakharov, endereçar um convite aos laureados cubanos para discursarem no Parlamento, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente, à semelhança do que fez no passado, irá levantar esta questão junto das autoridades cubanas. 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.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009488/12

to the Commission

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Cuba's abolition of the exit permit — Sakharov Prizes

On 4 September 2003, at its plenary session in Strasburg, the European Parliament adopted, by a broad majority, a resolution on Cuba, paragraph 12 of which reads:

‘[The European Parliament] asks that Mr Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, be officially invited to Europe at the earliest opportunity in order to meet in person with the EU Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP, the President of the Commission and the relevant Commissioners; supports the decision taken by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to invite Mr Sardiñas, and asks the Cuban authorities not to prevent his presence’.

The President of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Italian Presidency of the time also expressed the same wish and willingness in writing.

In answer to my Question E-006904/2012, the Vice-President/High Representative stated that ‘The Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas were invited by the Parliament to Brussels. Given that their travel was not permitted, an invitation to Brussels is currently not under consideration’. On 16 October 2012, Cuba announced that it was abolishing exit permits for its citizens to travel abroad.

Is the Commission willing to invite the Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas to travel to the EU institutions to personally testify on the state of affairs in Cuba?

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

(7 February 2013)

Following established practise, contacts with the peaceful opposition in third countries are led by EU Delegations. No invitations have been issued for Cuban representatives to attend meetings in Brussels. If the European Parliament, which awards the Sakharov Prizes, issues an invitation to the Cuban awardees to speak at the Parliament, the HR/VP will, as it did in the past, raise the question with the Cuban authorities. On the occasion of the adoption of the new migration law, the HR/VP expressed the wish that this law is broadly implemented.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-009489/12

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 de outubro de 2012)

Assunto: VP/HR — Cuba — Eliminação da autorização de saída — Prémios Sakharov

Em 4 de setembro de 2003, durante a sessão plenária em Estrasburgo, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou, por vastíssima maioria, uma Resolução relativamente a Cuba, em cujo § 12 se lê:

«Solicita que Oswaldo Payá, laureado em 2002 com o prémio Sakharov para a liberdade de pensamento, seja oficialmente convidado a encontrar-se com a Presidência da UE, o Alto Representante para a PESC, o Presidente da Comissão e os Comissários competentes; apoia a decisão tomada pela sua Comissão dos Assuntos Externos, dos Direitos do Homem, da Segurança Comum e da Política de Defesa de convidar Oswaldo Payá e solicita às autoridades cubanas que não coloquem obstáculos a esta visita».

O Presidente da Comissão, o Secretário-Geral do Conselho e o Alto-Comissário para a PESC e a então Presidência italiana manifestaram igualmente na altura por escrito idêntico desejo e disponibilidade.

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-006904/2012, a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante declarou que «O Parlamento convidou as Damas de Branco e Guillermo Fariñas para se deslocarem a Bruxelas. Uma vez que a sua deslocação não foi autorizada, um convite para vir a Bruxelas está atualmente fora de questão.» Cuba anunciou, a 16 de outubro de 2012, a eliminação das autorizações de saída dos seus cidadãos para o estrangeiro.

Assim, pergunto novamente à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Está disposta a convidar as «Damas de Blanco» e Guillermo Fariñas a deslocarem-se às instituições europeias para que possam testemunhar, de viva voz, acerca do estado de coisas em Cuba?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(26 de novembro de 2012)

Segundo a prática habitual, são as delegações da UE em países terceiros que conduzem os contactos com a oposição pacífica e a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente não formula quaisquer convites para que tais reuniões se realizem em Bruxelas. Se o Parlamento Europeu, que atribui o Prémio Sakharov, endereçar um convite aos laureados cubanos para discursarem no Parlamento, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente, à semelhança do que fez no passado, irá levantar esta questão junto das autoridades cubanas. 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.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009489/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Cuba's abolition of the exit permit — Sakharov Prizes

On 4 September 2003, at its plenary session in Strasburg, the European Parliament adopted, by a broad majority, a resolution on Cuba, paragraph 12 of which reads:

‘[The European Parliament] asks that Mr Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, be officially invited to Europe at the earliest opportunity in order to meet in person with the EU Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP, the President of the Commission and the relevant Commissioners; supports the decision taken by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to invite Mr Sardiñas, and asks the Cuban authorities not to prevent his presence.’

The President of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Italian Presidency of the time also expressed the same wish and willingness in writing.

In answer to my Question E-006904/2012, the Vice-President/High Representative stated that ‘The Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas were invited by the Parliament to Brussels. Given that their travel was not permitted, an invitation to Brussels is currently not under consideration.’ On 16 October 2012, Cuba announced that it was abolishing exit permits for its citizens to travel abroad.

I would therefore ask the Vice-President/High Representative once again:

Is she willing to invite the Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas to travel to the EU institutions to personally testify on the state of affairs in Cuba?

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

(4 December 2012)

Following regular practise, contacts with peaceful opposition are lead by the EU Delegations in Third countries and there are no invitations sent out by the HR/VP for such meetings to take place in Brussels. If the European Parliament which awards the Sakharov Prizes issues an invitation to the Cuban awardees to speak at the Parliament, the HR/VP will, as it did in the past, raise the question with the Cuban authorities. On the occasion of the adoption of the new migration law, the HR/VP expressed the wish that this law is broadly implemented.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009490/12

alla Commissione

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Vaccinazione contro il tetano materno e neonatale nei Paesi in via di sviluppo

Nelle aree più disagiate del mondo circa 130 milioni di donne e i loro bambini rischiano di contrarre il tetano materno e neonatale.

Nonostante sia sufficiente una semplice vaccinazione durante la gravidanza per salvare la vita sia della mamma che del bambino, attualmente sono 58 000 i bambini che ogni anno, nei Paesi in via di sviluppo, muoiono a causa di tale malattia.

L'Unicef ha lanciato nel 2006, insieme ad alcuni sponsor privati, una campagna con l'obiettivo di eliminare questa malattia in 59 Paesi entro la fine del 2015: allo stato attuale Myanmar, Uganda, Liberia, Timor Est, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Guinea e Ghana sono gli otto Paesi in via di sviluppo nei quali la malattia è stata già eliminata, mentre in altri Paesi, come il Camerun, si è riusciti a ridurre le percentuali dei neonati colpiti ad un caso su mille bambini nati vivi.

Quali iniziative intende dunque adottare la Commissione per sostenere la campagna di vaccinazione promossa dall'Unicef per debellare in modo definitivo il tetano materno e neonatale nei Paesi in via di sviluppo?

Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione

(11 dicembre 2012)

È impossibile prevenire ed eliminare completamente l’esposizione al tetano poiché le spore tetaniche sono presenti in tutto il mondo nel terreno e nelle feci umane e animali.

In molti paesi vengono attuati programmi di routine per immunizzare le donne in stato di gravidanza contro il tetano, solitamente nell’ambito dell’assistenza prenatale, mentre si ritiene che nelle regioni ove ciò non avviene il problema sia imputabile a carenze dei sistemi sanitari.

L’UE riconosce che l’immunizzazione può contribuire a ridurre la mortalità infantile e a prevenire malattie come il tetano. L’impostazione generale dell’UE in campo sanitario consiste nel concentrare investimenti e sostegno su programmi e sistemi sanitari globali (in particolare sulle loro spese correnti) nei paesi che presentano maggiori necessità. Si tratta del modo migliore per garantire che, a lungo termine, tutti possano accedere all’assistenza sanitaria e a servizi di qualità anche nelle zone rurali e in quelle più isolate.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009490/12

to the Commission

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Vaccination against maternal and neonatal tetanus in developing countries

Some 130 million women and their children in the poorest regions of the world are at risk of contracting maternal and neonatal tetanus.

Although a single vaccination during pregnancy is enough to save the lives of both mother and child, 58 000 children currently die of tetanus each year in developing countries.

In 2006 Unicef, together with a number of private sponsors, launched a campaign with the aim of completely eradicating the disease from 59 countries before the end of 2015: it has already been eradicated from eight developing countries — Myanmar, Uganda, Liberia, East Timor, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Guinea and Ghana. In others, such as Cameroon, the percentage of newborns contracting tetanus has been brought down to one in a thousand live births.

What initiatives does the Commission therefore intend to take in support of the Unicef-promoted vaccination campaign to finally overcome maternal and neonatal tetanus in developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2012)

Tetanus exposure cannot be entirely prevented and eradicated because tetanus spores are found throughout the world in soil and the stool of people and animals.

In many countries, immunization against tetanus is routinely given to pregnant women, usually during antenatal care contacts while in areas where immunization fails to reach pregnant women it is considered that it is due to weak health systems.

The EU acknowledges the impact immunisation has in reducing child mortality and preventing diseases such as tetanus. The EU global health approach is to invest in and support comprehensive health plans and systems, especially recurrent costs, in countries in greatest need. This is the main way to have a long term impact on access to healthcare and quality services for all, even in rural and remote areas.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-009491/12

alla Commissione

Debora Serracchiani (S&D)

(17 ottobre 2012)

Oggetto: Presunte irregolarità nell'assunzione dei dipendenti Ryanair

Risulta che la compagnia aerea low cost Ryanair abbia omesso il versamento dei contributi in Italia per 220 dipendenti assunti a Dublino e perciò soggetti al regime fiscale irlandese, che di fatto però lavoravano presso l'aeroporto Orio al Serio.

È noto infatti che in Irlanda la tassazione sugli stipendi è mediamente intorno al 12 % mentre in Italia è al 37 %.

Inoltre, i dipendenti Ryanair, pur essendo lavoratori di diritto irlandese, lavorando in Italia, dove vivono, usufruiscono anche delle prestazioni sanitarie per sé e per le loro famiglie, e dispongono anche della certificazione del diritto all'assistenza sanitaria che consente di ottenere assistenza sanitaria in tutti i Paesi dell'UE a spese dell'Italia, che ha rilasciato la certificazione assicurativa.

Si chiede alla Commissione se è a conoscenza di quanto sopra e se ritiene che siano state violate le norme in materia di diritto al lavoro cosi come stabilito dal Regolamento (CEE) n. 1612/68 del 15 ottobre 1968, modificato dai regolamenti (CEE) n. 312/76 e (CEE) n. 2434/92, e direttiva 2004/38/CE?

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(12 dicembre 2012)

Il regolamento (CE) n. 883/2004 determina l'unica legislazione sulla sicurezza sociale applicabile al personale di volo e stabilisce in via di principio il nesso tra tale legislazione e la «base di servizio» della persona in questione, con effetto dal 28 giugno 2012 (296). La nozione di «base di servizio» per quanto riguarda gli equipaggi che operano nel settore dell'aviazione civile (297) ha una portata generale a livello dell'Unione europea ed è definita come il luogo (aeroporto) in cui il membro d'equipaggio solitamente inizia e conclude un periodo di servizio. È possibile che la normativa sulla sicurezza sociale applicabile al personale di volo assunto prima di tale data coincida con la legislazione dello Stato membro in cui l'operatore ha la sede sociale in quanto va applicato il periodo transitorio di 10 anni di cui all'articolo 87 bis.

Qualora una persona sia soggetta alla legislazione sulla sicurezza sociale di uno Stato membro diverso da quello di residenza, l'assistenza sanitaria è erogata alle stesse condizioni previste per le persone assicurate residenti in tale Stato membro. Tuttavia, a norma degli articoli 17 e 35 del regolamento (CE) n. 883/2004 le spese effettivamente sostenute per tale assistenza vanno integralmente rimborsate alle istituzioni italiane dallo Stato membro competente (nella fattispecie l'Irlanda).

Se per il personale della Ryanair in servizio presso l'aeroporto di Orio al Serio l'Italia è lo Stato competente, ma la Ryanair non versa i contributi per detto personale, spetta alle autorità italiane competenti recuperare i contributi o le imposte dovute a titolo della legislazione italiana.

Le informazioni fornite nell'interrogazione scritta non indicano alcuna erronea applicazione del diritto di ogni cittadino UE di lavorare in un altro Stato membro e di svolgervi un'attività di lavoro liberamente scelta ed accettata come sancito dall'articolo 45 del TFUE e dal regolamento (UE) n. 492/2011 (298). Per quanto concerne le aliquote fiscali sul lavoro citate nell'interrogazione, si rimanda alla pubblicazione sull'evoluzione della fiscalità nell'UE (299).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-009491/12

to the Commission

Debora Serracchiani (S&D)

(17 October 2012)

Subject: Presumed irregularities in the hiring of Ryanair staff

It appears that the low-cost airline Ryanair has failed to pay contributions in Italy for 220 members of staff who were hired in Dublin and therefore come under the Irish tax system but who in fact work at Orio al Serio airport in Italy.

It is well known that average taxation of wages in Ireland is around 12%, compared to 37% in Italy.

Furthermore, although these Ryanair staff are treated as workers under Irish law, the fact that they live and work in Italy means that they receive healthcare for themselves and their families, and are also entitled to receive healthcare throughou