21.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 340/1


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 340 E/01)

Contents

E-011468/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Portuguese researchers identify a new treatment for osteoarthritis

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011469/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Cuts in food bank support

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011470/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: FAO Report: need for greater investment in agriculture

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011471/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Food waste

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011472/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Kyoto Protocol

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011473/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EU citizens having difficulty obtaining work visas in Brazil

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011474/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Using polyphosphates in cod processing

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011475/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 1

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011481/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF: agroforestry 7

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011476/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 2

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011477/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 3

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011478/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 4

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011479/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 5

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011480/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EURAF: agroforestry 6

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011482/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Textile industry: negotiations between the EU and Canada

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011483/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Cases of whooping cough are on the increase in EU countries

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011484/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: North Korea threatens peace by launching a ‘rocket’ into space

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011485/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Creating a development bank to manage EU funds

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011486/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Consumer protection in e-commerce

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011487/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Ireland granted more time to repay its loan to the Troika

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011488/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Fraud and money laundering in online gambling

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011489/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Reindustrialisation of the European Union

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011490/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Social Investment Package

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011491/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: A common visa policy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011492/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Databases

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011493/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Improved financing conditions for Portugal under the terms of support from the Troika

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011494/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Moody's negative outlook for the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011495/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Significant yield differences in eurozone bonds

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011496/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Rise in Portugal's exports

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011497/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Investment in Portugal at 1980s levels

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011498/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Tax avoidance in the EU, technology multinationals

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011499/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Unemployment in Portugal in October 2012

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011500/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Recession in nearly a third of EU countries

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011501/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Poverty in Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011502/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Economic stagnation in Germany

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011503/12 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Worsening of the recession in Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011504/12 by Alf Svensson to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU policy towards Rwanda in relation to the situation in eastern DRC

Svensk version

English version

E-011506/12 by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission

Subject: Falling wage levels in connection with opening up the inter-city coach market

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011507/12 by Brian Simpson, Spyros Danellis, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Phil Prendergast, Pavel Poc, Iratxe García Pérez and Jens Nilsson to the Commission

Subject: Rural Development Programmes: transitional arrangements for 2014

Versión española

České znění

Ελληνική έκδοση

Wersja polska

Svensk version

English version

E-011587/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: CAP post-2013

English version

E-011508/12 by Ashley Fox to the Commission

Subject: The treatment of bears in Vietnam

English version

E-011509/12 by Jan Mulder to the Commission

Subject: Biogas plants

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011510/12 by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission

Subject: Norwegian and UK contributions to the EU

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011511/12 by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz to the Commission

Subject: The crisis in the European car industry

Magyar változat

English version

E-011512/12 by Joanna Senyszyn to the Commission

Subject: Anti-trafficking projects

Wersja polska

English version

E-011513/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Steel industry

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011514/12 by Roberta Angelilli, Jacek Protasiewicz, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Elena Băsescu, Georgios Papanikolaou, Heinz K. Becker, Nuno Melo, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Licia Ronzulli, Anna Záborská, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Filip Kaczmarek, Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Sari Essayah, Mariya Gabriel, Burkhard Balz, Potito Salatto, Clemente Mastella, Jan Kozłowski, Lara Comi, Zoltán Bagó, Jim Higgins, Mário David, Eduard Kukan, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, José Manuel Fernandes, Nuno Teixeira, Georgios Papastamkos, Carlo Fidanza, Piotr Borys, Iva Zanicchi, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, József Szájer, Antonio Cancian, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, Eva Ortiz Vilella, Anne Delvaux, Giovanni La Via, Erminia Mazzoni, Georges Bach, Lívia Járóka, Konstantinos Poupakis, Svetoslav Hristov Malinov, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Marco Scurria, Ioannis A. Tsoukalas, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Philippe Boulland, Monica Luisa Macovei, Mario Mauro, Esther Herranz García, Amalia Sartori, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Inese Vaidere, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, Paolo Bartolozzi, Paweł Zalewski, Małgorzata Handzlik, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Edit Bauer, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Marietta Giannakou, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, László Surján, Regina Bastos, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Elisabeth Köstinger, Elena Oana Antonescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Astrid Lulling, Kinga Gál, Peter Šťastný and Radvilė Mo to the Commission

Subject: Information on measures to tackle youth unemployment

българска версия

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Ελληνική έκδοση

Version française

Versione italiana

Latviešu valodas versija

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

Magyar változat

Nederlandse versie

Wersja polska

Versão portuguesa

Versiunea în limba română

Slovenské znenie

Slovenska različica

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

P-011515/12 by Trevor Colman to the Commission

Subject: Implementing rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements

English version

E-011516/12 by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission

Subject: Social dumping through the posting of bogus self-employed persons from third countries

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011518/12 by Maurice Ponga to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of workers in the OCTs — principle of non-discrimination

Version française

English version

E-011519/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Protecting SMEs against scams

Version française

English version

E-011520/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Football referee death — violence against match officials

Version française

English version

E-011521/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possibility of funding for a scientific and cultural project in the municipality of Radicofani, province of Siena

Versione italiana

English version

E-011522/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Liberalisation of vine planting rights

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011523/12 by Karl-Heinz Florenz to the Commission

Subject: Amendment to the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC and the situation of voluntary work in general and volunteer firefighters in particular

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011524/12 by Karl-Heinz Florenz to the Commission

Subject: Live plucking/gathering feathers from live geese

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011526/12 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Selection on the basis of merit of heads of public institutions in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011527/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Bycatch technology

English version

E-011529/12 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: Full protection from adverse changes in employment conditions for Hellenic Sugar Industry employees transferred on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011531/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Further possible sanctions against North Korea

Wersja polska

English version

E-011532/12 by Bernadette Vergnaud to the Commission

Subject: Activities promoting and developing 112 and the ‘eCall’ project

Version française

English version

E-011534/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Investigation into Deutsche Bank by the US Securities and Exchange Commission

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011535/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Unified patent system

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011536/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: EU delegation in Iraq

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011537/12 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: Action against marketing scams

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-011538/12 by Jacek Włosowicz, Zbigniew Ziobro, Tadeusz Cymański and Jacek Olgierd Kurski to the Commission

Subject: Relationship between the European Commission's state aid services and independent nations regulators

Wersja polska

English version

E-011539/12 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: ‘System data’ in the context of private-sector child safety activities

Svensk version

English version

E-011540/12 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Inconsistency in Commission policy with respect to the Convention of Cybercrime and the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online

Svensk version

English version

E-011541/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: EASA opinion on flight time limitations for pilots and cabin crew

English version

E-011543/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Tax rates on defibrillators

English version

E-011544/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Diaspora centre

English version

E-011545/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Peer-to-peer checks under Regulation (EC) No 834/2007

English version

E-011546/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008

English version

P-011548/12 by Martina Anderson to the Commission

Subject: Use of full body scanners at EU airports

English version

E-011652/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: EU enlargement and public relations — the particular case of Croatia

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011549/12 by Roger Helmer to the Commission

Subject: Croatia

English version

E-011550/12 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Waste tyre exports

English version

E-011551/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Safety of winter sports facilities

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011552/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: New harbours for vessels across Europe

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011553/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Double taxation of pensions in relation to EC law

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011554/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Use of crosses and halos in the EU

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011555/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: VAT compensation in connection with the cross-border sale of cars

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011556/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Disruption in the supply of essential items to Greece

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011557/12 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: EU rules for the publication of documents

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011558/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: Meaning of ‘free trade’

English version

E-011559/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Apostasy and freedom

English version

E-011560/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: EU's egregious error

English version

E-011561/12 by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission

Subject: EU acting ‘ultra vires’

English version

E-011563/12 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: State aid criteria

English version

E-011564/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Call for the Commission to protect designations of origin for camembert

Versione italiana

English version

E-011565/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Call for the Commission to monitor the waste involved in the bridge over the Straits of Messina

Versione italiana

English version

E-011566/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: The Commission should monitor toxic substances found in Chinese teas

Versione italiana

English version

E-011567/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Real cost of current accounts in the EU

Versione italiana

English version

E-011568/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Women in Cambodia face jail for defending housing rights

Versión española

English version

E-011569/12 by Françoise Castex to the Commission

Subject: Abuse of selective distribution rules

Version française

English version

P-011571/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Exploiting natural resources in Western Sahara

Versión española

English version

P-011572/12 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: Possible emergency measures to maintain technical conservation prohibition

English version

E-011573/12 by Claude Turmes to the Commission

Subject: UK electricity market reform (EMR), state aid for nuclear

Version française

English version

E-011575/12 by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission

Subject: Method for calculating the rates of payment for participants in the Lifelong Learning Programme and Horizon 2020

българска версия

English version

E-011576/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Fracking or hydraulic fracturing

Versión española

English version

E-011578/12 by Bendt Bendtsen to the Commission

Subject: The consequences of changes in Norwegian duties for Norway and for EU exports

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011579/12 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Assessment of product safety for cosmetics — Consumers' and SMEs' interests

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011580/12 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: Gibraltar on EU maps

English version

E-011581/12 by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Arrest of Vietnamese citizens and labour activists

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011582/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Excavation and earthmoving in Parco dei Monti Simbruini (Simbruini Mountain Park) in the Lazio region (Italy)

Versión española

English version

E-011583/12 by Isabella Lövin and Kriton Arsenis to the Commission

Subject: Welfare of farmed fish

Ελληνική έκδοση

Svensk version

English version

E-011585/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Animal welfare in Romania

English version

E-011586/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Ban on baby boxes

English version

E-011588/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Impact of Croatian accession

English version

E-011589/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Cross-compliance breaches

English version

E-011590/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Financial package for Egypt

English version

E-011591/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Erasmus programme

English version

E-011592/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Hamas attacks on Israel

English version

E-011593/12 by Philippe Juvin to the Commission

Subject: Collective redress

Version française

English version

E-011594/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possibility of funding for the ONLUS Anagramma association set up to support differently able persons

Versione italiana

English version

E-011595/12 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possibility of funding for clown therapy

Versione italiana

English version

E-011597/12 by Piotr Borys to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Arrest warrant issued against yet another politician in connection with the events in Zhanaozen and the intensified persecution of ‘Alga!’ party members in Kazakhstan

Wersja polska

English version

E-011598/12 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: Excessive controls on Polish nationals at the Polish-Swedish maritime border and their compliance with Schengen provisions

Wersja polska

English version

E-011599/12 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: Compliance of Polish laws with Council Directive 2008/118/EC and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Wersja polska

English version

E-011600/12 by Edite Estrela to the Commission

Subject: Abortion law in the Republic of Ireland

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-011602/12 by Marisa Matias to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of Aeroportos de Portugal (ANA)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011603/12 by María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora to the Commission

Subject: Involvement of businesses in the negotiating process for the EU-Japan free trade agreement

Versión española

English version

E-011604/12 by George Lyon to the Commission

Subject: UPDATE: Implementation of Directive 2008/120/EC on protection of pigs — Ban on individual sow stalls

English version

E-011605/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of Christians in Syria

English version

E-011606/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Structural and cohesion policy

English version

E-011607/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Travel insurance

English version

E-011608/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Laser eye surgery

English version

E-011609/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Implications of changes to MOT testing

English version

E-011610/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: United Kingdom: tax on the location of the player and not of the operator

Version française

English version

E-011611/12 by Patrizia Toia to the Commission

Subject: MUOS in Niscemi, Caltanissetta

Versione italiana

English version

E-011612/12 by Alfredo Antoniozzi to the Commission

Subject: The management of the Euribor rate and its impact on variable-rate mortgages

Versione italiana

English version

E-011613/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Further attacks in Nigeria

English version

E-011614/12 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Hezbollah

English version

E-011615/12 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission

Subject: Sustainability criteria for solid biomass

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-011616/12 by Vital Moreira to the Commission

Subject: Safeguard investigation initiated by Morocco on EU exports of bars and rods

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011618/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Possible new Egyptian constitution

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011619/12 by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis to the Commission

Subject: Upstream barriers to trade in Europe for non-harmonised products, particularly car parts

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011620/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: The proximity of sewage plants to residential dwellings

English version

E-011621/12 by Emine Bozkurt and Alejandro Cercas to the Commission

Subject: Social security rights of Turkish workers in the EU following the Council Decision of 6 December 2012

Versión española

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011623/12 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: Kidnappings and murders in Egypt

English version

E-011624/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Natural disasters: floods — innovative solutions and environmental engineering research

Versione italiana

English version

E-011625/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up of the MoU for the Spanish financial sector

Versión española

English version

E-011626/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Relation between banking institutions and savings banks

Versión española

English version

E-011627/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Continuation of medical siege at Camp Liberty and psychological torture of residents

Versione italiana

English version

E-011628/12 by Maria Eleni Koppa to the Commission

Subject: EU assistance to civil society organisations

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011630/12 by Claude Moraes to the Commission

Subject: Clean air targets in London

English version

E-011631/12 by Adam Bielan to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Religious freedom violations in Chin State, Burma/Myanmar

Wersja polska

English version

E-011633/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Criminal case against Russia's opposition

Versione italiana

English version

E-011634/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: 2012 — the deadliest year for journalists worldwide

Versione italiana

English version

E-011635/12 by Dominique Riquet to the Commission

Subject: Passenger transport by rail: detailed rules for establishing a public service obligation

Version française

English version

E-011637/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Taking care of others: family support networks

Versione italiana

English version

E-011638/12 by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission

Subject: ‘Italian sounding’ products

Versione italiana

English version

E-011639/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Completion of the waterway between Padua and the sea to avert the risk of flooding on the Veneto plain, in keeping with Directive 2007/60/EC

Versione italiana

English version

E-011640/12 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: VAT on e-books

Wersja polska

English version

E-011641/12 by Hannu Takkula to the Commission

Subject: Fatah's logo and flag

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-011642/12 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: Conflict of objectives in relation to personal involvement of the OLAF Director-General in investigations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011643/12 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: Commission meeting with representatives of the tobacco industry

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011644/12 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: Phenylbutazone and food producing animals

English version

E-011645/12 by Bas Eickhout to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the directive on the energy performance of buildings

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011646/12 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Taxation of the Spanish cogeneration sector

Versión española

English version

E-011647/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Procedure for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011648/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Funding for European transport infrastructure

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011649/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Development aid and combating famine in South Sudan

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011651/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Clarification regarding passenger name record data sharing with the US by Member States

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011653/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Public procurement and research on corruption

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011654/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Data quality of TED

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011655/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Greater transparency in access to TED data

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011656/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information about research projects — procurement and outcomes

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011657/12 by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission

Subject: Information about research projects — procurement and outcomes

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011658/12 by Martin Callanan to the Commission

Subject: European Commission communication budget — cost and tendering process for banners hung on the Berlaymont building

English version

E-011659/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Famagusta — the ‘ghost town’

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011660/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Budget line 22 02 07 03 for 2013

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011666/12 by Véronique Mathieu, Sonia Alfano, Edit Bauer, Tanja Fajon, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Salvatore Iacolino, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Kinga Gál, Monika Hohlmeier, Ioan Enciu, Bill Newton Dunn, Edit Herczog, Simon Busuttil and Kinga Göncz to the Commission

Subject: Training of police forces in the European Union — Maintaining the CEPOL independent agency

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

Versione italiana

Magyar változat

Verżjoni Maltija

Versiunea în limba română

Slovenska različica

English version

E-011667/12 by Søren Bo Søndergaard to the Commission

Subject: Benefits and inconveniences of using European Summer Time

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011668/12 by Søren Bo Søndergaard to the Commission

Subject: Action to combat illegal child labour and trafficking

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011669/12 by Hubert Pirker, Georges Bach, Jim Higgins and Dominique Riquet to the Commission

Subject: European Aviation Safety Agency opinion on flight-time limitations for air crew

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

English version

E-011670/12 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission

Subject: European Union support for the worldwide eradication of polio

Version française

English version

E-011671/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Request for clarification on the costs of the ‘Puzzled by Policy’ application

Versione italiana

English version

E-011672/12 by Tomasz Piotr Poręba to the Commission

Subject: Declaring 25 May the European Day honouring the Heroes of the Fight against Totalitarianism

Wersja polska

English version

E-011673/12 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Space for Mediterranean Countries Initiative

Versión española

English version

E-011674/12 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Spanish resin production

Versión española

English version

E-011675/12 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: EU rules on organic foodstuffs

Dansk udgave

English version

E-011676/12 by Anja Weisgerber to the Commission

Subject: Distinction between cosmetic products and medical devices in the case of tooth-bleaching products

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011677/12 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: Role of a Swedish national expert in OLAF investigations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011678/12 by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission

Subject: Misuse of EU funds in the Czech Republic

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-011679/12 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Support for Tunisia

Versione italiana

English version

P-011680/12 by Paul Murphy to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the Floods Directive

English version

E-011681/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Classification of substances which are dangerous for the consumer: concerns regarding the panel

Version française

English version

E-011682/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Trade agreement between the European Union and Palestine

Version française

English version

E-011683/12 by Rachida Dati to the Commission

Subject: Carbon inclusion mechanism at the borders of the European Union

Version française

English version

E-011684/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Use of radioactive weapons in military activities and risk to human health in the EU

Versione italiana

English version

E-011685/12 by Phil Bennion to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Corruption in South Asia

English version

E-011686/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Report on the impact of increased demand for biofuels

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011687/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Report on the functioning of the verification method referred to in Article 18(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011688/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Sustainable energy for all

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011689/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Good practices for tackling the school drop-out rate

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011690/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: ESF and ERDF resources for youth employment

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011691/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: e-books

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011692/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Construction of a biological purification plant in the Marmaries — Kokkina area of the island of Tinos

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-011693/12 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Integration of the Prüm Convention into EU legislation

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011694/12 by Sophie Auconie to the Commission

Subject: Eligibility of sports projects for ERDF funding

Version française

English version

E-011695/12 by Thomas Mann to the Commission

Subject: Spain's coastal protection law

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-011697/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Interconnection of national electronic registers of road transport undertakings

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011698/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Interoperability of electronic road toll systems

Versiunea în limba română

English version

P-011699/12 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Council

Subject: Irish Presidency of the EU — lifting barriers for Romanian and Bulgarian workers

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-011700/12 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Wind turbines in Farini

Versione italiana

English version

P-011701/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Tax on transfer of real estate from ATEbank to Piraeus Bank

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-011702/12 by Michèle Rivasi to the Commission

Subject: Composition of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) working group on endocrine disruptors

Version française

English version

P-011703/12 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Safety of European citizens and precautionary measures under Italian law imposing an obligation to stay in a specified place: the case of Tezze sul Brenta (Province of Vicenza)

Versione italiana

English version

P-011704/12 by Janusz Wojciechowski to the Commission

Subject: Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing

Wersja polska

English version

E-000001/13 by Janusz Wojciechowski to the Commission

Subject: CHAP(2012)02494 case

Wersja polska

English version

E-000002/13 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Imbalances between Member States as regards youth unemployment and measures to address them

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000003/13 by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The new imperialist spheres of influence drawn in blood

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000004/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Greek state auction for Thessaloniki metro extension project

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000005/13 by Michèle Rivasi to the Commission

Subject: Registration of skin cancer

Version française

English version

E-000006/13 by Louis Grech to the Commission

Subject: Environment Action Programme (EAP)

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-000007/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Clarification of the copyright situation regarding the survey initiated by the Commission on the structure of the cultural and creative sectors in Europe

Svensk version

English version

E-000008/13 by Ashley Fox to the Commission

Subject: Access to rail transport for wheelchair passengers in the EU

English version

E-000009/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Council

Subject: Three scenarios for the Union in 2030

Version française

English version

E-000010/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Three scenarios for the Union in 2030

Version française

English version

E-000011/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Critical situation in the Caucasus

Version française

English version

E-000012/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Instagram and consumer rights

Version française

English version

E-000013/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Mental health and energy drinks: a dangerous cocktail

Version française

English version

E-000014/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Approval of the implementing development plan for Ca' Roman in the municipality of Venice in the absence of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) referred to in Directive 2001/42/EC

Versione italiana

English version

E-000015/13 by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission

Subject: Trade in animal-tested cosmetics

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000016/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Appointment of a tobacco lobbyist to the Ethics Committee on Lobbying

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000017/13 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Values for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide in the new proposal for a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000018/13 by Christian Engström to the Commission

Subject: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) — what did the Court ask the Commission?

Svensk version

English version

E-000019/13 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of drinking water

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000020/13 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Compulsory water-saving shower heads

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000021/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Freedom of religion

Versione italiana

English version

E-000022/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: A bergamot-tinged war?

Versione italiana

English version

P-000023/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Carbon monoxide

English version

P-000024/13 by Toine Manders to the Commission

Subject: European classification system for medicines based on risks of impairment of driving ability

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000025/13 by Charalampos Angourakis to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Military attack on FARC-EP

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000026/13 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Tackling racism in football

English version

E-000027/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Case of international abduction of minors to Russia

Versione italiana

English version

E-000028/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Case of international abduction of minors to Russia

Versione italiana

English version

E-000029/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Case of international abduction of a minor to Russia

Versione italiana

English version

E-000030/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Case of international abduction of a minor to Russia

Versione italiana

English version

E-000031/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Case of international abduction of minors to France

Versione italiana

English version

E-000032/13 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Nefarious practices at Ryanair

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-000042/13 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the Commission

Subject: Ryanair aircraft flying with too little fuel on board

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000054/13 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Safety issues raised by limited quantities of fuel carried on Ryanair flights

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000033/13 by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission

Subject: Inappropriate farm subsidies

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000034/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Food security and food education

English version

E-000035/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Strictly supervised conditions in respect of the application of the derogations laid down in Article 9(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive)

Versione italiana

English version

E-000036/13 by Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission

Subject: Situation of Italian prisons and funding available for integrating prisoners and for families

Versione italiana

English version

E-000037/13 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission

Subject: Accumulation of pension entitlements by frontier workers in Belgium

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-000038/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of capital

Versione italiana

English version

P-000039/13 by Bart Staes to the Commission

Subject: The Dalli case and lobbying by the tobacco industry

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000040/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkish Minister: ‘Christianity is no longer a religion’

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-000041/13 by Isabelle Thomas to the Commission

Subject: Drawing up the action plan for the Atlantic region

Version française

English version

E-000043/13 by Emine Bozkurt to the Commission

Subject: Use of the European Social Fund in Poland

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-000044/13 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: Schmallenberg virus

English version

E-000046/13 by Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Good Samaritan law

English version

E-000047/13 by Sajjad Karim to the Commission

Subject: Dutch diving regulations — recognition of professional qualifications

English version

E-000048/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: EU humanitarian aid to Burma

English version

E-000049/13 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the Commission

Subject: Possible breach of rules concerning the common charging scheme for air navigation services

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000050/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Concerns due to arsenic concentrations in ore that is planned to be extracted at Krumovgrad, Bulgaria

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000051/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Illegally granted mining concession without tender or environmental impact assessment at Krumovgrad, Bulgaria

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000052/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Pollution from mining facilities in Bulgaria

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000053/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Arsenic contamination of Topolnitsa reservoir (Bulgaria) by the mining industry

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000055/13 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Investigation into Russian opposition activist

Wersja polska

English version

E-000056/13 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Employment in management posts in EU institutions

Wersja polska

English version

E-000057/13 by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission

Subject: Legislative amendments envisaged by the Commission for early 2013 which reduce or prohibit the use of natural ingredients in perfumes

българска версия

English version

E-000058/13 by Dan Jørgensen to the Commission

Subject: Problems concerning the implementation of EU transport rules

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000059/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: EU policies to tackle illegal immigration

Versione italiana

English version

E-000060/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Abduction of a minor in Romania

Versione italiana

English version

P-000061/13 by Michael Cramer to the Commission

Subject: EASA opinion 04/2012 on flight time limitations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000062/13 by Emma McClarkin to the Commission

Subject: European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

English version

E-000063/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Spanish Ministry of Defence debt and expenditure

Versión española

English version

E-000064/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Recapitalisation of banks in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000065/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Support programmes for the unemployed

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000066/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: VAT fraud

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000067/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: State benefits and welfare entitlements

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000068/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: International Conference and the Republic of Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000069/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Cyprus' debt

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000070/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Immigration

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011468/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Investigadores portugueses identificam novo tratamento para a osteoartrose

Considerando que:

A osteoartrose, vulgarmente chamada artrose, é uma das múltiplas doenças reumáticas e, de longe, a mais comum; que é uma doença de natureza degenerativa que envolve todas as articulações, sendo uma das principais causas de incapacidades motoras a nível laboral a partir dos 50 anos; que esta doença afeta milhões de pessoas e não existe um medicamento eficaz para o seu tratamento;

Segundo a Organização Mundial de Saúde, a osteoartrose é uma das 17 doenças prioritárias na área da prevenção e do tratamento; que a evolução da doença é um processo longo com custos diretos e indiretos muito elevados, tanto para o doente, como para o Serviço Nacional de Saúde;

foi recentemente identificado por uma equipa de investigadores da Universidade de Coimbra um composto natural, extraído do zimbro, com elevado potencial para o tratamento da osteoartrose; que o composto identificado demonstra um enorme potencial para travar a doença e promover a regeneração do tecido da cartilagem;

O processo de investigação em curso ainda não assegurou o financiamento necessário;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento desta importante descoberta?

Sabendo que esta doença é considerada prioritária pela OMS, poderá a investigação em causa beneficiar de apoio financeiro por parte da Comissão Europeia?

Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão

(15 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está consciente da potencialidade da aplicação de compostos extraídos do zimbro no tratamento da osteoartrite (OA), tal como referido pelo Senhor Deputado (1).

Embora a investigação específica sobre a utilização de zimbro ou outras matérias vegetais no tratamento da OA ainda não tenha sido apoiada, a investigação sobre o diagnóstico, o acompanhamento e o tratamento desta doença tem sido amplamente tratada no âmbito dos Sexto e Sétimo Programas-Quadro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (6.° PQ, 2002-2006; 7.° PQ, 2007-2013).

No 7. ° PQ, mais de 59 milhões de euros foram consagrados ao estudo e à luta contra a OA. Entre os domínios abrangidos contam-se, por exemplo, o papel da predisposição genética em grandes grupos da população (TREAT OA (2)), o desenvolvimento de ferramentas de diagnóstico com base em nanotecnologias (Nanodiara (3)), bem como a validação de novos biomarcadores de diagnóstico (D-BOARD (4)), o estudo do papel da alimentação e do exercício em casa na progressão da OA nas pessoas idosas (DO-Health (5)) e o desenvolvimento de materiais manipulados por técnicas de bioengenharia para a regeneração da cartilagem (OPHIS (6), Regenknee (7)).

Além disso, o Programa «Saúde Pública» (2008-2013) está a apoiar um projeto, iniciado em 2010, para o desenvolvimento de uma «Rede europeia de vigilância e informação sobre as doenças musculoesqueléticas» (Eumusc.NET (8), 1 milhão de euros).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011468/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Portuguese researchers identify a new treatment for osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis, commonly known as arthritis, is one of many rheumatic diseases and by far the most common. It is a degenerative disease that affects all joints and is one of the main causes of mobility impairment impacting on the working lives of people over 50. This disease affects millions of people and there is no effective drug to treat it.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), osteoarthritis is one of 17 priority diseases in terms of prevention and treatment. The disease develops over a long period of time with very high direct and indirect costs, both for the patient and for the National Health Service.

A team of researchers from the University of Coimbra recently identified a natural compound extracted from juniper, which has good potential for treating osteoarthritis. The compound identified shows great potential in terms of curbing the condition and promoting the regeneration of cartilage tissue.

The ongoing research has not yet secured the necessary funding.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this important discovery?

2.

As osteoarthritis is considered a priority disease by the WHO, will it grant financial support for this research?

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

(15 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the potential application of compounds extracted from juniper in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), as mentioned by the Honourable Member (9).

Although specific research on the use of juniper or other plant materials in the treatment of OA has not yet been supported, research on the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of this disease has been extensively addressed within the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (FP6, 2002-2006; FP7, 2007-2013).

Within FP7, over EUR 59 million have been devoted to studying and combatting OA. Areas addressed include for instance the role of genetic predisposition in large population cohorts (TREAT OA (10)), the development of nanotechnology based diagnostic tools (NANODIARA (11)) as well as the validation of novel diagnostics biomarkers (D-BOARD (12)), the study of the role of diet and home exercise on OA progression in the elderly (DO-HEALTH (13)) and the development of bioengineered materials for cartilage regeneration (OPHIS (14), REGENKNEE (15)).

In addition, the Public Health Programme (2008-2013) is supporting a project, started in 2010, for the development of a ‘European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network’ (EUMUSC.NET (16), EUR 1 million).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011469/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Corte nos apoios aos bancos alimentares

Considerando que:

O Programa Comunitário de Apoio Alimentar a Carenciados (PCAAC), instituído em 1987, beneficiou, desde a sua criação, 18 milhões de cidadãos europeus em 20 Estados‐Membros; que mais de metade do total dos alimentos entregues pelas instituições nos Estados-Membros provinha do Programa Europeu;

O PCAAC contribui diretamente para combater a pobreza e promover a inclusão social, revelando-se imprescindível em vários Estados-Membros, designadamente Portugal, que não dispõe de um programa alimentar próprio;

O PCAAC irá desaparecer no final de 2013 e será substituído por um novo Fundo para apoiar os cidadãos europeus mais carenciados, com uma dotação global prevista de 2,5 mil milhões de euros para o período 2014-2020, passando a haver menos dinheiro para distribuir por mais países;

Segundo o Eurostat, 79 milhões de pessoas vivem na Europa abaixo do limiar de pobreza e 30 milhões sofrem de subnutrição, e nos últimos anos, tendo os 240 Bancos Alimentares distribuído 360 mil toneladas de produtos alimentares a instituições de solidariedade social em 21 países europeus;

É fundamental a criação de um mecanismo europeu claro e determinado que reforce a solidariedade e o combate à pobreza, cujo principal eixo seja o apoio alimentar, e que possa ser conjugado, de forma célere e eficaz, com os recursos dos Estados-Membros, da sociedade civil e dos voluntários;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Com que valores pode Portugal contar durante o período 2014-2020 e de que forma vão ser estruturados?

Pode a Comissão assegurar que o apoio alimentar será uma das prioridades do Fundo?

Que medidas complementares estão a ser definidas, que permitam, nomeadamente, conjugar a medida com os recursos dos Estados-Membros?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(21 de fevereiro de 2013)

A proposta da Comissão para o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual (QFP) prevê uma dotação de 2,5 mil milhões de euros para o Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas Mais Carenciadas, confirmado pelas conclusões do Conselho Europeu de 7-9 de fevereiro. A repartição anual por Estado-Membro, assim como a afetação concreta a Portugal ainda será determinada pela Comissão num ato de execução baseado no número de pessoas que sofrem de formas graves de privação material e na população que vive em agregados com baixa intensidade de trabalho.

O Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas Mais Carenciadas deve ser executado através de gestão partilhada, com base nos programas operacionais nacionais, nos quais cada Estado-Membro identificará e justificará o tipo de auxílio material a suportar pelo Fundo a partir das opções incluídas no regulamento, incluindo assistência de qualidade. Os Estados-Membros poderiam focar-se num tipo de auxílio material ou combinar vários, dependendo das circunstâncias e das escolhas nacionais. Esta flexibilidade será essencial para garantir a capacidade de resposta do instrumento às necessidades locais, o que maximizará a sua eficácia.

De acordo com o artigo 4.° da proposta da Comissão, o Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas Mais Carenciadas deverá apoiar os esquemas nacionais na prestação de auxílio material aos mais carenciados. Além disso, prevê-se um cofinanciamento nacional que fomente as sinergias entre o Fundo de Auxílio Europeu às Pessoas Mais Carenciadas e os recursos nacionais.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011469/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Cuts in food bank support

Since it was founded in 1987, the European food aid programme for deprived persons (PEAD) has helped 18 million EU citizens in 20 Member States; more than half of the total food handed out by charities in the Member States has come from this EU programme.

The PEAD directly helps to combat poverty and to promote social inclusion and has proved vital in several Member States, particularly Portugal, which does not have a national food programme.

The PEAD will cease to exist at the end of 2013 and will be replaced by a new fund to support the most deprived EU citizens. A total budget of EUR 2.5 billion is planned for the period 2014‐2020, meaning that there will be less money to distribute among more countries.

According to Eurostat, 79 million people in Europe are living below the poverty line and 30 million suffer from malnutrition. In recent years the 240 food banks have distributed 360 000 tonnes of food to charities in 21 European countries.

It is essential to create a clear and specific European mechanism to strengthen solidarity and to combat poverty, based on food aid, which can be quickly and efficiently combined with the resources of Member States, civil society and volunteers.

1.

How much will Portugal receive from this fund during the period 2014‐2020 and how will this amount be structured?

2.

Can the Commission guarantee that food aid will be one of the fund’s priorities?

3.

What additional measures will be implemented which in particular will enable this fund to be used alongside Member States’ resources?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

The Commission's proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) foresees a budget of 2.5 billion EUR for the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, confirmed by the conclusions of the European Council of 7-9 February. The annual breakdown by Member State and thus also the concrete allocation to Portugal is to be determined by the Commission in an implementing act on the basis of the number of people suffering from severe material deprivation and the population living in households with very low work intensity.

The FEAD would be implemented in shared management, on the basis of national operational programmes, in which each Member State will identify and justify the type of material assistance that would be supported by the FEAD from the options included in the regulation including good assistance. The Member States would be able to focus on one type of material assistance or to combine them, depending on the national circumstances and choices. This flexibility will be key to ensure the responsiveness of the instrument to the local needs, hence maximising its effectiveness.

According to Article 4 of the Commission's proposal, the FEAD should support national schemes providing material assistance to the Most Deprived. In addition, a public national co-financing is foreseen, fostering the synergies between the FEAD and the national resources.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011470/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Relatório FAO: necessidade de maior investimento na agricultura

Segundo dados do relatório da ONU para a Agricultura e Alimentação (FAO), a agricultura vai enfrentar grandes desafios nas próximas décadas, nomeadamente satisfazer o crescimento da procura de alimentos devido ao aumento populacional.

O relatório refere ainda que «para satisfazer as necessidades e erradicar a fome e subnutrição, e ao mesmo tempo conservar os recursos naturais, é preciso estimular o crescimento da produção agrícola e garantir mais e melhores investimentos».

Recentemente foram divulgados cortes que irão ser aplicados nas verbas destinadas aos apoios ao setor agrícola.

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento do referido relatório? Como o avalia?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloşon em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está perfeitamente ao corrente da mais recente publicação de referência da Organização para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (FAO) sobre o Estado Mundial da Agricultura e da Alimentação (SOFA). A Comissão participou num painel de discussão sobre o SOFA que se realizou em Roma em dezembro de 2012 à margem do Conselho da FAO.

O SOFA 2012, intitulado «Investir na agricultura para um futuro melhor», conclui que erradicar a fome exigirá «melhoramentos drásticos tanto no nível como na qualidade do investimento público no setor». A Comissão regozija-se vivamente com esta publicação. Na sua comunicação «Aumentar o impacto da política de desenvolvimento da UE: uma Agenda para a Mudança» (17), a Comissão sublinhou igualmente a importância da agricultura enquanto setor com fortes efeitos multiplicadores para o crescimento sustentável e a segurança alimentar nos países em desenvolvimento. A segurança alimentar continua igualmente a constituir um objetivo essencial da política agrícola comum, tal como sublinhado na comunicação e propostas «A PAC no horizonte 2020: responder aos desafios do futuro em matéria de alimentação, recursos naturais e territoriais» (18). Além disso, a publicação deste relatório FAO fornece elementos analíticos para o processo de consulta sobre os princípios para um investimento responsável na agricultura (RAI), no âmbito do Comité da Segurança Alimentar Mundial. Os investimentos na agricultura foram amplamente debatidos durante a Semana Verde realizada em Berlim em janeiro, para a qual a Comissão também deu um importante contributo.

Além disso, a Comissão nota que, embora os investimentos na agricultura sejam cruciais, é igualmente necessário envidar esforços para combater a subnutrição. Uma próxima comunicação sublinhará a forma como a Comissão tenciona abordar os problemas de raquitismo e emaciação, com especial atenção para a nutrição materna e infantil.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011470/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: FAO Report: need for greater investment in agriculture

According to the report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), agriculture will face major challenges in the decades ahead, particularly in order to meet the growing demand for food due to population growth.

The report also states that in order to meet needs and eradicate hunger and malnutrition, while conserving natural resources, it is necessary to stimulate the growth of agricultural production and ensure more and better investments.

It was recently announced that cuts are to be made to the funds allocated to support the agricultural sector.

I therefore ask the Commission:

Is it aware of this report? What does it think of it?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The Commission is well aware of the latest flagship publication of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on the State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA). The Commission participated in a panel discussion on SOFA taking place in Rome in December 2012 in the margins of the FAO Council.

The 2012 SOFA entitled ‘Investing in agriculture for a better future’ concludes that eradicating hunger will require a ‘dramatic improvements in both the level and quality of government investment in the sector’. The Commission strongly welcomes this publication. In its communication for ‘Increasing the impact of the EU Development Policy: an Agenda for change’ (19), the Commission also underlined the importance of agriculture as a sector with strong multiplier effects for sustainable growth and food security in developing countries. Food security also remains a key goal of the common agricultural policy, as outlined in the communication and proposals ‘The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future’ (20). Furthermore, the publication of this FAO report provides analytical elements for the consultation process on the principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (RAI) within the Committee on World Food Security. Investment in agriculture was also discussed at length during Green Week in Berlin in January, to which the Commission also strongly contributed.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that, while investment in agriculture is crucial, efforts also need to be made to address under-nutrition. An upcoming Communication will highlight the way it intends to tackle the problems of stunting and wasting, with a focus on maternal and child nutrition.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011471/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Desperdício alimentar

Considerando que:

De acordo com o Comissário Europeu Potocnik, e pese embora a extensa legislação atualmente existente que visa combater as razões dos desperdícios alimentares nas diversas fases da cadeia alimentar, 90 milhões de toneladas de alimentos, sem contar com os desperdícios relacionados com a agricultura e pesca, são desperdiçados anualmente (dados de 2011).

Em Portugal, de acordo com o recente primeiro estudo nacional (de Dezembro de 2012) sobre perdas e desperdícios, 1 milhão de toneladas é quanto o país deita fora.

Em contrapartida, e segundo o Eurostat, 79 milhões de pessoas vivem na Europa abaixo do limiar de pobreza e 30 milhões sofrem de subnutrição, e em Portugal, pelo menos 200 mil pessoas passam fome, número que deve ser considerado subavaliado.

Em 2011, a Comissão Europeia comprometeu-se, conjuntamente com todos os intervenientes, a avaliar esta situação e a apresentar medidas concretas que atenuassem o desperdício nas diferentes fases de produção, incluindo o consumidor final.

Assim, e volvido um ano, pergunto à Comissão:

Que medidas foram implementadas e qual foi o seu impacto real? Que medidas estão previstas para os próximos anos, para minorar este desajustamento? Está a Comissão em condições de assegurar que estas medidas serão contempladas na estratégia de apoio alimentar 2014-2020, como sinal claro da coerência entre as políticas europeias de combate à pobreza?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(20 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está a analisar, em cooperação estreita com as partes interessadas, formas de reduzir o desperdício de alimentos e está a debater possíveis medidas a nível comunitário para complementar as medidas a nível nacional. A reunião mais recente do grupo de trabalho responsável pelo desperdício de alimentos, inserido no Grupo Consultivo da Cadeia Alimentar, da Saúde Animal e da Fitossanidade (8 de fevereiro de 2013), centrou-se em tópicos específicos, tais como a doação de excedentes de comida a bancos de alimentos, o sistema de indicação da data nos rótulos, a alimentação animal, as cadeias de abastecimento alimentar curtas, a bioenergia, entre outros. Em paralelo, a Comissão divulga informações através do seu sítio Web dedicado ao assunto (21): um pequeno filme de grande difusão sobre o desperdício alimentar, «10 dicas para não desperdiçar alimentos», em todas as línguas da UE, e elementos para esclarecer o significado de «a consumir de preferência antes de …» e «data-limite de consumo». A Comissão também está a compilar boas práticas de aplicação fácil que estarão brevemente disponíveis no sítio Web. O Eurostat está a preparar uma recolha de dados sobre o desperdício alimentar que ocorre na cadeia de oferta e consumo de comida. Espera-se que os Estados-Membros forneçam dados numa base voluntária até ao outono de 2014.

A Comissão publicou, em agosto de 2011, orientações sobre a preparação de programas de prevenção do desperdício de alimentos («Guidelines on the Preparation of Food Waste Prevention Programes» (22)) que têm como objetivo ajudar os Estados-Membros a desenvolverem programas nacionais de prevenção de resíduos no domínio do desperdício alimentar.

Por fim, a Comissão está atualmente a preparar uma comunicação sobre alimentação sustentável («Sustainable Food»), prevista para o final de 2013, onde o desperdício de comida será uma questão central.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011471/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Food waste

Given that:

According to Commissioner Potočnik, despite the extensive legislation currently in force which aims to tackle the causes of food waste at various stages of the food chain, 90 million tonnes of food, excluding agriculture and fisheries waste, is thrown away each year (data from 2011).

According to Portugal’s first national study on the subject which was carried out recently (December 2012), the country throws away one million tonnes of waste.

In contrast, according to Eurostat, 79 million people in Europe are living below the poverty line and 30 million suffer from malnutrition. In Portugal, at least 200 000 people go hungry, a number which should be regarded as an underestimate.

In 2011, the Commission, along with all stakeholders, made a commitment to assess the situation and to propose specific measures to reduce waste at different production stages, including the final consumer.

One year on, I would therefore ask the Commission:

What measures were implemented and what was their actual impact? What measures are planned for the coming years to reduce this discrepancy? Can it ensure that these measures will be addressed in the 2014‐2020 food support strategy, as a clear sign of the coherence between EU policies to combat poverty?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

The Commission is analysing, in close cooperation with stakeholders, how to reduce food waste and is discussing possible EU measures to complement national measures. The most recent meeting of the Working Group on Food Waste in the context of the Advisory Group on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health (8 February 2013) focused on specific topics such as: the donation of surplus food to food banks, date labelling, feed, short food supply chains, bio-energy, etc. In parallel, the Commission is disseminating information via its dedicated website (23): a viral clip on food waste, ‘10 tips to reduce food waste’ in all EU languages, clarification of ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ labels. The Commission is also compiling good practices in a user-friendly way, which will soon be available on the website. Eurostat is preparing a data collection on food waste arising in the food supply and consumption chain. Results from Member States providing data on a voluntary basis are expected by autumn 2014.

It has published on August 2011 ‘Guidelines on the Preparation of Food Waste Prevention Programmes’ (24) which aims to help Member States to develop National Waste Prevention Programmes on the issue of food waste.

Lastly, the Commission is currently preparing a communication on ‘Sustainable Food’ foreseen for end 2013 where food waste will be a key issue.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011472/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Protocolo de Quioto

Considerando que:

O Protocolo de Quioto foi recentemente prolongado na Conferência Climática das Nações Unidas até 2020.

O acordo para a extensão do protocolo foi conseguido sem parte dos maiores poluidores do mundo, como os Estados Unidos, o Canada, a Índia ou o Brasil, e obriga os subscritores a reduzir a emissão de gases com efeito de estufa.

Assim, pergunto:

Qual a posição da UE relativamente a esta matéria?

Considera a Comissão que a extensão do prolongamento do protocolo de Quioto até 2020 sem parte dos maiores poluidores do mundo poderá pôr em risco no futuro a redução da emissão de gases com efeito de estufa?

Resposta dada por Connie Hedegaard em nome da Comissão

(15 de fevereiro de 2013)

A UE anuiu em aderir a um segundo período de compromissos ao abrigo do Protocolo de Quioto, no contexto de um pacote mais vasto a executar no período 2013-2020, que constitui o período de transição para um novo acordo internacional que abranja todas as partes; este acordo deverá ser concluído até 2015 e aplicável a partir de 2020.

No contexto deste pacote mais vasto, além dos países com objetivos para 2013-2020 ao abrigo do Protocolo de Quioto, mais sessenta países desenvolvidos e em desenvolvimento, como os Estados Unidos, o Canadá, a China, a Índia e o Brasil, comprometeram‐se a realizar ações de atenuação no período até 2020, no contexto da Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre as Alterações Climáticas. Tanto os Estados Unidos como o Canadá se comprometeram a reduzir as emissões em 17 % relativamente a 2005; a Índia comprometeu‐se a reduzir o consumo de energia em 20-25 % relativamente a 2005 e o Brasil comprometeu‐se a reduzir as emissões em 36,1 a 38,9 % relativamente à situação presente. No total, a quota das emissões mundiais abrangidas por compromissos relativos a vários tipos de ações de atenuação, ao abrigo do Protocolo de Quioto e da Convenção, ascende a 83 %.

Além disso, a UE preconiza a necessidade urgente de suprir as disparidades em matéria de atenuação anteriores a 2020 por meio de ações reforçadas a realizar pelos países desenvolvidos e pelos países em desenvolvimento; preconiza também a necessidade de um empenho ativo em negociações para um novo acordo abrangente com a participação de todos. O Portal Climático de Doha, acordado na Conferência de Doha sobre o Clima, em dezembro de 2012, reafirmou a decisão de prosseguir as negociações numa via única (Plataforma de Durban), na qual todos os países participem e que abranja tanto o Acordo de 2015 como a questão das disparidades em matéria de atenuação anteriores a 2020.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011472/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was recently extended to 2020 at the United Nations Climate Conference.

The agreement to extend the protocol was concluded without some of the world’s biggest polluters such as the United States, Canada, India and Brazil, and obliges signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What is the EU’s stance on this issue?

Does the Commission believe that extending the Kyoto Protocol to 2020 without the agreement of some of the world’s biggest polluters could jeopardise the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the future?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

The EU agreed to be included in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as part of a broader package that applies during the 2013-2020 transition towards a new international agreement applicable to all which is to be completed by 2015 and apply from 2020 onwards.

In this broader package, in addition to the countries with 2013-2020 targets under the Kyoto Protocol, a further sixty developed and developing countries, including the United States, Canada, China, India and Brazil, have committed to pledges for mitigation action in the period up to 2020 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Both the United States and Canada have pledged to reduce emissions by 17% (compared to 2005), India has pledged to reduce energy intensity by 20-25% (compared to 2005) and Brazil has pledged to reduce emissions by 36.1 to 38.9% compared to business-as-usual. In total, the share of global emissions covered by commitments for different kinds of mitigation action both under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention amounts to 83%.

In addition, the EU advocates the urgent need to address the mitigation gap pre-2020 through enhanced actions by both developed and developing countries, as well as the need to actively engage in negotiations for a new and comprehensive agreement with all on board. The Doha Climate Gateway, agreed at the Doha climate conference in December 2012, reaffirmed the decision to pursue negotiations under one single track (the Durban Platform), in which all countries participate and where both the 2015 Agreement and the pre-2020 mitigation gap will be addressed.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011473/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Brasil — Dificuldade na obtenção de vistos de trabalho para cidadãos da UE

Considerando que:

A Organização Internacional para as Migrações (OIM) revelou recentemente que a crise económica está a inverter o fluxo migratório entre os países da Europa e da América Latina, que se converteu nos últimos anos no principal destino de jovens europeus;

Entre os países que registaram o maior número de saídas figuram a Espanha (47 701), a Alemanha (20 926), a Holanda (17 168) e a Itália (15 701), sendo o Brasil, a Argentina, a Venezuela e o México os principais recetores;

No caso dos jovens portugueses, essencialmente engenheiros civis e arquitetos, o principal destino é o Brasil;

Estes jovens procuram oportunidades nas crescentes vagas criadas em função dos preparativos para o Mundial de Futebol de 2014 e os Jogos Olímpicos de 2016;

As autoridades brasileiras estão a dificultar a emissão de vistos de trabalho a cidadãos da UE, que reúnem os requisitos face à falta de quadros técnicos no Brasil;

Em Janeiro de 2013, terá lugar a cimeira UE — Brasil, em Brasília.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento desta situação?

Não considera oportuno que, na referida cimeira, se possa discutir uma eventual flexibilização, por parte das autoridades brasileiras, no que respeita à concessão de vistos de trabalho a cidadãos da UE?

Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão

(5 de março de 2013)

As dificuldades com que os cidadãos da UE se têm defrontado na obtenção de vistos de trabalho no Brasil não têm sido comunicadas à Comissão. No entanto, a Comissão está ciente das oportunidades de trabalho emergentes para os cidadãos da UE nos países da Comunidade de Estados da América Latina e das Caraíbas (CELAC) e está determinada a continuar a trabalhar em conjunto com aquela região, incluindo o Brasil, para melhor organizar a migração legal e a promover uma mobilidade bem gerida, em sintonia com a Abordagem Global para a Migração e a Mobilidade. Esta cooperação surge no âmbito do Diálogo Estruturado e Abrangente UE-CELAC sobre Migrações criado em junho de 2009.

O Plano de Ação Conjunto UE-Brasil 2012-2014 procura melhorar o intercâmbio, organizando melhor os fluxos migratórios regulares e abordando eficazmente todas as dimensões do fenómeno migratório. A recente vaga de migração europeia para o Brasil foi efetivamente debatida em diferentes momentos aquando da cimeira UE-Brasil. As autoridades brasileiras reiteraram o seu interesse em receber jovens europeus qualificados que poderão desempenhar um papel na modernização e renovação da força de trabalho do país.

Acresce que as questões da migração fazem também parte das negociações em curso para a conclusão de um Acordo de Associação entre a UE e o Mercosul.

Por último, em conformidade com a declaração da cimeira UE-CELAC, recentemente adotada, a Comissão pretende enfrentar os desafios dos fluxos migratórios dinâmicos entre as duas regiões, baseando-se em factos e informações relevantes. O estudo da OIM mencionado na questão, financiado pela Comissão e baseado nos dados do Eurostat de 2011 para os anos de 2008 e 2009, é um primeiro passo para melhorar os nossos conhecimentos sobre o fenómeno.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011473/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EU citizens having difficulty obtaining work visas in Brazil

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) recently revealed that the economic crisis is causing a reversal in migration between Europe and Latin America, which in recent years has become the destination of choice for young Europeans.

Those countries which have seen the largest exoduses include Spain (47 701), Germany (20 926), the Netherlands (17 168) and Italy (15 701), with Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico being the main destinations.

For young Portuguese, namely civil engineers and architects, Brazil is the destination of choice.

These young people are seeking opportunities among the growing vacancies created by preparations for the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games.

The Brazilian authorities are making it difficult for EU citizens who meet the requirements to obtain work visas due to a lack of technical staff in Brazil.

The EU-Brazil Summit will take place in Brasilia in January 2013.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it not see this summit as an opportunity to discuss a possible relaxation by the Brazilian authorities in terms of granting work visas to EU citizens?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

Difficulties faced by EU citizens in obtaining work visas in Brazil have not been brought to the attention of the Commission. However, the Commission is aware of the labour opportunities emerging in Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) countries for EU citizens and is determined to continue to work with the region, including Brazil, in better organising legal migration and fostering well managed mobility in line with the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility. Cooperation takes places as part of the EU-CELAC Comprehensive and Structured Dialogue on Migration established in June 2009.

The EU-Brazil Joint Action Plan 2012-2014 calls for further exchanges on better organising regular migration flows and effectively addressing all the dimensions of the migration phenomenon. The recent wave of European migration to Brazil was indeed discussed in different moments on the occasion of the EU-Brazil Summit. The Brazilian authorities have reiterated their interest in receiving qualified young Europeans who could play a role in the modernisation and upgrading of the country's labour force.

Moreover Migration issues are also part of the ongoing negotiations for the conclusion of an Association Agreement between the EU and MERCOSUR.

Finally, in line with the recently adopted EU-CELAC Summit Declaration, the Commission aims to address the challenges of the ever changing migration flows between the two regions, based on relevant facts and information. The IOM study mentioned in the question, funded by the Commission and based on 2011 Eurostat data for years 2008 and 2009, is a first step to improve our knowledge of the phenomenon.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011474/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Utilização de polifosfatos na transformação do bacalhau

Considerando que:

A indústria portuguesa de processamento do bacalhau representa, atualmente, 1 800 postos de trabalho diretos, apresentando uma faturação de 400 milhões de euros;

Em 2011, Portugal importou 24 mil toneladas de bacalhau seco, o equivalente a 150 milhões de euros;

A Comissão Europeia continua em negociações com Portugal sobre uma eventual introdução de polifosfatos no bacalhau de cura tradicional;

A futura proposta deverá ser apresentada apenas no início de 2013;

Recentemente, o Governo português enviou uma proposta à Comissão Europeia, no sentido de introduzir uma exceção para o produto destinado ao mercado português;

Ao longo de cinco séculos, Portugal desenvolveu e aperfeiçoou um processo de secagem do bacalhau reconhecido pela sua qualidade em todo o mundo, sendo uma das principais bandeiras da gastronomia portuguesa.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tendo em conta que a introdução de polifosfatos constitui uma forte ameaça à viabilidade económica da indústria portuguesa de transformação de bacalhau, pondera a Comissão aceitar a exceção ao referido produto destinado ao mercado português?

Poderia a certificação deste produto ser parte da solução do referido problema?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(7 de fevereiro de 2013)

O uso de polifosfatos no peixe salgado deverá ser objeto de uma proposta da Comissão que será apresentada e discutida com os Estados-Membros nas próximas semanas. Assim que forem autorizados, os polifosfatos terão de ser rotulados na lista de ingredientes, em concordância com a Diretiva 2000/13/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de 20 de março de 2000 relativa à aproximação das legislações dos Estados-Membros respeitantes à rotulagem, apresentação e publicidade dos géneros alimentícios. Além disso, os produtores de peixe de salga húmida não-tratado poderão também rotular o peixe em conformidade.

Por conseguinte, os produtores de bacalhau e os consumidores devem poder continuar a escolher o tipo de produtos. A produção tradicional do «bacalhau» em Portugal vai continuar a ser possível uma vez que os dois tipos de produtos (peixe salgado por salga húmida tratado e não-tratado) podem coexistir e ambos servem os mercados onde são alvo de procura.

Além disso, para permitir que os produtores de bacalhau se adaptem a uma situação em que o peixe tratado com polifosfatos poderá entrar no mercado, a Comissão tenciona propor a criação de um período de transição. Durante este período, os produtores de bacalhau poderão criar acordos com os seus fornecedores de peixe salgado por salga húmida para se certificarem de que os produtos não foram tratados com polifosfatos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011474/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Using polyphosphates in cod processing

Given that:

The Portuguese cod processing industry currently accounts for 1 800 direct jobs, generating a turnover of EUR 400 million;

In 2011, Portugal imported 24 000 tonnes of dried cod, worth EUR 150 million;

The Commission is still in talks with Portugal about the possibility of introducing polyphosphates in salted cod;

The future proposal will only be tabled in early 2013;

The Portuguese Government recently submitted a proposal to the Commission to introduce an exception for cod destined for the Portuguese market;

Over five centuries, Portugal has developed and perfected a process of drying cod which is recognised for its quality throughout the world and is one of the main specialities of Portuguese cuisine.

I would ask the Commission:

As the introduction of polyphosphates is a serious threat to the economic viability of the Portuguese cod processing industry, will it consider adopting the exception for cod destined for the Portuguese market?

Could certifying this product be part of the solution to this problem?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

The use of polyphosphates in salted fish should be the object of a Commission proposal due to be presented and discussed with the Member States in the coming weeks. Once authorised, polyphosphate will have to be labelled on the list of ingredients in accordance with Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. Furthermore, producers of non-treated wet salted fish also have the possibility to label the fish accordingly.

Therefore, bacalhau producers and consumers should be able to continue to choose the type of products. The traditional production of ‘bacalhau’ in Portugal will continue to be possible since the two types of products — treated and untreated wet salted fish — could co-exist and both serve the markets in which they are demanded.

In addition, to allow bacalhau producers to adapt to the situation where fish treated with polyphosphates could be placed on the market, the Commission would propose to establish a transitional period. During this period, bacalhau producers could make agreements with their suppliers of wet slated fish to certify that products have not been treated with phosphates.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011475/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 1

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF que considera que os sistemas agroflorestais tradicionais devem ser reconhecidos e regenerados e que deve ser promovida a implementação de sistemas agroflorestais inovadores?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011481/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 7

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF, que refere que os benefícios dos sistemas agroflorestais para a adaptação e mitigação das alterações climáticas devem ser reconhecidos e valorizados na política da União Europeia para as alterações climáticas?

Resposta conjunta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão

(22 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está consciente dos múltiplos benefícios dos sistemas agroflorestais. Na proposta de regulamento relativo ao desenvolvimento rural (25) após 2013, a Comissão inclui a elegibilidade dos custos de manutenção dos sistemas agroflorestais até 3 anos, permitindo a criação de sistemas agroflorestais em terrenos agrícolas e não agrícolas e o alargamento da lista de beneficiários potenciais, desde agricultores a proprietários rurais particulares, incluindo, no caso de sistemas silvopastoris, proprietários de florestas, rendeiros, municípios e respetivas associações.

Segundo a Proposta de Decisão relativa a regras contabilísticas e planos de ação para as emissões e absorções de gases com efeito de estufa resultantes das atividades relacionadas com o uso do solo, a reafetação do solo e a silvicultura (26), o balanço dos gases com efeitos de estufa dos sistemas agroflorestais será contabilizado no âmbito da gestão florestal, na condição de os sistemas agroflorestais respeitarem a definição de floresta (de acordo com os seguintes critérios: área mínima da superfície, coberto arbóreo mínimo ou índice de densidade equivalente, árvores com potencial para atingir uma altura mínima aquando da maturidade).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011475/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 1

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry in Brussels, with the participation of 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

EURAF describes agroforestry as the ‘mixture of trees with crops/animals’, and points out that it is ‘a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

To wind up the conference, seven statements were issued with the aim of drawing the Commission's attention to agroforestry in the context of the debate on the future CAP.

What is the Commission's position on the EURAF statement that traditional agroforestry systems should be recognised and renewed, and the implementation of innovative agroforestry systems should be promoted?

Question for written answer E-011481/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF: agroforestry 7

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry, which took place in Brussels and was attended by participants from 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

According to EURAF, agroforestry, ‘the “on purpose” mixture of trees with crops/animals, is a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

The seven statements issued at the end of the conference were aimed at raising awareness of agroforestry within the Commission in anticipation of the discussion on the future CAP.

What does the Commission think about the EURAF statement that the benefits of agroforestry systems for climate change adaptation and mitigation should be recognised and turned to account in EU climate action policy?

Joint answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the multiple benefits of agroforestry systems. In its proposal for a Rural Development Regulation (27) post 2013, the Commission includes the eligibility of maintenance costs for agroforestry systems up to 3 years, allowing the establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land and non-agricultural land and extension of the list of potential beneficiaries from farmers to private landowners, including forest owners in the case of silvo-pastoral systems, tenants, municipalities and their associations.

According to the draft Decision on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry (28), the greenhouse gas balance of agroforestry systems would be accounted under forest management, provided that agroforestry systems meet the definition for forest (according to three criteria: minimal size of the area, minimal tree crown cover or equivalent stocking level, minimal tree height at maturity).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011476/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 2

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão na futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual o entendimento da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF no sentido de tornar os sistemas agroflorestais totalmente elegíveis no âmbito do primeiro pilar da Política Agrícola Comum?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão

(21 de fevereiro de 2013)

As regras pormenorizadas relativas à elegibilidade das terras para pagamentos diretos, nomeadamente as regras respeitantes ao tratamento de determinados casos em que as zonas agrícolas incluem árvores, serão estabelecidas em atos delegados com base no artigo 77.°, n.° 2, alínea b), da proposta de regulamento horizontal apresentada pela Comissão (29). As futuras regras devem assegurar que as ajudas diretas são concedidas para a utilização das terras agrícolas em atividades agrícolas. Na elaboração dessas regras, será devidamente tomada em conta a questão dos sistemas agroflorestais.

No entanto, no seu documento de reflexão sobre a ecologização, a Comissão indicava já que poderia vir a ponderar a elegibilidade de zonas com extensos sistemas agrícolas/pastoris tradicionais, inclusive nos casos em que a erva e outras forrageiras herbáceas não são predominantes, que desempenhem um papel essencial na biodiversidade e evitem a erosão dos solos e a libertação de carbono.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011476/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 2

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry in Brussels, with the participation of 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

EURAF describes agroforestry as the ‘mixture of trees with crops/animals’, and points out that it is ‘a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

To wind up the conference, seven statements were issued with the aim of drawing the Commission's attention to agroforestry in the context of the debate on the future CAP.

What is the Commission's view on the EURAF statement that agroforestry systems should be made fully eligible under the first pillar of the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

The detailed rules on the eligibility of land to direct payments, including rules on how to deal with certain cases where agricultural areas contain trees, will be established in delegated acts based on Article 77(2)(b) of the Commission proposal for a Horizontal Regulation (30). The future rules will need to ensure that direct aids are granted to agricultural land used for an agricultural activity. When drafting the rules, full consideration will be given to the issue of agroforestry systems.

However, in its ‘Concept Paper on greening’ the Commission has already indicated that it could consider recognising as eligible, areas with extensive traditional pastoral/agricultural systems, even if grasses and other herbaceous species are not predominant, and which play a key role for biodiversity and prevent soil erosion and carbon release.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011477/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 3

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF que prevê uma ampla medida para o estabelecimento de sistemas agroflorestais (incluindo linhas de bordadura) a ser incluída no segundo pilar da PAC, por forma a ajudar os agricultores a implementarem estes sistemas adaptados ao ambiente?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão

(22 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão concorda com a importância desta medida agroflorestal e propôs continuar a alargar o seu âmbito no decorrer do próximo período de programação do desenvolvimento rural. Todavia, cabe aos Estados‐Membros decidir se a incluem nos programas respetivos. A repartição dos fundos relativamente ao orçamento disponível para dedicar a esta medida específica depende igualmente dos Estados‐Membros.

Na Proposta de Regulamento relativo ao apoio ao desenvolvimento rural (2011/0282 (COD)), a Comissão propõe a concessão de apoio aos custos de criação de sistemas agroflorestais e um prémio anual por hectare para cobrir os custos de manutenção durante um determinado número de anos. Por conseguinte, a criação de sistemas agroflorestais está abrangida pela proposta da Comissão.

No entanto, a instalação de linhas de bordadura não é abrangida pelo proposto no artigo 24.°, sobre apoio à criação de sistemas agroflorestais. No período de programação em vigor a instalação de linhas de bordadura é elegível ao abrigo da medida «Investimentos não produtivos» do artigo 41.° do Regulamento (CE) n.° 1698/2005 do Conselho (31). Na proposta da Comissão para o próximo período de programação a instalação de linhas de bordadura poderá ser elegível ao abrigo da medida «Investimentos em ativos corpóreos» (artigo 18.° da Proposta de Regulamento 2011/0282 (COD)). Por conseguinte, no próximo período de programação, os sistemas agroflorestais podem ser apoiados de forma ampla e exequível.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011477/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 3

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry in Brussels, with the participation of 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

EURAF describes agroforestry as the ‘mixture of trees with crops/animals’, and points out that it is ‘a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

To wind up the conference, seven statements were issued with the aim of drawing the Commission's attention to agroforestry in the context of the debate on the future CAP.

What is the Commission's position on the EURAF statement that a broad agroforestry measure for the establishment of agroforestry systems (including hedges) should be included in the second pillar of the CAP, to help farmers implement such systems geared to their environment?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The Commission agrees with the importance of agro-forestry measure, and has proposed to continue and widen the scope of this particular measure during the next Programming period of Rural Development. However, the Member States decide whether they include the agro-forestry measure in their Rural Development Programme. The share of funds in relation to the available budget dedicated to this particular measure also depends on each Member State.

In its proposal for a new Rural Development Regulation (2011/0282 (COD)) the Commission proposes to grant support for the costs of establishment of agro-forestry systems and an annual premium per hectare to cover the costs of maintenance for a given number of years. Therefore, the establishment of agro-forestry systems is covered by the Commission proposal.

However, the establishment of hedges is not covered by the proposed Article 24 for support for establishment of agro-forestry systems. In the current Programming period the establishment of hedges is eligible under the measure ‘Non-productive investments’ of the article 41 of the current Council Regulation 1698/2005 (32). In the Commission proposal for the next Programming period the establishment of hedges could be eligible under the measure ‘Investments in physical assets’ (Article 18 of 2011/0282 (COD)). Consequently, the agro-forestry systems could be supported in a broad and feasible way during the next Programming period.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011478/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 4

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF que considera importante uma medida para ajudar os agricultores na gestão e regeneração de sistemas agroflorestais tradicionais em risco, a incluir no segundo pilar da PAC?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão

(25 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão concorda com a importância da medida agroflorestal, cujo âmbito de aplicação propôs continuar e alargar durante o próximo período de programação do desenvolvimento rural. No entanto, compete aos Estados-Membros decidir se incluem a medida agroflorestal nos respetivos programas de desenvolvimento rural. Depende igualmente de cada Estado‐Membro a percentagem de fundos em relação ao orçamento disponível afetado a esta medida específica.

Segundo a proposta da Comissão, o apoio deve cobrir os custos de estabelecimento e um prémio anual por hectare destinado a cobrir as despesas de manutenção durante um período limitado. Os Estados-Membros, tendo em conta as condições edafoclimáticas locais, as espécies florestais e a necessidade de garantir a utilização agrícola das terras, determinam o número máximo de árvores existentes no regime que combina a exploração florestal e a exploração agrícola nas mesmas terras. Os Estados-Membros estariam em posição de adotar medidas centradas nos sistemas agroflorestais ameaçados.

Além disso, a gestão dos ecossistemas agroflorestais tradicionais, como o montado em Portugal ou as dehesas em Espanha, pode ser apoiada no âmbito de medidas agroambientais. O apoio no âmbito desta medida está condicionado à observância do nível de referência dos requisitos obrigatórios. Todas as ações e compromissos financiados devem ser voluntários e fixados para além desse nível de referência.

A proposta da Comissão de regulamento relativo ao desenvolvimento rural para o próximo período de programação baseia-se numa avaliação de impacto e está, desde 2011, em fase de negociação com os Estados-Membros.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011478/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 4

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry in Brussels, with the participation of 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

EURAF describes agroforestry as the ‘mixture of trees with crops/animals’, and points out that it is ‘a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

To wind up the conference, seven statements were issued with the aim of drawing the Commission's attention to agroforestry in the context of the debate on the future CAP.

What is the Commission's position on the EURAF statement attaching importance to a measure to help farmers manage and renew endangered traditional agroforestry systems, to be included in the second pillar of the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

The Commission agrees with the importance of agro-forestry measure, and has proposed to continue and widen the scope of this particular measure during the next Programming period of Rural Development. However, the Member States decide whether they include the agro-forestry measure in their Rural Development Programme. The share of funds in relation to the available budget dedicated to this particular measure also depends on each Member State.

According to the Commission proposal, the support would cover the costs of establishment and an annual premium per hectare to cover the costs of maintenance for a limited period. The Member States, taking account of local pedo-climatic conditions, forestry species and the need to ensure agricultural use of the land, shall determine the maximum number of trees that are grown in combination with agriculture on the same land. The Member States would be in position of targeting measures to endangered agroforestry systems.

Moreover, the management of the traditional agroforestry ecosystems such as ‘montado’ in Portugal or ‘dehesas’ in Spain can be supported under agri-environment measure. The support under this measure is conditional to the respect of the reference level made of mandatory requirements. All the supported actions and commitments must be voluntary and be set beyond such reference level.

The Commission proposal for the Rural Development Regulation for the next Programming (33) period is based on an impact assessment (34) and has been in the negotiation phase with the Member States since 2011.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011479/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 5

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF, que prevê a possibilidade de implementação dos sistemas agroflorestais na Europa e que a adoção das medidas incluídas no segundo pilar da PAC deve ser obrigatória para todos os Estados-Membros no próximo regulamento para o desenvolvimento rural?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão (5.2.2013)

(22 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está consciente das vantagens da medida agroflorestal e incluiu, por isso, na sua proposta de novo regulamento relativo ao desenvolvimento rural (2011/0282 (COD)) a continuação e o alargamento do âmbito desta medida específica, como é explicado nas respostas da Comissão E-011475/2012 e E-011481/2012 respeitantes às declarações da EURAF.

A proposta da Comissão de Regulamento relativo ao desenvolvimento rural para o próximo período de programação baseia-se em avaliação de impacto e está, desde 2011, na fase de negociação com os Estados-Membros. O parecer do Parlamento Europeu está pendente ainda.

Os Estados-Membros podem escolher, por sua iniciativa, as medidas mais pertinentes para os seus programas de desenvolvimento rural, com base na análise SWOT em cada Estado‐Membro. As medidas devem, por conseguinte, ser escolhidas no plano nacional, com exceção das medidas «agroambientais e climáticas» e «Leader», que devem fazer parte dos programas de desenvolvimento rural de cada Estado-Membro.

A União Europeia não dispõe de uma política florestal comum. A decisão quanto à inclusão ou não inclusão das medidas florestais nos programas de desenvolvimento rural depende de cada Estado-Membro.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011479/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF — agroforestry 5

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry in Brussels, with the participation of 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

EURAF describes agroforestry as the ‘mixture of trees with crops/animals’, and points out that it is ‘a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

To wind up the conference, seven statements were issued with the aim of drawing the Commission's attention to agroforestry in the context of the debate on the future CAP.

What is the Commission's position on the EURAF statement highlighting the possibility of agroforestry systems being implemented throughout Europe, and taking the view that the adoption of measures included in the second pillar of the CAP should be compulsory for all Member States in the next rural development regulation?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the benefits of the agro-forestry measure and has therefore introduced in its proposal for a new Rural Development Regulation (2011/0282 (COD)) to continue as well as to widen the scope of this particular measure, as explained in the Commission answers E-011475/2012 and E-011481/2012 regarding the statements of the EURAF.

The Commission proposal for the Rural Development Regulation for the next Programming period is based on impact assessment and it has been in the negotiation phase with the Member States since the year 2011. The opinion of the European Parliament is still outstanding.

The Member States can choose themselves those measures that are most pertinent for them in their Rural Development Programmes, based on the SWOT analysis in each Member State. The measures are therefore to be chosen at national level, apart from the measures ‘Agri-environment-climate’ and ‘Leader’ that must be a part of the Rural Development Programmes in each Member State.

The European Union does not have a common Forestry Policy. The decision whether the Forestry measures are included in the Rural Development Programmes depends on each Member State.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011480/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: EURAF: Agroflorestas 6

A European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) organizou recentemente em Bruxelas a primeira conferência científica sobre agroflorestas, com a participação de 17 países europeus e delegados da América do Norte e de África.

A EURAF descreve a agrofloresta como «a mistura de árvores com animais/colheita, um elemento chave para a segurança alimentar e energética num mundo imprevisível, sujeito a alterações climáticas e à escassez de combustíveis».

Como conclusão da conferência, foram emitidas 7 declarações com o intuito de alertar a Comissão Europeia para o tema da agrofloresta na discussão da futura PAC.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente à declaração da EURAF que defende os sistemas agroflorestais e considera que estes devem ser elegíveis para inclusão como áreas de interesse ecológico («ecological focus área ») nas explorações agrícolas?

Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão

(20 de fevereiro de 2013)

Um dos objetivos da reforma da política agrícola comum consiste em reconhecer melhor e encorajar a agricultura sustentável. Foi nesse espírito que a Comissão propôs que o artigo 32.° do Regulamento Pagamentos Diretos (35) estabelecesse a obrigação de os agricultores criarem superfícies de interesse ecológico. O n.° 2 desse artigo habilita a Comissão a «adotar atos delegados em conformidade com o artigo 55.° a fim de definir mais precisamente os tipos de superfícies de interesse ecológico referidos no n.° 1 [do mesmo artigo] e de acrescentar e definir outros tipos de superfícies de interesse ecológico».

Durante as discussões sobre a reforma, a Comissão indicou as suas intenções em relação ao teor dos futuros atos delegados e esclareceu que muitos elementos típicos da agrossilvicultura poderiam ser reconhecidos como superfícies de interesse ecológico, a saber, árvores em linha ou árvores em grupo (até um certo limite). Note-se, porém, que a Comissão terá de garantir que as ajudas diretas são concedidas a terras agrícolas e não a florestas, pelo que são propostas limitações para a percentagem de tais elementos nas terras agrícolas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011480/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: EURAF: agroforestry 6

The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) recently held the first scientific conference on agroforestry, which took place in Brussels and was attended by participants from 17 European countries and delegates from North America and Africa.

According to EURAF, agroforestry, ‘the “on purpose” mixture of trees with crops/animals, is a key component of food and fuel security in an unpredictable world affected by climate change and fossil fuels scarcity’.

The seven statements issued at the end of the conference were aimed at raising awareness of agroforestry within the Commission in anticipation of the discussion on the future CAP.

How does the Commission view EURAF’s advocacy of agroforestry systems and its call for them to be eligible for inclusion in the ecological focus areas of farms?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

One of the goals of the reform of the common agricultural policy is to better recognise and to further encourage sustainable agriculture. It is in this spirit that the Commission proposed in Article 32 of the direct payments (36) Regulation to establish an obligation for farmers to set up Ecological Focus Areas (EFA). Paragraph 2 of this Article empowers the Commission to ‘adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 to further define the types of ecological focus areas referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and to add and define other types of ecological focus areas’.

The Commission has, during the discussions on the reform indicated its intentions with regard to the content of these future delegated acts and made it clear that many elements typical of agro-forestry could be recognised as EFAs, such as, up to a limit, trees in line or trees in group. However, please keep in mind that the Commission will need to ensure that direct aids are granted to agricultural land and not to forests, therefore limitations are proposed as regards the proportion of such features on agricultural land.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011482/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Setor têxtil: negociações UE-Canadá

Tendo em conta a carta datada de 8 de novembro, enviada pela Euratex ao Comissário Karel de Gucht, em que é exposta a preocupação do setor têxtil da UE face ao possível resultado das negociações UE-Canadá.

Considerando que:

O setor têxtil da UE tem-se debatido, nos últimos anos, com enormes problemas de concorrência desleal, servindo, sistematicamente, como moeda de troca para acordos comerciais com países terceiros;

O recente acordo com o Paquistão foi muito penalizador para o setor têxtil da UE;

O acordo CETA (Canada-EU Trade Agreement), tal e qual se apresenta, não revela a reciprocidade desejável e, certamente, irá contribuir ainda mais para acentuar o desequilíbrio do referido setor;

Na UE sempre se privilegiou a dupla transformação como forma de se obter a origem preferencial;

O Canadá tem defendido a regra de transformação única, uma vez que a sua cadeia de abastecimento está integrada no acordo NAFTA e uma parte considerável do fornecimento é feita na Ásia;

O setor têxtil canadiano não tem grande expressão comparativamente ao da UE.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Que avaliação faz da situação descrita?

Sabendo que o Canadá pretende, através deste acordo, beneficiar de uma exceção, embora não seja um país menos desenvolvido, considera justo e aceitável que se possa estar a abrir um precedente para futuros acordos que prejudicarão tremendamente o já debilitado setor têxtil da UE?

Em que ponto se encontram estas negociações e que contrapartida beneficiará a UE com o referido acordo?

Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

As negociações para um Acordo Económico e Comercial Global (AECG) entre a UE e o Canadá entraram na fase final. Ambas as partes estão atualmente a negociar a todos os níveis com o objetivo de finalizar as conversações no primeiro trimestre de 2013. Um acordo comercial global entre os dois parceiros poderá aumentar o comércio bilateral em 25,7 mil milhões de euros.

A Comissão tomou em devida consideração as posições da indústria têxtil expressas na carta a que o Senhor Deputado se refere. A Comissão continua a ter como objetivo conseguir um pacote global equilibrado e recíproco para a indústria têxtil. No que diz respeito às regras de origem dos têxteis, a UE e o Canadá encontram-se de facto a discutir uma derrogação muito limitada da regra geral da UE relativa à origem e esperam alcançar uma solução de compromisso entre as diferentes abordagens preconizadas por cada parte. Esta derrogação vai basear-se no nível atual de comércio de têxteis entre os dois parceiros. Devido à natureza recíproca desta derrogação, os produtores europeus também deverão beneficiar de novas oportunidades significativas. Importa referir que a indústria têxtil da UE mantém um excedente saudável no seu comércio com o Canadá. Assim, a nossa posição tem uma natureza mais ofensiva que defensiva.

É bastante claro que o AECG entre a UE e o Canadá não será um precedente para as gerações futuras. A Comissão tem como política tratar cada negociação como um caso separado com circunstâncias únicas que têm de ser consideradas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011482/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Textile industry: negotiations between the EU and Canada

On 8 November 2012, Euratex sent a letter to Commissioner Karel de Gucht expressing the EU textile industry’s concern over the possible outcome of negotiations between the EU and Canada.

In recent years the EU textile industry has struggled with major problems in terms of unfair competition, systematically serving as a bargaining chip for trade agreements with third countries.

The recent agreement with Pakistan was very damaging for the EU textile industry.

The CETA (Canada-EU Trade Agreement) does not currently provide the desirable reciprocity and will undoubtedly lead to further imbalance in the industry.

The EU has always favoured double transformation as a way to obtain preferential origin.

Canada has advocated the single transformation rule, as its supply chain is included in the North American Free Trade Agreement and a substantial proportion of the supplies are made in Asia.

The Canadian textile industry has little weight compared to that of the EU.

How does the Commission view this situation?

Given that Canada intends to qualify for an exception through this agreement, despite not being a least developed country, does it believe that it is fair and acceptable to set a precedent for future agreements that will seriously harm the already weakened EU textile industry?

What is the state of play of these negotiations and how will the EU benefit from this agreement?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

Negotiations for an EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) have entered their final phase. Both sides are now negotiating at all levels with the objective of finalising talks in the first quarter of 2013. A comprehensive trade agreement between the two partners could increase bilateral trade by EUR 25.7 billion.

The Commission has taken diligent note of the positions of the textiles industry which were expressed in the letter to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission continues to aim for a balanced and reciprocal overall package on textiles. On textiles Rules of Origin, the EU and Canada are indeed discussing a very limited derogation to the general EU rule of origin as a compromise solution between the different approaches of both sides. This derogation will be based on the current level of trade in textiles between the two partners. Due to the reciprocal nature of this derogation, European producers would also be provided with significant new opportunities. It should be noted that the EU textiles industry maintains a healthy surplus in its trade with Canada. Our position is therefore rather offensive than defensive.

It is very clear that the EU-Canada CETA will not serve as a precedent for future negotiations. It is the policy of the Commission to treat each negotiation as a separate case with unique circumstances that need to be taken into account.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011483/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Casos de tosse convulsa estão a aumentar nos países da UE

Considerando que:

Os casos de tosse convulsa, uma doença de declaração obrigatória (para a qual existe vacina gratuita em Portugal, incluída no Plano Nacional de Vacinação), está a aumentar em Portugal e em muitos outros países;

Este ano, em Portugal, desde janeiro até ao mês passado, o registo desta doença de declaração obrigatória somava 189 casos e três mortes de lactentes;

Portugal acompanha o padrão do resto dos países da União Europeia, onde se verifica um aumento do número de casos;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento da evolução desta doença?

Como a justifica?

Que medidas pondera para a inverter?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão está ciente do aumento dos casos de tosse convulsa (coqueluche) na UE. A epidemiologia da tosse convulsa mudou nas últimas duas décadas, sendo que o maior aumento de casos foi verificado entre adolescentes e adultos, os quais representam uma fonte importante de transmissão da tosse convulsa às crianças mais novas e vulneráveis.

O motivo desta evolução não é inteiramente claro. Porém, o aumento dos casos de tosse convulsa registados pode estar ligado a melhores métodos de diagnóstico e a uma maior consciência de que a tosse convulsa é uma doença atípica para este grupo etário. Uma outra explicação pode basear-se no facto de anteriormente se administrarem vacinas do tipo célula inteira a crianças de primeira infância, mas não às restantes crianças e a adultos, o que causou uma acumulação de indivíduos suscetíveis nestes escalões etários superiores. Além disso, a proteção contra a tosse convulsa diminui com o tempo. Estes fatores levaram vários países a implementarem estratégias que recomendam a administração de doses adicionais de vacinas a adolescentes e adultos.

O Centro Europeu de Prevenção e Controlo das Doenças desenvolveu linhas de orientação para a vacinação da difteria, do tétano e da tosse convulsa (37), onde recomenda a administração de doses adicionais e campanhas de atualização da vacinação dos adolescentes. O CEPCD considera ainda que poderá ser necessário vacinar os adultos contra a tosse convulsa para proteção dos lactentes, principalmente aqueles que têm menos de seis meses de idade, quando se verificarem maiores taxas de hospitalização e de mortalidade.

A Comissão continuará a apoiar os Estados-Membros através do seguimento das conclusões do Conselho sobre a imunização infantil (38). Em outubro de 2012, a Comissão organizou uma conferência sobre a imunização infantil (39) com uma grande variedade de partes interessadas para avaliar as medidas tomadas até agora.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011483/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Cases of whooping cough are on the increase in EU countries

Cases of whooping cough, a notifiable disease (for which there is a free vaccine in Portugal, included in the National Vaccination Plan), are on the increase in Portugal and in many other countries.

In Portugal 189 cases of whooping cough were recorded and 3 infants died from the disease between January 2012 and last month.

Portugal is following the pattern of the other EU countries, where the number of cases has increased.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the spread of this disease?

2.

How can it be justified?

3.

What action will it take to reverse it?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the increase of cases of whooping cough (pertussis) in the EU. The epidemiology of pertussis has changed over the past two decades, with the highest increase of cases seen among adolescents and adults who represent an important source of pertussis infection to the youngest, most vulnerable infants.

The reasons for this change are not entirely clear. However, the increase in cases of pertussis registered could be linked to better diagnostic methods and a higher awareness of pertussis as an atypical disease in this age group. A further explanation could be the previous use of whole-cell pertussis vaccine amongst young children but not amongst older children and adults, with a consequent accumulation of susceptible individuals in these older age groups. Also, the protection against pertussis following vaccination decreases over time. These factors have led several countries to implement strategies recommending booster doses of vaccination in adolescents and adults.

The European Centre for Diseases prevention and Control developed guidance on diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination (40) in which it recommends further booster doses and catch-up vaccination campaigns in adolescents. The ECDC also considers that pertussis vaccination might be needed also for adults for protection of the youngest infants, especially under six months of age, when the highest rates of hospitalisation and mortality occur.

The Commission will continue to support the Member States through follow-up of the Council Conclusions on childhood immunisation (41). In October 2012, the Commission organised a Conference on childhood immunisation (42) with a wide range of stakeholders, to take stock of actions taken so far.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011484/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Coreia do Norte ameaça paz com lançamento de «rocket» para o espaço

Considerando que:

A Coreia do Norte lançou, esta quarta-feira, dia 12 de dezembro, um «rocket» para o espaço;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Não considera o ato em causa uma ameaça à paz e segurança da região, violando as resoluções 1718 e 1874 do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, que proíbem qualquer atividade relacionada com mísseis balísticos?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(6 de março de 2013)

Em 12 de dezembro de 2012, o dia do «lançamento do satélite» da RPDC, a Alta Representante da União Europeia para os Negócios Estrangeiros e a Política de Segurança e Vice‐Presidente da Comissão (AR/VP) proferiu uma declaração que abordava o tema suscitado pelo eurodeputado Melo:

«O lançamento realizado hoje pela RPDC é mais um passo numa tentativa de longa duração da parte da RPDC de se dotar de tecnologia de mísseis balísticos e, por conseguinte, constitui uma clara violação das obrigações internacionais da RPDC, em particular das Resoluções 1718 e 1874 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.

Exorto a RPDC a cumprir, imediata, total e incondicionalmente, as suas obrigações decorrentes das resoluções pertinentes do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, do Acordo de Salvaguardas Generalizadas com a AIEA no âmbito do TNP, bem como dos seus compromissos em matéria de desnuclearização no âmbito da Declaração Conjunta de 2005 no processo das Conversações a Seis.

A UE irá ponderar uma resposta apropriada, em estreita consulta com os principais parceiros, e em consonância com as deliberações do CSNU, incluindo possíveis medidas restritivas adicionais.»

Numa declaração anterior após a RPDC ter anunciado que iria lançar o «satélite», a A/VP já tinha declarado que um tal lançamento constituiria um «ato de provocação, que ameaça a paz e a segurança na região, e que conduz a um isolamento cada vez maior da RPDC, comprometendo assim os esforços diplomáticos em curso para encontrar uma solução pacífica para a questão nuclear.»

Em 24 de janeiro de 2013, a AR/VP congratulou‐se com a adoção pelo CSNU da Resolução 2087, a qual sublinha a enorme preocupação da comunidade internacional quanto às repetidas violações da Coreia do Norte das suas obrigações internacionais. A UE irá considerar, em consulta os seus principais parceiros, a tomada de medidas de apoio à Resolução 2087.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011484/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: North Korea threatens peace by launching a ‘rocket’ into space

On Wednesday 12 December 2012 North Korea launched a ‘rocket’ into space.

Does the Commission not believe that this act threatens peace and security in the region and is in breach of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874, which ban any ballistic missile-related activity?

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

(6 March 2013)

On 12 December 2012, the day of the DPRK’s ‘satellite launch’, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP) issued a statement which addressed the issue raised by MEP Melo:

‘The launch from DPRK earlier today is another step in a long-running attempt by the DPRK to acquire ballistic missile technology and is thus a clear violation of the DPRK’s international obligations, in particular under UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874.

I urge the DPRK to comply, without delay, fully and unconditionally with its obligations under relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, its IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement under the NPT, and its commitments towards denuclearization under the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks.

The EU will consider an appropriate response, in close consultation with key partners, and in line with UNSC deliberations, including possible additional restrictive measures.’

In an earlier statement after the announcement of the DPRK that it was going to launch the ‘satellite’, the HR/VP had already said that such a launch would be ‘a provocative act, threatening peace and security in the region, and lead to a further isolation of the DPRK, thus undermining ongoing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution for the nuclear issue.’

On 24 January 2013, the HR/VP welcomed the adoption by the UNSC of Resolution 2087 which underlines the depth of international concern about North Korea’s repeated violations of its international obligations. The EU will consider, in consultation with its key partners, measures to support Resolution 2087.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011485/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Criação de um banco de fomento para gestão de fundos comunitários

Considerando que:

Foi apresentada, recentemente, em Portugal, a possibilidade de o Quadro Estratégico Comum (QEC), que integra os fundos estruturais da União Europeia para o período 2014-2020, ser gerido por um novo banco público (um banco de fomento);

Segundos dados da Comissão Europeia, Portugal é um dos melhores países na UE em termos de desenho, absorção e implementação dos fundos comunitários, conseguindo usar 58,4 % da totalidade do quadro (21 mil milhões) quando a média europeia é de 44 %.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Como avalia a possibilidade de criação deste banco público para gestão de fundos comunitários?

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a resposta dada à pergunta escrita E-010412/2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011485/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Creating a development bank to manage EU funds

Given that:

The proposal to create a new public bank (development bank) to manage the Common Strategic Framework (CSF), which includes the EU Structural Funds 2014‐2020, was recently tabled in Portugal;

According to data from the Commission, Portugal is one of the EU countries which best plans for, absorbs and implements EU funds, using 58.4% of the total framework (EUR 21 billion) when the EU average is 44%.

I would ask the Commission:

How does it view the proposal to create this public bank to manage EU funds?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-010412/2012.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011486/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Proteção do consumidor no comércio eletrónico

Considerando que:

A Comissão Europeia revelou, recentemente, que mais 75 % dos sítios Internet que vendem jogos, livros, vídeos e música, que podem ser descarregados para um computador ou dispositivo móvel, podem não cumprir as regras de defesa do consumidor, nomeadamente, no que respeita às regras que regulam a publicidade e as informações sobre os custos dos conteúdos digitais em causa;

Mais de 3 em cada 4 da totalidade dos sítios Web (254 sítios) foram sinalizados para investigação posterior, 14 deles em Portugal;

Pergunto à Comissão:

De que forma está a ser processada a fiscalização para identificar casos de violação das normas europeias de defesa dos consumidores para, posteriormente, garantir a sua aplicação?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

À luz da legislação da UE sobre a defesa do consumidor, as autoridades nacionais comptetentes são as principais responsáveis pelos inquéritos relacionados com as atividades de empresas ativas no seu mercado interno devendo, se necessário, garantir a sua aplicação efetiva.

A fiscalização a que o Senhor Deputado se refere foi uma ação coordenada de fiscalização («Sweep» — ação de fiscalização). Numa ação de fiscalização, as autoridades nacionais competentes verificam simultaneamente, sob a coordenação da Comissão, uma amostra de sítios web para verificar a conformidade com a legislação em matéria de defesa dos consumidores. Numa segunda fase, as autoridades nacionais adotam, se for caso disso, medidas de execução.

As cinco ações de fiscalização já concluídas contribuíram para melhorar a conformidade nos setores visados (cerca de 2 200 sítios web de venda de bilhetes de avião, toques de telemóveis, produtos eletrónicos, bilhetes para eventos desportivos e culturais e crédito ao consumo). Em média, 80 % dos sítios web considerados em violação do direito dos consumidores foram corrigidos no prazo máximo de um ano após as primeiras conclusões, enquanto os restantes sítios web foram corrigidos posteriormente (43).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011486/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Consumer protection in e-commerce

The Commission recently revealed that over 75% of websites selling games, books, videos and music that can be downloaded to a computer or a mobile device may not comply with consumer protection regulations, notably those governing advertising and information on the costs of the digital content in question.

More than 3 in 4 websites (254 sites in total) were flagged for further investigation, 14 of which are in Portugal.

What monitoring is taking place to identify cases in breach of EU consumer protection regulations and subsequently to ensure that such regulations are implemented?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

National enforcement authorities are primarily responsible for investigating activities of companies active on their domestic market in the light of EU consumer legislation and, if necessary, follow-up with enforcement action.

The monitoring to which the Honourable Member is referring was a coordinated enforcement action (‘sweep’). In a sweep, national enforcement authorities check simultaneously, under the coordination of the Commission, a sample of websites for compliance with consumer law. In a second phase, the national authorities take enforcement action, if appropriate.

The five sweeps completed so far have helped to improve compliance in the targeted sectors (about 2200 websites selling airline tickets, ringtones for mobile phones, electronic goods, tickets for sports and cultural events, and consumer credit). On average, 80% of the websites found to be in breach of consumer law were corrected at the latest within a year after the initial findings, while the remaining websites were corrected subsequently (44).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011487/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Irlanda — alargamento do prazo de pagamento do empréstimo à Troika

Considerando que:

No final de 2010, atingida pela crise financeira, a Irlanda teve de pedir assistência financeira à Troika (UE, BCE e FMI);

O plano de resgate à Irlanda prevê mais de 85 mil milhões de euros durante 3 anos;

Mais de 30 mil milhões de euros foram utilizados para resgatar o Irish Bank e o Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS);

O Governador do Banco Central da Irlanda, Patrick Honohan, afirmou, em declarações recentes, que a Irlanda precisará de um prazo mais alargado para pagamento da dívida;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Confirma a concessão de um prazo mais alargado para pagamento do empréstimo à Troika?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(28 de fevereiro de 2013)

Como é do conhecimento do Senhor Deputado, os Chefes de Estado e de Governo da área do euro decidiram, a 21 de julho de 2011, reduzir as taxas de juro e dilatar os prazos de vencimento dos empréstimos do FEEF aos países beneficiários do programa, aplicando tratamento igual à Irlanda, a Portugal e à Grécia. O programa de assistência financeira à Irlanda sofreu alguns ajustamentos (45) e prossegue o debate sobre novos ajustamentos. Em fevereiro de 2013, as autoridades irlandesas tomaram medidas importantes relativamente às promissórias, prevendo-se que essas medidas contribuam para aumentar a confiança e para o êxito do programa de estabilização financeira.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011487/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Ireland granted more time to repay its loan to the Troika

In late 2010, having been hit by the financial crisis, Ireland sought financial assistance from the Troika (European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund).

Ireland’s bailout package is worth more than EUR 85 billion over three years.

Over EUR 30 billion was used to bail out Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS).

In a recent statement the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, Patrick Honohan, said that Ireland will need more time to repay the debt.

Can the Commission confirm that Ireland has been granted more time to repay its loan to the Troika?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

As you are aware, the Heads of State or Government of the Euro area decided on 21 July 2011 to lower the interest rates and extend the maturities for EFSF loans to programme countries, extending equivalent treatment to Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Some specific adjustments have been made to the financial assistance programme for Ireland (46). Discussions on further adjustments are ongoing. In February 2013, the Irish Authorities took major steps regarding the Promissory Notes, which should further boost confidence and help to facilitate a successful outcome as regards the financial stability programme.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011488/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Fraude e branqueamento de capitais em jogos em linha

Considerando que:

O jogo em linha é uma das atividades de serviços em crescimento mais rápido na UE, abrangendo as apostas desportivas e o póquer, os jogos de casino e as lotarias, com 6,8 milhões de consumidores;

Existem milhares de sítios de jogo em linha não regulamentados a que os consumidores estão expostos e que apresentam riscos significativos;

O branqueamento de capitais e a fraude devem ser combatidos, o desporto deve ser salvaguardado contra a viciação de resultados relacionada com apostas e as normas nacionais devem respeitar a legislação da UE;

Dado o seu caráter transfronteiriço, os Estados-Membros não podem aplicar eficazmente, a nível individual, os mecanismos de luta antifraude, motivo por que será necessário adotar uma abordagem que agrupe a UE, os Estados-Membros e o setor;

Foi apresentado pela Comissão Europeia em Bruxelas, no passado mês de outubro, um plano de ação para regulamentar o jogo em linha;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Sabendo que o jogo a dinheiro é uma área da estrita competência dos Estados-Membros, salvaguardados os devidos limites, conforme tem vindo a ser amplamente reconhecido pelo Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia e sublinhado pelo Conselho e pelo Parlamento Europeu, como tenciona a Comissão clarificar o enquadramento jurídico do jogo em linha?

Está prevista a criação de um mecanismo que permita o integral cumprimento da lei vigente em cada Estado-Membro?

Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão

(21 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

Acompanha a Comunicação

1.

Acompanha a Comunicação

«Para um enquadramento europeu completo do jogo em linha» (47) o documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão «Online gambling in the Internal Market » (48), que visa melhorar a clareza jurídica do quadro normativo do jogo em linha. Nesse sentido, este documento de trabalho contém uma panorâmica geral da jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, que ajudará os Estados‐Membros a compreenderem o complexo quadro legal da UE no domínio em apreço.

2.

Na sua comunicação, a Comissão reconhece que a aplicação efetiva, por parte dos Estados‐Membros, da respetiva legislação nacional — que tem como requisito prévio essencial o cumprimento do direito da União — é necessária para a realização dos objetivos de interesse público subjacentes às políticas nacionais em matéria de jogo. O plano de ação estabelece uma série de iniciativas destinadas a garantir a conformidade da legislação em vigor em cada Estado‐Membro, esta última essencialmente uma competência nacional. Em primeiro lugar, o plano de ação indica que os Estados‐Membros devem dispor de autoridades reguladoras que assegurem a aplicação e a conformidade efetivas das normas em matéria de jogo. Em segundo lugar, a Comissão promoverá o intercâmbio de informações e de melhores práticas no que diz respeito às medidas de aplicação e estudará os benefícios e possíveis limitações das medidas de aplicação reativas, como por exemplo o bloqueio de pagamentos e a desativação do acesso a sítios Web a nível da UE. A Comissão constituiu recentemente um grupo de peritos em serviços de jogo, que integra as autoridades competentes dos Estados‐Membros responsáveis pela regulação destes serviços. Este grupo de peritos permitirá compartilhar experiências e boas práticas, nomeadamente ao nível das políticas de fiscalização nacionais.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011488/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Fraud and money laundering in online gambling

Online gambling, including sports betting and poker, casino games and lotteries, is one of the fastest growing service activities in the EU, with 6.8 million consumers.

Consumers are exposed to thousands of unregulated gambling websites, which carry significant risks.

Money laundering and fraud must be combated, sport must be safeguarded against betting-related match-fixing and national regulations must comply with EC law.

Due to its cross-border dimension, individual Member States cannot effectively implement anti-fraud mechanisms. An approach that brings together the EU, the Member States and the industry is necessary.

In October 2012 in Brussels the Commission delivered an action plan to regulate online gambling.

1.

As gambling is an area that falls within the strict competence of the Member States, safeguarding the due limits, as has been widely recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union and underlined by the Council and Parliament, how does the Commission intend to clarify the legal framework of online gambling?

2.

Will it create a mechanism to ensure full compliance of the law in force in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

1.

The communication

1.

The communication

‘Towards a comprehensive framework for online gambling’ (49) is accompanied by a staff working paper ‘Online gambling in the internal market’ (50) which is intended to enhance legal clarity in relation to the regulatory framework on online gambling. To this end, the staff working paper contains a comprehensive overview of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that will help Member States to understand the complex EU legal framework on online gambling.

2.

In the communication, the Commission recognises that effective enforcement by Member States of their national legislation — an essential prerequisite of which is compliance with EC law — is necessary for the attainment of the public interest objectives of their gambling policy. The action plan sets out a series of initiatives which are aimed at ensuring compliance of the law in force in each Member State which is primarily a national competence. First, the action plan indicates that the Member States should have regulatory authorities that ensure an effective implementation and compliance of gambling rules. Second, the Commission will enhance the exchange of information and best practices on enforcement measures and explore the benefits and possible limits of responsive enforcement measures, such as payment blocking and disabling access to websites, at EU level. The Commission has recently set up an expert group on gambling services composed of Member States' competent authorities which are responsible for regulating such services. This expert group will bring about an exchange of experiences and good practices, including on national enforcement policies.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011489/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Reindustrialização da União Europeia

Considerando que:

Desde 2008, a UE perdeu 3 milhões de empregos na indústria e a produção industrial caiu cerca de 10 por cento;

Um grupo de cinco ministros europeus responsáveis pelas pastas da Economia e da Indústria de Portugal, Espanha, França, Itália e Alemanha considera que chegou o momento de a União Europeia inverter o ciclo de deslocalização de empresas e perda de emprego, pelo que propôs uma nova política industrial na UE durante a reunião do Conselho da Competitividade da UE, realizada em Bruxelas;

O grupo exorta os 27 a adotarem novas políticas comuns para atrair investimento perdido nas últimas décadas para países que não pertencem à UE, relançando a competitividade da indústria como principal motor de crescimento e criação de emprego na Europa nos próximos anos;

Pergunto:

Como avalia a tomada de posição dos Ministros da Economia e da Indústria dos referidos países?

Como poderá a Europa promover o relançamento da sua indústria?

Quais as linhas de reforma do enquadramento aos auxílios de Estado necessárias para se garantir que as nossas empresas não fiquem numa posição de desvantagem em relação aos seus concorrentes internacionais?

Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão

(18 de fevereiro de 2013)

1.

A Comissão está de acordo quanto à necessidade de reverter o ciclo de deslocação de empresas e de perda de emprego e também acredita que o restabelecimento da competitividade industrial deverá ser um motor do relançamento e de crescimento nos próximos anos. A Comissão definiu a sua estratégia na Comunicação sobre Política Industrial de outubro de 2012

1.

A Comissão está de acordo quanto à necessidade de reverter o ciclo de deslocação de empresas e de perda de emprego e também acredita que o restabelecimento da competitividade industrial deverá ser um motor do relançamento e de crescimento nos próximos anos. A Comissão definiu a sua estratégia na Comunicação sobre Política Industrial de outubro de 2012

 (51). O objetivo é o de reverter a tendência de queda da indústria do seu nível atual de 15,6 % do PIB da UE para chegar aos 20 % até 2020.

2.

Melhorar a nossa competitividade é crucial para a recuperação da indústria. A política industrial proposta centra-se principalmente na reversão da tendência atual através da melhoria das condições-quadro. Propõe-se em particular que esta política se centre: em investimentos na inovação, em melhores condições de mercado, num melhor acesso ao financiamento e aos mercados de capitais e numa melhoria do capital humano e das competências. O objetivo é o de fomentar a competitividade industrial.

3.

O propósito do controlo dos auxílios estatais da UE é o de evitar distorções da concorrência no mercado interno.

O objetivo da presente análise do quadro dos auxílios estatais da UE é o de simplificar as regras para os casos que aparentemente não suscitam problemas e proporcionar incentivos para centrar a ajuda em «boas» medidas de auxílios horizontais que melhorem a competitividade e o crescimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011489/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Reindustrialisation of the European Union

Since 2008 the EU has lost three million manufacturing jobs and industrial production has fallen by around 10%.

A group of five European economy and industry ministers from Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Germany believe that it is time for the EU to reverse the cycle of business relocations and job losses, and proposed a new EU industrial policy during the meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council in Brussels.

The group is calling on the 27 Member States to adopt new common policies to attract investment lost in recent decades to countries outside the EU, re-establishing industrial competitiveness as the EU’s main engine of growth and job creation in the coming years.

1.

What is the Commission’s view of the stance adopted by the economy and industry ministers from these countries?

2.

How can the EU promote the recovery of its industry?

3.

What reforms to the state aid framework are needed to ensure that our companies are not at a disadvantage compared with their international competitors?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

1.

The Commission agrees on the need to reverse the cycle of business relocations and job losses, and that re-establishing industrial competitiveness should be a main driver of recovery and growth in the coming years.

1.

The Commission agrees on the need to reverse the cycle of business relocations and job losses, and that re-establishing industrial competitiveness should be a main driver of recovery and growth in the coming years.

The Commission has set out its strategy in the Industrial Policy Communication from October 2012 (52). The goal is to reverse industry's downward trend from its current level of 15.6% of EU GDP to as much as 20% by 2020.

2.

Improving our competitiveness is crucial for the recovery of industry. The proposed industrial policy focuses notably on reversing the trend by improving framework conditions. In particular it is proposed to focus on: investments in innovation, better market conditions, better access to finance and capital, improved human capital and skills. The objective is to foster industrial competitiveness.

3.

The purpose of EU state aid control is to prevent distortions of competition in the internal market. The objective of the current review of the EU State aid framework is notably to simplify the rules for unproblematic cases and to provide incentives to focus aid on ‘good’ horizontal aid measures improving competitiveness and growth.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011490/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Pacote de investimento social

Considerando que:

Lieve Fransen, diretora-geral dos Assuntos Sociais, na Comissão Europeia, responsável pelo acompanhamento da Estratégia 2020, através da qual os Estados-Membros se comprometeram a criar condições para que, em dez anos, 20 milhões de europeus saíssem da pobreza, reconheceu, no passado dia 6 de dezembro, na Conferência Europeia contra a Pobreza, em Bruxelas, que o plano está a falhar;

Foi anunciado, ainda recentemente, pelo Comissário Europeu do Emprego e dos Assuntos Sociais, László Andor, a adoção de um «pacote de investimento social» para o início de 2013;

O pacote de investimento social terá um conjunto de orientações para modernizar o modelo social europeu, apostando na sustentabilidade dos orçamentos para políticas sociais,

Pergunto à Comissão:

Que medidas tenciona a Comissão inscrever no «pacote de investimento social»?

A sustentabilidade dos orçamentos para políticas sociais defendida pela Comissão implicará a possibilidade de impor sanções aos Estados que não cumpram as metas de combate à pobreza?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(1 de março de 2013)

1.

O Pacote de Investimento Social (53) fornece orientações aos Estados-Membros para que definam políticas sociais mais eficazes e eficientes em resposta aos importantes desafios que atualmente enfrentam.

Focaliza-se nos seguintes aspetos:

Políticas sociais simplificadas e mais bem orientadas, de modo a repor a adequação e a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de proteção social. Alguns países apresentam resultados sociais melhores do que outros, apesar de disporem de orçamentos idênticos ou inferiores, o que prova que é possível melhorar a eficácia das despesas com a política social.

Melhoria da integração das pessoas na sociedade e no mercado de trabalho. A existência de estruturas de acolhimento de crianças e de educação a preços acessíveis, a prevenção do abandono escolar precoce, a formação e a assistência na procura de emprego, o apoio em termos de habitação e a acessibilidade dos cuidados de saúde são áreas de intervenção com forte dimensão de investimento social.

A garantia de que os sistemas de proteção social dão resposta às necessidades das pessoas em momentos críticos das suas vidas. A prevenção e a preparação das pessoas contra os riscos diminuem a necessidade de despesas sociais mais elevadas em caso de privação.

A Comunicação dá também aos Estados-Membros orientações para usar com maior eficácia os apoios financeiros da UE, designadamente o Fundo Social Europeu, para realizar os objetivos definidos. No contexto do Semestre Europeu, a Comissão irá acompanhar de perto os desempenhos individuais dos sistemas de proteção social nacionais e formular, se necessário, recomendações específicas por país.

2.

Quanto à possibilidade de impor sanções aos países que não cumprem as suas metas relativas ao combate à pobreza, importa referir que não existem níveis de pobreza definidos para cada país para sustentar a meta global da UE do combate à pobreza e à exclusão social.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011490/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Social Investment Package

Considering that:

Lieve Fransen, Director-General of Social Affairs at the European Commission, responsible for monitoring the 2020 strategy, under which Member States have undertaken to create the right conditions for 20 million Europeans to climb out of poverty in 10 years, acknowledged at the European Convention of the Platform against Poverty on 6 December last that the plan was not working;

László Andor, Commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion, recently announced the adoption of a social investment package in early 2013;

The package will contain a series of guidelines for modernising the European social model, basing its approach on the sustainability of budgets for social policies;

I should like to ask the Commission:

What measures does the Commission intend to take under the ‘social investment package’?

Will the social policy budget sustainability advocated by the Commission entail the possibility of imposing sanctions on countries which do not meet the targets for combating poverty?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

1.

The Social Investment Package (54) gives guidance to Member States on more efficient and effective social policies in response to the significant challenges they currently face.

It focuses on:

Simplified and better targeted social policies, to provide adequate and sustainable social protection systems. Some countries have better social outcomes than others despite having similar or lower budgets, demonstrating that there is room for more efficient social policy spending.

Improving people's integration in society and the labour market. Affordable quality childcare and education, prevention of early school leaving, training and job-search assistance, housing support and accessible healthcare are all policy areas with a strong social investment dimension.

Ensuring that social protection systems respond to people's needs at critical moments throughout their lives. Preventing and preparing people against risks reduces the need for higher social spending once hardship has occurred.

The communication offers guidance to Member States on how best to use EU financial support, notably from the European Social Fund, to implement the outlined objectives. The Commission will closely monitor the performance of individual Member States' social protection systems through the European Semester and formulate, where necessary, Country Specific Recommendations.

2.

As concerns the possibility of imposing sanctions on countries which do not meet the targets for combating poverty, it should be noted that there are no binding country specific poverty targets to underpin the overall EU target for fighting poverty and social exclusion.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011491/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Política comum de vistos

Considerando que:

A política comum de vistos relaciona-se diretamente com o crescimento da economia;

A Comissão Europeia, na sua Comunicação de 7 de novembro de 2012, relativa à implementação e desenvolvimento de uma política comum de vistos para estimular o crescimento da UE, afirma a intenção de apresentar brevemente uma proposta legislativa no quadro da iniciativa Smart Borders (Fronteiras Inteligentes), de forma a facilitar a atribuição de vistos para nacionais de países terceiros.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Sabendo que a proposta legislativa em causa se propõe assegurar fluxos mais rápidos de viajantes nas fronteiras da UE, que mecanismos adicionais serão utilizados para que as questões de segurança não sejam descuradas?

Implica esta iniciativa alguma regra de reciprocidade relativamente aos países terceiros abrangidos?

Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão

(14 de fevereiro de 2013)

A facilitação da emissão de vistos aos viajantes com documentos legítimos, como proposta na comunicação mencionada pelo Senhor Deputado, não constitui uma ameaça para a segurança da UE nem implica um aumento dos riscos de migração irregular. Esta facilitação destina-se a encurtar, facilitar e simplificar os procedimentos, mas não afeta as condições de emissão de vistos: os requerentes de vistos continuam a ter de demonstrar que preenchem as condições exigidas. Os consulados dos Estados-Membros são responsáveis pela verificação do preenchimento destas condições, por exemplo recorrendo aos documentos comprovativos apresentados pelos requerentes ou a uma entrevista pessoal. Esta prática será mantida no futuro. O Sistema de Informação sobre Vistos (VIS) prestará apoio ao trabalho assegurado pelos consulados para garantir a ausência de abusos no procedimento de apresentação de pedidos. As informações armazenadas no VIS, incluindo dados biométricos, são sistematicamente verificadas nas fronteiras externas.

Para reforçar a segurança e facilitar as viagens, a Comissão tenciona adotar, em 2013, um pacote de propostas legislativas relativas a um Sistema de Entrada/Saída (EES), a um Programa de Viajantes Registados (RTP) e às alterações correspondentes no Código das Fronteiras Schengen. O EES destina-se a permitir um cálculo exato e fiável das estadas autorizadas, bem como a identificar e controlar os viajantes de países terceiros. O RTP visa facilitar a passagem na fronteira externa da UE de viajantes frequentes de países terceiros que foram objeto de um controlo de segurança e de documentação prévios.

A reciprocidade é um elemento essencial da política de vistos. Sempre que a UE dispensa da obrigação de visto os nacionais de países terceiros, exige uma isenção de vistos recíproca para os cidadãos da UE que se deslocam a esses países terceiros. Do mesmo modo, quando facilita a emissão de vistos aos cidadãos de um país terceiro, esse país deve proporcionar pelo menos o mesmo nível de facilitação de vistos aos cidadãos da UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011491/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: A common visa policy

Whereas:

A common visa policy is closely linked to economic growth;

In its communication of 7 November 2012 on the implementation and development of the common visa policy to spur growth in the EU, the Commission stated its intention to present in the near future a legislative proposal as part of the Smart Borders initiative, in order to facilitate the issuing of visas to third-country nationals;

I should like to ask the Commission:.

1.

Given that the legislative proposal in question proposes ensuring more rapid tourist flows at the EU’s borders, what additional mechanisms will be deployed to guarantee that security issues are not overlooked?

2.

Does this initiative entail any reciprocal measures for the third countries concerned?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2013)

Visa facilitation for legitimate travellers, as proposed in the communication mentioned by the Honourable Member, will not threaten the EU's security or increase risks of irregular migration. These facilitations aim at shortening, easing and streamlining procedures, but do not affect the issuing conditions: visa applicants must still demonstrate that they fulfil these conditions. Member States' consulates are responsible for verifying this using, for example, the supporting documents submitted by applicants or a personal interview. This practice will continue in the future. The Visa Information System (VIS) will support the work of consulates to ensure that the application process is not abused. Information stored in the VIS, including biometrics, is systematically checked at the external borders.

To enhance security and facilitate travel the Commission plans to adopt in 2013 legislative proposals for a smart borders package consisting of an Entry/Exit System (EES), a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and related amendments to the Schengen Borders Code. The EES will aim to permit the accurate and reliable calculation of authorised stays as well as identification and verification of third-country travellers. The RTP will aim to facilitate border crossings for frequent, pre-vetted and pre-screened third-country travellers at the external border.

Reciprocity is an essential element of visa policy. When the EU waives the visa obligation for citizens of third countries, it also requests a reciprocal visa waiver for EU citizens visiting those third countries. Similarly, when visa facilitation is granted to citizens of a third country, that country must provide at least the same level of visa facilitation to EU citizens.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011492/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Bases de dados

Considerando que:

A era digital trouxe uma avalanche de dados sem precedentes, com informação despejada por milhões de pessoas em blogues e redes sociais, a circular por servidores informáticos;

É crucial saber onde, como e com que garantias de preservação todos estes dados são guardados;

As bases de dados com informações classificadas, como as em segredo de Estado, são informações sensíveis;

Alguns Estados-Membros têm decidido no sentido de entregar estas bases de dados a uma entidade privada;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Sabendo que esta situação leva ao risco de as grandes empresas, que têm capacidade financeira para construir grandes centros de dados se sobreporem aos Estados, que medidas estão inscritas na agenda da Comissão no sentido de defender uma abordagem ética na preservação da informação?

Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão

(19 de março de 2013)

A necessidade de adaptar o atual quadro jurídico em matéria de proteção dos dados, que remonta à Diretiva 95/46/CE, em consonância com a economia digital, é um dos principais motivos que levou a Comissão a apresentar a proposta de 25 de janeiro de 2012 de um quadro jurídico forte e uniforme que ofereça segurança jurídica em matéria de proteção de dados.

A proposta aborda as questões levantadas pelo Senhor Deputado relativas à proteção de dados pessoais. Clarifica a importante questão do direito aplicável, assegurando a aplicação direta e uniforme de um conjunto único de regras nos 27 Estados-Membros. Será vantajoso para as empresas e os cidadãos, já que cria condições equitativas de concorrência e reduz os encargos administrativos e os custos de conformidade para as empresas em toda a Europa, ao mesmo tempo que garante um elevado nível de proteção dos cidadãos e lhes proporciona um maior controlo sobre os seus dados. Uma maior transparência do tratamento de dados contribuirá igualmente para aumentar a confiança dos consumidores e explorar todas as potencialidades do mercado digital. A proposta facilita a transferência de dados pessoais para países fora da UE e do EEE e, ao mesmo tempo, assegura a continuidade da proteção das pessoas em causa.

O novo quadro jurídico proporcionará as condições necessárias para a adoção de códigos de conduta e normas aplicáveis à nuvem, caso as partes interessadas considerem necessários regimes de certificação que permitam verificar se o fornecedor aplicou as normas de segurança informática e as salvaguardas adequadas nas transferências de dados.

Estas questões sublinham a importância da proposta de regulamento em matéria de proteção de dados.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011492/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Databases

Whereas:

The digital age has brought with it an unprecedented deluge of data, with information produced by millions of people on blogs and social networks and then distributed through computer servers;

It is crucial to know where, how and with what guarantees for preservation all of these data are stored;

Databases containing classified information, such as State secrets, hold sensitive information;

Some Member States have decided to hand over the management of these databases to private-sector companies;

I should like to ask the Commission:

Given that this situation runs the risk of large corporations — which have the financial power to set up huge data centres — encroaching on the role of States, what measures does the Commission plan in order to defend an ethical approach to holding information?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

The need to bring the current data protection legal framework, dating back to Directive 95/46/EC (55), in line with the digital economy, is one of the main motivations for the Commission to present the proposal of 25 January 2012 for a strong and uniform legal framework providing legal certainty on data protection (56).

The proposed regulation addresses the issues raised by the Honourably Member as regards the protection of personal data. It clarifies the important question of applicable law, by ensuring that a single set of rules would apply directly and uniformly across all 27 Member States. It will be good for business and citizens by ensuring a level playing field and by reducing administrative burden and compliance costs throughout Europe for businesses, while ensuring a high level of protection for individuals and giving them more control over their data. Increased transparency of data processing will also help increase consumer trust and untap the potential of the digital market further. The proposal facilitates transfers of personal data to countries outside the EU and EEA while ensuring the continuity of protection of the concerned individuals.

The new legal framework will provide for the necessary conditions for the adoption of codes of conduct and standards, also for cloud computing, where stakeholders see a need for certification schemes that verify that the provider has implemented the appropriate IT security standards and safeguards for data transfers.

These issues underline the importance of the proposed Data Protection Regulation.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011493/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Melhoria das condições de financiamento para Portugal no âmbito do apoio da Troika

Portugal e Grécia são apoiados no âmbito da Troika pelo FMI, pelo Mecanismo de Estabilização Financeira e pelo Fundo de Estabilização Financeira.

Na Grécia, esse fundo de estabilidade beneficiou de um alongamento das maturidades dos empréstimos, e de um diferimento do pagamento de juros.

O fundo de estabilidade representa cerca de um terço do valor do resgate a Portugal.

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

É possível que Portugal, à semelhança da Grécia, beneficie de um alargamento do prazo e de diferimento dos juros, na componente do resgate correspondente ao fundo de estabilização financeira, que representa cerca de um terço do valor do resgate disponibilizado a Portugal?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(13 de fevereiro de 2013)

O Governo português solicitou recentemente aos seus parceiros europeus uma prorrogação dos prazos de vencimento dos empréstimos concedidos pelo Fundo Europeu de Estabilização Financeira (FEEF) e o Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilização Financeira, no âmbito do programa de ajustamento económico para Portugal. O pedido foi acolhido positivamente pelo Conselho Ecofin e a Comissão Europeia está atualmente a avaliar as opções pertinentes do ponto de vista da viabilidade jurídica e operacional.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011493/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Improved financing conditions for Portugal under the terms of support from the Troika

Portugal and Greece are supported under the Troika by the IMF, the Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the Financial Stabilisation Fund.

In Greece, this stability fund has been granted an extension of loan maturities and a deferral of interest payments.

The stability fund represents about one third of the value of the Portugal bailout.

I therefore ask the Commission:

Is it possible for Portugal, like Greece, to be granted a deadline extension and deferral of interest payments on the bailout component corresponding to the financial stabilisation fund, which represents about one third of the value of the bailout offered to Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

The Portuguese Government has recently asked its European partners for an extensions of the maturities of the loans provided by the European Finacial Stabilisation Fund (EFSF) and the European Financial Support Mechanism under the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal. The request has been positively received by the Ecofin Council and the European Commission is currently assessing the available options from the perspective of the legal and operational feasibility.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011494/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Perspetiva negativa da Moody's para o Banco Europeu de Investimento e o Banco de Desenvolvimento do Conselho da Europa

A agência de rating Moody’s colocou em perspetiva negativa o Banco Europeu de Investimento e o Banco de Desenvolvimento do Conselho da Europa que mantiveram, no entanto, a nota mais alta AAA

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento desta intenção da Moody’s?

Que motivos poderão levar a Moody’s a baixar o rating do Banco Europeu de Investimento e do Banco de Desenvolvimento do Conselho da Europa?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(14 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão informa o Senhor Deputado que as perspetivas da Moody’s relativamente à notação do Banco Europeu de Investimento e do Banco de Desenvolvimento do Conselho da Europa foram publicadas num comunicado de imprensa em 8 de dezembro de 2012 (57).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011494/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Moody's negative outlook for the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank

The Moody’s rating agency has issued a negative outlook for the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank which have, however, both retained their maximum AAA rating.

Is the Commission aware of Moody’s intentions?

What reasons might Moody’s have for downgrading its rating of the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2013)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the views of Moody’s in relation to the rating of the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank have been published in a press release on 8 December 2012 (http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-changes-outlook-on-Aaa-ratings-of-EIB-and-CEB--PR_261636).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011495/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Grandes diferenças nas «yields» das obrigações na zona euro

A fragmentação da zona euro é gritante: França e Alemanha conseguem descer substancialmente os custos de financiamento da sua dívida soberana, inclusive no caso dos prazos mais curtos das obrigações alemãs (Bunds), os investidores aceitam «yields» negativas, enquanto Espanha, Itália e Irlanda veem as «yields» das suas obrigações aumentar e o risco de incumprimento da sua dívida subir.

O alargamento deste fosso ocorreu na própria semana em que Mário Draghi, presidente do Banco Central Europeu, declarou que tem observado nos últimos meses uma melhoria na «confiança dos mercados», sobretudo depois do anúncio do programa do banco central para uma eventual compra de dívida no mercado secundário conhecido pela sigla OMT.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

O que pode estar a contribuir para que esta fragmentação se mantenha?

O que está a falhar nos vários mecanismos para a resolução dos problemas da dívida soberana, para se continuar a verificar tais diferenças?

Que sinal tem que ser dado aos investidores para inverter esta tendência?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(2 de abril de 2013)

A Comissão partilha a opinião do Senhor Deputado segundo a qual a fragmentação dos mercados financeiros da área do euro é fonte de preocupação. No entanto, diversos indicadores — como, por exemplo, o decréscimo dos yields nos Estados-Membros vulneráveis, tanto para as emissões feitas por empresas como para a dívida soberana, o aumento na emissão de obrigações pelo setor privado, a diminuição dos spreads nos swaps de risco de incumprimento, o maior afluxo de capital para a área do euro e o aumento dos depósitos nos sistemas bancários de alguns dos Estados-Membros mais afetados pela crise — têm vindo a melhorar ao longo dos últimos meses e poderão contribuir para diminuir essa fragmentação. A melhoria deve-se a uma série de fatores, nomeadamente o anúncio pelo Banco Central Europeu das OMT (Transações Monetárias Definitivas), o pagamento efetuado ao abrigo do segundo programa de ajustamento económico para a Grécia e o acordo dos líderes da UE sobre uma União Bancária, a par com a execução do processo de consolidação orçamental e de reformas estruturais nos Estados-Membros.

Existe um forte empenho na prossecução da consolidação orçamental e das reformas estruturais na área do euro, bem como de uma genuína União Económica e Monetária, a fim de que o reforço da confiança dos investidores permita que a recente melhoria dos mercados financeiros se torne mais duradoura e, em última análise, mais favorável à economia real. O acordo político entre os colegisladores sobre o primeiro pilar da União Bancária, o Mecanismo Único de Supervisão (MUS), constitui uma etapa importante. O MUS estará plenamente em vigor a partir de meados de 2014. Constitui uma condição prévia para a eventual recapitalização direta dos bancos pelo MEE. Além disso, a Comissão já começou a trabalhar com vista ao lançamento da próxima fase fundamental da União Bancária, um Mecanismo Único de Resolução (MER) destinado às entidades bancárias, e apresentará uma proposta legislativa antes do verão.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011495/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Significant yield differences in eurozone bonds

The fragmentation of the eurozone is stark: France and Germany have been able to lower the cost of financing their sovereign debt substantially and even where the shorter maturities of German bonds (Bunds) are concerned, investors accept negative yields, while Spain, Italy and Ireland are seeing the yield of their bonds increase and the risk of defaulting on their debt rise.

This gap has widened in the very week in which Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, stated that he has seen an improvement in ‘market confidence’ in recent months, especially since the announcement of the ECB’s programme for the possible purchase of secondary market debt, known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT).

What could be helping to keep this fragmentation in place?

Where are the various mechanisms designed to solve sovereign debt-related problems going so badly wrong that these disparities remain?

What message should be sent to investors in order to reverse this trend?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2013)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that fragmentation of the euro-area financial markets is a source of concern. However, a number of indicators improved over the past few months and might help to decrease fragmentation, e.g. a decrease in corporate and sovereign yields in vulnerable Member States (MS), an increase in private sector bond issuance, lower credit default swap spreads, higher capital inflows into the euro area and increasing deposits in the banking systems of some MS most affected by the crisis. This improvement has been due to a range of factors, including the European Central Bank's announcement of the OMTs, the disbursement under the second economic adjustment programme for Greece and the EU leaders' agreement on a Banking Union, which have gone hand in hand with the implementation of fiscal consolidation and structural reforms in MS.

There is a strong commitment to continue with fiscal consolidation and structural reforms within the euro area, as well as to advancing with building the genuine Economic and Monetary Union so that reinforced investor confidence allows the recent improvement in financial markets to become more long-lasting and ultimately being more supportive to the real economy. The political agreement of the co-legislators on the first pillar of the Banking Union, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), is an important step. The SSM will be fully in place mid-2014. It is a precondition for a possible direct recapitalisation of banks by the ESM. Moreover, the Commission has started working on the next critical part of the Banking Union, a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) to resolve banks, and will present a legislative proposal before the summer.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011496/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Crescimento das exportações em Portugal

As exportações em Portugal têm sido um dos principais fatores para que a economia não registe uma recessão ainda maior. Apesar de ter exportado 35,5 % do PIB em 2011, um record, a média da UE é de 42 %, sendo que países com a dimensão de Portugal exportam cerca de 60 % a 80 % do seu PIB.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

A que tipo de mecanismos pode Portugal recorrer junto dos seus parceiros da UE, para incrementar os valores da exportações portuguesas, e ao mesmo tempo ajudar Portugal a sair da recessão económica?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(11 de fevereiro de 2013)

Não obstante os bons resultados registados a nível das exportações desde 2010, que, segundo as últimas previsões da Comissão, deverão manter-se nos próximos anos, a parte que as exportações representam no PIB é ainda relativamente baixa em Portugal comparativamente a países de dimensão idêntica.

No contexto do Programa de Ajustamento Económico, as autoridades portuguesas procuram reequilibrar a economia no sentido do setor dos bens transacionáveis, o que exige um aumento permanente da competitividade externa e a reafetação dos recursos (trabalho, capital e financiamento) ao setor dos bens transacionáveis. As autoridades portuguesas podem agir a vários níveis. Para informações mais pormenorizadas, consultar o memorando de entendimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011496/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Rise in Portugal's exports

Exports have been one of the main factors preventing Portugal’s economy from sinking even further into recession. Although its exports in 2011 totalled a record 35.5% of GDP, the EU average is 42%, with exports from countries of a similar size to Portugal accounting for between 60% and 80% of their GDP.

What type of mechanism could Portugal use together with its EU partners to increase its exports, and which would also help the country to climb out of economic recession?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

Notwithstanding the good export performance since 2010, which, according to the latest Commission forecast, is set to be maintained in the coming years, the share of exports in GDP is still relatively small in Portugal compared to countries of a similar size.

In the context of the Economic Adjustment Programme, the Portuguese authorities endeavour a rebalancing of the economy towards the tradables sector. This requires permanent gains in external competitiveness and a reallocation of resources (labour, capital and financing) to the tradables sector. The Portuguese authorities can act on several levels. Further details can be found in the memorandum of understanding.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011497/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Investimento em Portugal ao nível da década de 80

Segundo dados da Comissão, o investimento em Portugal está ao nível do verificado em meados da década de 80. Se o investimento se tivesse mantido estável em relação ao realizado em 2008, o seu efeito no PIB em 2013 representaria cerca de 40 mil milhões de euros.

É evidente que sem investimento não há crescimento.

E para que o programa de ajuda financeira seja bem-sucedido em Portugal, é fundamental crescimento, o que supostamente deveria ocorrer a partir de 2014.

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

Que pode ser feito ao nível da UE, para ajudar a que os níveis de investimento privado, em Portugal, voltem a crescer para valores que signifiquem crescimento económico e criação de emprego?

Não considera a Comissão que, tendo Portugal vindo a aplicar exemplarmente o acordado no memorando de entendimento subscrito com a Troika, novas decisões devem agora ser ponderadas, para que o pretendido crescimento possa ocorrer?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(21 de fevereiro de 2013)

Portugal registou um declínio da atividade de investimento ao longo de uma década. Com um nível estimado em 16 % em 2012, a parte do investimento fixo no PIB situa-se atualmente abaixo da média da zona euro. A Comissão prevê o atrofiamento deste declínio no final do ano, em consequência da retoma dos investimentos no setor das exportações, onde as empresas começam a deparar-se com limitações em termos de capacidades.

Uma condição prévia para o aceleramento dos investimentos é a existência de condições menos restritivas de concessão de empréstimos pelos bancos. Neste contexto, o programa de ajustamento económico para Portugal prevê uma série de iniciativas que visam facilitar as condições de concessão de empréstimos, especialmente no caso das pequenas e médias empresas (PME).

A nível da UE, Portugal é apoiado pela reorientação dos fundos estruturais para setores com elevado potencial de crescimento. Assim, no âmbito da recente reprogramação dos fundos estruturais, foram adotadas certas medidas a fim de incentivar a criação de postos de trabalho e melhorar as condições de financiamento das PME. Em especial, houve um reforço substancial do programa operacional de competitividade com um montante de 450 milhões de euros, a adicionar aos instrumentos existentes que visam facilitar o acesso das PME ao financiamento. Foram igualmente atribuídos fundos suplementares para os programas destinados a promover a investigação e o desenvolvimento, assim como a valorização do capital humano.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011497/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Investment in Portugal at 1980s levels

According to Commission figures, investment in Portugal is now at the level it was in the mid-1980s. If investment had remained stable at the 2008 level, its contribution to GDP in 2013 would be around EUR 40 000 million.

Clearly, without investment there is no growth.

And for the financial assistance programme to succeed properly in Portugal, growth — which is supposed to take place as of 2014 — is vital.

Thus:

Can the Commission state what can be done at EU level to help private investment in Portugal return to levels that support economic growth and job creation?

Does the Commission not believe that, since Portugal has been exemplary in implementing the agreement set out in the memorandum of understanding signed with the Troika , new decisions now have to be weighed up so that the sought-after growth can take place?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

Portugal has suffered a decade-long decline in investment activity and, at an estimated 16% in 2012, the share of fixed investment in GDP has now fallen below the euro area average. The Commission expects this decline to bottom out towards the end of this year as a result of investment picking up in the export sector where companies are start hitting at capacity constraints.

A pre-condition for investment to gather pace is that lending conditions applied by banks become less restrictive. Against this background, the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal envisages a number of initiatives aimed at easing lending conditions, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

On the EU-level Portugal is being helped by the re-channelling of structural funds towards sectors with a high growth potential. For instance, a number of measures have been adopted in the recent reprogramming of the Structural Funds so as to encourage job creation and alleviate financing conditions for SMEs. In particular, the Operational Programme for Competitiveness has been significantly reinforced with an amount of EUR 450 million on top of the existing instruments with a view to easing access to finance for SMEs. Additional funds have also been allocated to the programmes aimed at promoting Research and Development and upgrading Human Capital.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011498/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Evasão fiscal na UE, multinacionais tecnológicas

Segundo cálculos da Comissão Europeia, as empresas tecnológicas como Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, entre outras, provocam uma evasão fiscal que pode chegar a um bilião de euros.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Como justifica os mencionados valores?

De que forma se efetiva a referida evasão fiscal?

Que medidas foram decididas pela Comissão para a evitar?

Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão

(19 de fevereiro de 2013)

Quando apresentou a sua comunicação relativa a um plano de ação para reforçar a luta contra a fraude e a evasão fiscais (COM(2012) 722 final), a Comissão referiu que se perdem um bilião de euros todos os anos na UE devido a fraude e evasão fiscais. Este número é estimado a partir de um estudo recente (58). Corresponde a perdas de receitas resultantes de todas as formas de fraude e evasão fiscais na UE e inclui todos os impostos, não apenas os impostos sobre o rendimento e certamente não apenas os relacionados com empresas em nome individual ou tecnológicas. Estas perdas não podem ser justificadas e estão muitas vezes associadas a distorções no mercado interno. Assim, a Comissão apresentou o plano de ação já mencionado que inclui 34 medidas a muito curto, médio e a longo prazo. Para uma análise mais completa dos tipos de fraude e de evasão fiscal, o Senhor Deputado pode consultar a comunicação já mencionada, a avaliação de impacto que a acompanha (SWD(2012) 403 final) e a sua síntese (SWD(2012) 404 final). As duas recomendações relativas ao planeamento fiscal agressivo (C(2012) 8806 final) e as medidas destinadas a encorajar os países terceiros a aplicar normas mínimas de boa governação em questões fiscais (C(2012) 8805 final) representam passos importantes para combater o planeamento fiscal agressivo e a evasão fiscal no domínio dos impostos sobre as sociedades. A Comissão acredita que a implementação destas recomendações permitiria aos Estados-Membros enfrentarem melhor as questões abordadas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011498/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Tax avoidance in the EU, technology multinationals

According to European Commission calculations, technology firms such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, inter alia, are avoiding at levels which could amount to as much as EUR 1 billion.

I would therefore put the following question to the Commission:

How can these amounts be justified?

In what way is this tax avoidance being carried out?

What measures have been decided on by the Commission to prevent this?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

When presenting its communication on an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion (COM(2012) 722 final), the Commission mentioned that one trillion Euro is lost due to tax evasion and avoidance every year in the EU. This is an estimated figure from a recent study (59). It refers to revenue lost from all forms of tax fraud and evasion in the EU including all taxes, not just corporate income tax and certainly not relating only to individual or technology firms. Such losses cannot be justified, and they frequently go with distortions in the internal market. Therefore, the Commission presented the abovementioned Action Plan which includes 34 actions for the immediate, short term, medium term and long term. For a fuller analysis of the types of fraud and evasion the Honourable Member is referred to the said Communication, the accompanying Impact Assessment (SWD (2012) 403 final) and its Executive Summary (SWD(2012) 404 final). The two Recommendations on Aggressive tax planning (C(2012) 8806 final) and measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters (C(2012) 8805 final) represent important steps to address aggressive tax planning and tax evasion in the area of company taxes. The Commission believes that the implementation of these Recommendations would enable Member States to better tackle the issues described.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011499/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Desemprego em Portugal em outubro de 2012

A taxa de desemprego em Portugal subiu para 16,3 % em outubro de 2012 (16,2 % no mês anterior) de acordo com os dados do Eurostat divulgados.

É de salientar que aparentemente existiu uma revisão da taxa de desemprego para os meses anteriores, pois até agora a taxa de desemprego (de acordo com o próprio Eurostat e também OCDE) ainda não havia sequer atingido em Portugal os 16 %. E de acordo com estes novos valores divulgados pelo Eurostat, a taxa de desemprego atingiu os 16 % logo em julho.

Por sua vez, também a taxa de desemprego jovem subiu para 39,1 % em outubro (39 % em setembro).

Estes valores são obviamente trágicos, revelando o efeito perverso do excesso de austeridade, quando não existem medidas compensatórias pelo lado do crescimento económico.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Como avaliou os novos valores para o desemprego em Portugal?

Considera que a execução de quaisquer planos de assistência financeira é compatível com taxas de desemprego desta dimensão?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão concorda com o Senhor Deputado em relação ao facto de o desemprego ter atingido valores muito preocupantes em Portugal. A taxa de desemprego tem aumentado e atingiu os 16,6 % no terceiro trimestre de 2012, o que demonstra uma degradação do mercado de trabalho em consequência da desaceleração da economia.

Foram adotadas várias medidas para reformar o mercado de trabalho, em conformidade com Programa de Ajustamento Económico para Portugal, com o objetivo de melhorar o funcionamento do mercado de trabalho e de promover o emprego. Além disso, o Governo português deu início a uma reforma dos serviços públicos de emprego com vista a aumentar a sua eficácia e adotou várias políticas ativas no mercado de trabalho que têm como objetivo apoiar a criação de emprego, reforçar a ativação e aumentar a oferta de oportunidades de formação eficazes.

Foi ainda aprovada uma reprogramação dos fundos estruturais, no final de 2012 com o objetivo de atenuar os efeitos adversos do atual processo de ajustamento da economia portuguesa. Entre os seus principais objetivos contam-se o combate ao desemprego jovem e facilitação das condições de financiamento às pequenas e médias empresas. O programa Impulso Jovem, que é um dos alicerces deste processo de reprogramação e que tem um valor de 344 milhões de euros, tem como objetivo chegar a 90 000 jovens desempregados através de estágios, programas de formação, incentivos ao empreendedorismo e reduções orientadas das contribuições sociais das PME.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011499/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Unemployment in Portugal in October 2012

The unemployment rate in Portugal rose to 16.3% in October 2012 (from 16.2% the previous month), according to the figures published by Eurostat.

It should be pointed out that the unemployment rate for the previous months was apparently revised, as at that point (according to Eurostat itself and the OECD as well) it had not even reached 16% in Portugal yet. According to the new figures published by Eurostat, the unemployment rate reached 16% as early as July.

The youth unemployment rate rose to 39.1% in October (39% in September).

These figures are clearly terrible, revealing the harmful effect of excessive austerity which is not offset by economic growth measures.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the new unemployment figures for Portugal?

Does it believe that implementing any financial assistance plans is compatible with unemployment rates of this scale?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that unemployment has reached very worrying levels in Portugal. The unemployment rate has been rising, having reached 16.6% in the third quarter of 2012, showing a deterioration of the labour market resulting from the economic downturn.

Several measures have been adopted to reform the labour market in line with the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal with the aim of improving labour market functioning and fostering employment. Additionally, the Portuguese Government started a reform of Public Employment Services with a view to increasing its efficiency and has adopted a number of Active Labour Market Policies aimed at supporting employment creation, strengthening activation and offering more effective training opportunities.

Moreover, a recent reprogramming of the Structural Funds was approved at the end of 2012 with the aim of alleviating the adverse effects of the ongoing adjustment process in the Portuguese economy. Its main goals are to tackle youth unemployment and alleviate the financing conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises. The programme Impulso Jovem, which is one of the cornerstones of this reprogramming exercise, amounting to EUR 344 million, aims to reach 90 000 young unemployed through traineeships, training programmes, incentives for entrepreneurship and targeted reductions of social contributions to SMEs.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011500/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Recessão em quase um terço dos países da UE

O Eurostat divulgou um boletim com a evolução do PIB nos mais diversos Estados-Membros.

Tendo em conta os países para os quais existem dados comparáveis, Portugal foi, no 3.° trimestre, o 2.° país da União que mais contraiu comparativamente com o trimestre anterior (atrás da Holanda), e o 2.° país que mais contraiu comparativamente com o mesmo trimestre do ano anterior (atrás da Grécia).

De acordo com os dados do Eurostat, podemos destacar vários países já em recessão na UE:

República Checa;

Espanha;

Itália;

Chipre;

Hungria;

Portugal;

Eslovénia;

Finlândia;

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento deste boletim do Eurostat?

Não considera que esta tendência, mesmo tendo em conta o objetivo de diferentes planos de assistência financeira, pode fazer perigar o projeto europeu?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(28 de fevereiro de 2013)

As contas anuais e trimestrais dos Estados‐Membros compiladas pelo Eurostat são uma importante fonte de informação económica. A queda do PIB da área do euro no terceiro trimestre de 2012 constava, em grande parte, das previsões efetuadas pela Comissão no outono de 2012. O crescimento negativo do PIB em diversos países implicou um decréscimo do PIB no conjunto da área do euro.

Todavia, surgiram recentemente alguns indícios de estabilização. As tensões existentes nos mercados financeiros da área do euro atenuaram-se bastante desde o verão passado, tendo-se verificado nos últimos três meses um aumento dos indicadores de confiança das empresas e dos consumidores. São visíveis os progressos conseguidos na correção dos grandes desequilíbrios das contas externas. Prevê-se que, nos países deficitários, as contas correntes continuem a melhorar, à medida que o ajustamento for sendo complementado pela recuperação crescente da competitividade e pela transferência de recursos para a produção de bens e serviços transacionáveis. Espera-se igualmente um contributo crescente dos países excedentários para o processo de reajustamento.

Já foram adotadas muitas reformas estruturais ambiciosas, prevendo-se que os efeitos benéficos dessas medidas se vão notando gradualmente. Continua a ser importante proceder a este ajustamento, reforçando simultaneamente as bases para a criação de emprego e para um crescimento sustentável.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011500/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Recession in nearly a third of EU countries

Eurostat has issued a bulletin detailing GDP trends in a range of Member States.

Looking at the countries for which comparable data are available, Portugal was, in the third quarter, the country experiencing the second greatest fall compared with the previous quarter (after the Netherlands), and the country experiencing the second greatest fall compared with the previous year (after Greece).

According to the Eurostat data, several EU States are already clearly in recession:

Czech Republic;

Spain;

Italy;

Cyprus;

Hungary;

Portugal;

Slovenia;

Finland.

Is the Commission aware of this Eurostat bulletin?

Does it not consider that, even bearing in mind the aim of there being different levels of financial assistance, this trend could jeopardise the European project?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The annual and quarterly national accounts of Member States compiled by Eurostat are a major source of economic information. The fall of euro area GDP in the third quarter of 2012 was largely anticipated in the Commission autumn 2012 forecast. GDP growth was negative in a number of countries, implying a GDP decline in the euro area as a whole.

However, some signals of stabilisation have appeared recently. The tensions on euro-area financial markets have eased considerably since last summer, and business and consumer confidence indicators in the last three months have increased. There is visible progress in the adjustment of large external imbalances. Current accounts in deficit countries are expected to narrow further as adjustment is increasingly supported by a recovery of competitiveness and shifts of resources towards the production of tradable goods and services. The contribution to the adjustment of surplus countries is also expected to grow over time.

Many ambitious structural reforms have already been adopted, with the beneficial effects expected to gradually become visible over time. It remains important to facilitate this adjustment while at the same time strengthening the foundations of sustainable growth and job creation.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011501/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Pobreza em Portugal

O Eurostat revela que Portugal é, neste momento, o terceiro país da zona euro com o maior percentual de pessoas pobres. No ano passado, quase 2,6 milhões de portugueses viviam em risco de pobreza ou exclusão social, um quarto da população. O número tem vindo a diminuir em relação a 2010 (25,3 %) e 2008 (26 %). Nos últimos três anos, esse indicador apresentou uma queda de 1,6 %. Portugal é o terceiro país na zona do euro onde o indicador é pior, depois da Espanha (21,8 %) e Grécia (21,4 %). Em 2011, o indicador de Portugal foi de cerca de 18 %.

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

Não considera que assimetrias tão evidentes justificam maior esforço corretivo na implementação de políticas de coesão?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão com partilha das preocupações do Senhor Deputado. O facto de um em cada quatro cidadãos viver em risco de pobreza ou exclusão social é um sinal claro de que devem ser desenvolvidos mais esforços para melhorar a situação.

A Comissão tem vindo a apoiar Portugal como país do programa, através do aceleramento da concessão de fundos da UE, do aumento das taxas de cofinanciamento e da reprogramação do Quadro Estratégico de Referência Nacional (QREN), que fornece fundos adicionais para combater a pobreza. Os serviços da Comissão também estão a cooperar estreitamente com as autoridades portuguesas, encorajando-as a usar da melhor forma os recursos existentes nos atuais programas para combater o desemprego jovem, o abandono escolar precoce e outras medidas para combater a pobreza.

Tendo em vista o futuro, a Comissão propôs novas regras para os fundos estruturais e para o FSE para o próximo período de programação 2014-2020. Estas propostas, que estão atualmente a ser negociadas, incluem uma forte dimensão social uma vez que propõem que um mínimo de 20 % do FSE seja atribuído a medidas de inclusão social. Além destas propostas, a Comissão propôs a criação de um programa para as pessoas mais carenciadas com uma dotação global de 2 500 mil milhões de euros. A Comissão apresentou a Portugal, em janeiro de 2013, a sua posição em relação ao uso de fundos estruturais em 2014-2020. O FSE deve concentrar-se no combate ao desemprego, em particular entre a juventude, assim como em melhorar a qualidade da educação e da formação e na integração de pessoas em risco de pobreza e as que se encontram em situação de exclusão social.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011501/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Poverty in Portugal

According to Eurostat, Portugal currently has the third highest percentage of people living in poverty of any country in the eurozone. Last year, almost 2.6 million Portuguese citizens, or a quarter of the population, were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The indicator has fallen compared to 2010 (25.3%) and 2008 (26%). In the last three years, it has fallen by 1.6%. Portugal has the third worst indicator in the eurozone, after Spain (21.8%) and Greece (21.4%). In 2011, Portugal’s indicator was around 18%.

Does the Commission not consider that such glaring disparities constitute grounds for greater efforts to correct cohesion policy implementation?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member. One in four citizens living at risk of poverty or social exclusion is definitely a signal that more efforts must be undertaken to improve the situation.

The Commission has been supporting Portugal as a programme-country, by speeding up the release of EU funding, increasing co-financing rates and approving a reprogramming of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) that provides additional funds for the fight against poverty. The Commission Services are also cooperating closely with Portugal's authorities encouraging them to use the existing resources in the current programmes to the best use to fight against youth unemployment, early school leaving and other measures to combat poverty.

In view of the future, the Commission proposed last year new rules for Structural Funds and the ESF over the next programming period 2014-2020. These proposals, which are currently under negotiation, include a strong social dimension proposing a minimum share of 20% of the ESF to be dedicated to social inclusion actions. Further to these proposals the Commission also proposed the creation of a programme for the most deprived people with an overall allocation of EUR 2.5 billion. The Commission presented in January 2013 to Portugal its position on the use of structural funds in 2014-2020. The ESF should concentrate on the fight against unemployment, in particular among the young, along with improving the quality of education and training and the integration of people at risk of poverty and socially excluded.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011502/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Estagnação económica na Alemanha

O Bundesbank, banco central alemão, divulgou as suas previsões de evolução do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) da economia alemã, apontando para um crescimento de 0,7 % este ano e ainda menor, de 0,4 %, para o próximo ano.

As previsões anteriores do Bundesbank apontavam para 1 % em 2012 e 1,6 % em 2013.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Considera que previsões tão dececionantes, num país que se tem revelado um verdadeiro «motor» europeu, possam traduzir um dano colateral de políticas de austeridade implementadas noutros países, com reflexos negativos no mercado único?

Considera que tais previsões deveriam suscitar a possibilidade de se reponderarem os planos definidos para as economias europeias em maiores dificuldades num futuro próximo?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

A publicação de novos indicadores económicos e as atualizações de dados podem requerer uma revisão das previsões económicas. Em relação às previsões do Bundesbank publicadas em dezembro de 2012, é de observar que, na sua primeira estimativa do crescimento do PIB para 2012, publicada em janeiro de 2013, o instituto de estatísticas alemão indicava igualmente um valor de 0,7 %. Relativamente a 2013, no relatório económico anual publicado em janeiro de 2013, o Governo Federal alemão previu também um aumento do PIB de 0,4 %. A Comissão apresentará uma atualização das suas previsões económicas para os Estados‐Membros da UE em fevereiro de 2013. Esta atualização não terá apenas em conta as novas publicações de dados, mas atenderá também às relações económicas e comerciais entre o conjunto dos Estados‐Membros, incluindo as relações com a Alemanha, assim como ao impacto das medidas de política económica aplicadas em cada país.

A evolução económica na Alemanha afeta as economias de outros Estados-Membros e vice‐versa. Não obstante os fundamentos intactos, a economia alemã não escapa ao atual abrandamento da atividade económica mundial e às incertezas que pairam sobre área do euro. As perspetivas de crescimento de todos os Estados‐Membros dependem da capacidade de dar uma resposta decisiva à crise da dívida soberana e de demonstrar que o euro constitui uma moeda estável e forte, devendo os membros da área do euro dar provas da sua determinação e capacidade de aplicar políticas económicas sólidas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011502/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Economic stagnation in Germany

The Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, has published its forecasts for gross domestic product (GDP) trends in the German economy, suggesting growth of 0.7% this year and an even lower 0.4% next year.

The Bundesbank’s previous forecasts were for 1% in 2012 and 1.6% in 2013.

Does the Commission consider that such disappointing forecasts, in a country that has proven to be a real driving force for Europe, could cause collateral damage in the form of austerity policies implemented in other countries, having a detrimental effect on the single market?

Does the Commission consider that such forecasts should allow for the possibility in the near future of reweighting the plans drawn up for Europe's economies in greatest difficulty?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The release of new economic indicators or data revisions might entail a revision of an economic forecast. Concerning the forecast of the Bundesbank published in December 2012, the German Statistical Offices' first estimate of GDP growth for the year 2012 published in January 2013 has been 0.7% as well. For 2013 the German Federal Government also projects an increase in GDP by 0.4%, according to its annual economic report published in January 2013. The Commission will provide an update of its economic outlook for the Member States of the EU in February 2013. This update will not only factor in the assessment of new data releases, but also consider the economic and commercial relationship between all the Member States, including those with Germany, as well as the impact of policy measures in individual countries.

Economic developments in Germany affect the economies of other Member States and vice versa. Despite its intact fundamentals, the German economy does not escape the current slowdown of global economic activity and the prevailing uncertainty in the euro area. The growth prospects of all Member States depend on dealing decisively with the sovereign debt crisis and demonstrating that the Euro is a stable and strong currency whose members are determined and capable of implementing sound economic policies.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011503/12

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Agravamento da recessão em Portugal

Segundo o Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) português, a recessão da economia em Portugal tem vindo a acentuar-se, e a quebra do PIB no terceiro trimestre foi de 3,5 % face ao mesmo período do ano passado. Face ao segundo semestre, o PIB recuou 0,9 %.

Assim, pergunto à comissão:

Tem acompanhado esta evolução negativa da economia portuguesa?

Como a avalia, quando comparadas com previsões anteriores da Comissão?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(15 de fevereiro de 2013)

A Comissão tem acompanhado permanentemente a evolução da economia portuguesa no contexto das previsões dos serviços da Comissão e das revisões trimestrais realizadas no âmbito do programa de ajustamento económico para Portugal.

Embora os dados relativos ao último trimestre de 2012 não tenham ainda sido publicados, a evolução económica no passado ano parece ter estado em conformidade com as previsões estabelecidas pela Comissão na primavera de 2012. Isto é válido em particular para as exportações, que beneficiaram de melhorias na competitividade dos preços, mas abrandaram no segundo semestre após a deterioração da conjuntura externa, assim como para a procura interna, que, tal como projetado, estava enfraquecida devido aos efeitos da consolidação orçamental e das fragilidades do mercado de trabalho. Em consequência, foram apenas necessários pequenos ajustamentos nas perspetivas de crescimento das previsões de outono da Comissão. Estas projeções apontam para que a tendência negativa da economia portuguesa será interrompida no segundo semestre de 2013, com a recuperação a ganhar ritmo em 2014.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011503/12

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Worsening of the recession in Portugal

According to the Portuguese National Statistics Institute (INE), the economic recession in Portugal has been getting worse, and GDP fell by 3.5% more in the third quarter than in the same period last year. Comparing the second half of the year, GDP was down 0.9%.

Therefore:

Has the Commission kept abreast of this downward trend in the Portuguese economy?

What is the Commission’s assessment of it, comparing it with previous Commission forecasts?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

The Commission is continuously monitoring the Portuguese economy in the context of the Commission services' forecast exercises and the quarterly reviews carried out under the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal.

Although data for the final quarter of 2012 have not yet been published, economic developments in the past year appear to have been in line with the forecast produced by the Commission in spring 2012. This holds in particular for exports, which benefitted from improvements in price competitiveness but decelerated in the second semester following the deterioration of the external environment, as well as for domestic demand, which, as projected, was weak due to the effects of fiscal consolidation and the weak labour market. As a consequence, only minor adjustments to the growth outlook were necessary in the Commission's autumn forecast. The forecast projects that the downward trend of the Portuguese economy will come to a halt in the second half of 2013 with the recovery gathering pace in 2014.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011504/12

till kommissionen (Vice-ordföranden/Höga representanten)

Alf Svensson (PPE)

(17 december 2012)

Angående: VP/HR – EU:s politik gentemot Rwanda i relation till situationen i östra DRK

Situationen i östra Demokratiska Republiken Kongo är åter mycket allvarlig. Även om yttre påtryckningar, bland annat från EU, övertygade rebellstyrkan M23 att lämna Goma efter ett par veckors ockupation, behövs mycket större insatser från omvärlden. Vi i EU kan inte nöja oss med att hantera eller begränsa konflikten. Vi måste börja arbeta mer aktivt för att faktiskt bidra till att avsluta den.

Det är ju känt att de personliga relationerna mellan rebelledaren Bosco Ntaganda och Rwandas president Paul Kagame är tämligen djupa och går tillbaka till tiden då de tillsammans var aktiva i Rwandan Patriotic Front. Allmänt vedertaget är också att Rwandas inblandning i den nuvarande konflikten i DRK, i form av aktivt och passivt stöd till M23, bidrar till att förlänga och fördjupa den.

Mina frågor blir därför:

På vilket sätt har vice ordföranden för kommissionen/unionens höga representant agerat, eller ämnar agera, gentemot Paul Kagame för att markera EU:s stora missnöje med Rwandas inblandning i konflikten i östra DRK?

Vilka sanktioner kan bli aktuella från EU:s sida för att begränsa Rwandas möjligheter att fortsätta understödja konflikten i östra DRK?

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

(28 februari 2013)

EU anser fortfarande att säkerheten och den humanitära situationen i östra delen av Demokratiska republiken Kongo är oroande. Unionen är fast besluten att bidra till hållbara lösningar av den rådande krisen och dess regionala konsekvenser.

I sina slutsatser av den 18 september, 19 november och 10 december fördömde rådet (utrikes frågor) M23-rebellerna och allt externt stöd till upproret.

EU har klargjort sin ståndpunkt och sina förväntningar för Rwanda och Demokratiska republiken Kongo. Den höga representanten/vice ordförande Catherine Ashton har utfärdat flera uttalanden om situationen i östra Kongo och sammanträdde med president Kagame och president Kabila i samband med FN:s generalförsamling i New York i september 2012.

EU har beslutat att skjuta upp alla nya beslut om ytterligare budgetstöd till Rwanda tills man får en försäkran från Rwanda om landets roll och konstruktiva engagemang i sökandet efter lösningar i östra delen av Demokratiska republiken Kongo.

Under tiden stödjer EU de insatser som görs av FN, Afrikanska unionen och den internationella konferensen om regionen vid de stora sjöarna för att främja en varaktig fred. EU välkomnar också FN:s generalsekreterares ansträngningar för att få fram ett ramavtal, som fastställer de övergripande mål som ska uppnås på nationell och regional nivå.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011504/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Alf Svensson (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — EU policy towards Rwanda in relation to the situation in eastern DRC

The situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo is once again very serious. Even though external pressure, including from the EU, persuaded the rebel M23 force to leave Goma after a few weeks of occupation, much greater effort is required from the outside world. We in the EU cannot be content just to manage or limit the conflict. We have to start working more actively to effectively resolve it.

It is common knowledge that the personal relationship between the rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda and Rwandan President Paul Kagame is fairly deep and goes back to the time when they were active together in the Rwandan Patriotic Front. It is also widely recognised that Rwanda’s involvement in the current conflict in the DRC, in the form of active and passive support to M23, is a contributory factor in extending and deepening this conflict.

1.

What action has the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union taken, or does she intend to take, against Paul Kagame to express the EU’s strong displeasure with Rwanda’s involvement in the conflict in eastern DRC?

2.

What sanctions can be considered by the EU to limit Rwanda’s ability to continue to support the conflict in eastern DRC?

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

(28 February 2013)

The EU remains concerned about the security and humanitarian situation in eastern Congo and is firmly committed to contribute to sustainable solutions for the Eastern DRC crisis and its regional implications.

In its conclusions of the 18 September, 19 November and the 10 December, the Foreign Affaires Council condemned the M23 sedition and any external support to the rebellion.

The EU has made clear its position and expectations to Rwanda and DRC. The High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission Ms. Ashton issued several statements on the situation in Eastern Congo and has held meetings with Presidents Kagame and Kabila in the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2012.

The EU decided to postpone all new decisions on additional budget support to Rwanda, while we seek reassurances from Rwanda about its role and its constructive engagement in the search of solutions in the eastern DRC.

In the meantime, the EU backs efforts of the UN, AU and the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) to promote a sustainable peace and welcome the efforts of the UNSG to conclude a ‘framework agreement’, defining global objectives to be met at national and regional level.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011506/12

an die Kommission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(17. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Sinkendes Lohnniveau im Zuge der Öffnung des Fernbusmarktes

Gewerkschaften befürchten in der Busbranche Lohndumping im großen Stil. Bereits jetzt werden nach Angaben des Vereins von deutschen Unternehmen ausländische Fahrer zum Lohnniveau ihrer Heimatländer auf innerdeutschen Strecken eingesetzt. Dies wird mit der Öffnung des Fernbusmarktes weiter zunehmen. Ein großer deutscher Busunternehmer hat bereits angekündigt, seine Busfahrer vom Arbeitsmarkt in Portugal zu holen.

Bei der Neufassung des Personenbeförderungsgesetzes, mit der der Fernbusmarkt geöffnet wurde, sind wichtige Aspekte wie Schutz von Lohn‐ und Sozialstandards für die Busfahrer einfach nicht berücksichtigt worden.

Ist sich die Kommission dieser Probleme im Zusammenhang mit der Öffnung des Fernbusmarktes bewusst?

Wie möchte die Kommission gegen das Lohndumping in der (Fern)Busbranche vorgehen, und welche konkreten Maßnahmen sind hierzu geplant?

Wie soll sichergestellt werden, dass sich diese Probleme nicht auf den Linienbusverkehr auswirken?

Wie möchte die Kommission eine Verbesserung des Schutzes von Lohn‐ und Sozialstandards für Busfahrer gewährleisten?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(26. Februar 2013)

Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass die Öffnung des Fernbusmarktes in Deutschland eine positive Entwicklung darstellt. Die Freizügigkeit der Arbeitnehmer berechtigt alle Bürger, sich ungehindert in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat zu begeben, um dort zu arbeiten und zu wohnen, und schützt sie davor, im Bereich der Beschäftigung, des Entgelts und anderer Arbeitsbedingungen gegenüber den Staatsangehörigen des betreffenden Mitgliedstaates diskriminiert zu werden.

In Abhängigkeit von der konkreten Situation können die Fahrer auch unter die Richtlinie 96/71/EG (60) fallen, nach der sie Anspruch auf einen Kernbestand an klar definierten Mindestarbeits‐ und ‐beschäftigungsbedingungen haben, die auch die Mindestlohnsätze des Mitgliedstaates, in dem sie arbeiten, umfassen. Die Kommission hat einen Vorschlag (61) für eine Durchsetzungsrichtlinie verabschiedet, damit die Durchführung, Anwendung und Durchsetzung der Richtlinie 96/71/EG durch die Mitgliedstaaten in der Praxis verbessert wird. Darüber hinaus gilt für Busfahrer die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 561/2006 (62) zur Harmonisierung der Sozialvorschriften im Straßenverkehr in Bezug auf die Lenk‐ und Ruhezeiten.

Die oben genannten Rechtsakte bilden ein umfassendes Regelwerk über den Schutz der Arbeitnehmer vor allem für Fälle, in denen sie ihr Heimatland zwecks Arbeitssuche verlassen. Die Kommission wird die ihr zur Kenntnis gebrachten einschlägigen Fälle genau verfolgen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Rechte der betroffenen Arbeitnehmer geschützt werden. Allerdings muss daran erinnert werden, dass die Höhe der Entlohnung eines Arbeitnehmers nicht in den Zuständigkeitsbereich der EU fällt.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011506/12

to the Commission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Falling wage levels in connection with opening up the inter-city coach market

Trade unions are concerned about the prospect of large-scale wage dumping in the bus and coach sector. According to the association, German companies are already using foreign drivers — paid at the wage levels of their home countries — on routes within Germany, and this is expected to increase further as the coach market is opened up. One major German bus company has already stated that it will get its drivers from the Portuguese labour market.

The revision of the Passenger Transport Act, which opened up the coach market, simply ignored key elements such as protecting drivers' pay and social standards.

Is the Commission aware of this issue with the opening up of the coach market?

How does the Commission intend to proceed against wage dumping in the bus and coach sector, and what specific actions are planned in this connection?

How can it be ensured that these problems do not affect local bus transport?

How does the Commission propose to ensure better protection for bus and coach drivers' pay and social standards?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

The Commission considers the opening up of the coach market in Germany as a positive development. The free movement of workers gives every citizen the right to move freely to another Member State to work and reside there for that purpose and protects them against discrimination as regards employment, remuneration and other working conditions in comparison to nationals of that Member State.

Depending on the actual situation of the drivers in question, they may also be subject to Directive 96/71/EC (63) according to which they are entitled to a core set (‘nucleus’) of clearly defined minimum terms and conditions of employment, which include the minimum rates of pay of the Member State where they are working. The Commission has adopted a proposal (64) for an Enforcement Directive in order to improve the way Directive 96/71/EC is implemented, applied and enforced in practice by the Member States. Moreover, coach drivers are covered by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (65), which harmonised the social legislation relating to road transport as regards driving times and rest periods.

The abovementioned acts provide a comprehensive set of rules on the protection of workers especially when moving from their home country in search of employment. The Commission will be closely following any such case brought to its attention in order to secure that the rights of the employees concerned are protected. However, it should be recalled that the actual remuneration of an employee does not fall under the competence of the EU.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011507/12

a la Comisión

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) y Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Programas de Desarrollo Rural: medidas transitorias para 2014

En el año 2014 se pondrá fin en toda Europa a un gran número de regímenes agroambientales financiados por contratos del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (FEADER). Hay muchos regímenes agroambientales «clásicos» que han venido aplicándose durante diez años o más. La mayoría de los beneficiarios de estos regímenes agroambientales «clásicos» se localizan en zonas remotas y elevadas y dependen fuertemente de los acuerdos agroambientales como fuente de ingresos a cambio de la prestación de beneficios públicos vitales. Aun si se acordara sin más dilación la nueva normativa de desarrollo rural, con casi total seguridad los nuevos programas no se aprobarían ni se pondrían en práctica antes del 1 de enero de 2014. En ausencia de un nuevo programa y de medidas de apoyo, estos agricultores no tendrán ningún esquema de apoyo rural alternativo que solicitar cuando se acaben los contratos existentes al final de 2014. Por lo tanto, existe el riesgo de que se pierda todo el avance que se ha logrado hasta el día de hoy en el ámbito medioambiental, lo que podría tener graves consecuencias para los espacios de la red Natura 2000 y para el resto de zonas rurales.

¿Qué medidas tomará la Comisión para asegurar la preservación de los logros medioambientales que se han conseguido gracias al anterior Programa de Desarrollo Rural, así como la salvaguarda de los ingresos de los agricultores?

Seguramente, la Comisión considera que es importante garantizar que ni los agricultores ni el propio medio ambiente sufran como consecuencia de que no se llegue a tiempo a un acuerdo sobre el presupuesto de la UE o sobre propuestas de política agrícola común para los próximos Programas de Desarrollo Rural, que deberían comenzar en 2014. ¿Es así?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión

(22 de febrero de 2013)

Es difícil en el momento actual prever si habrá o no algún retraso en la adopción del marco normativo de la política de desarrollo rural. La Comisión está haciendo todo lo posible para acelerar la adopción del Reglamento en la materia. Si, pese a ello, se produjera algún retraso, los programas de desarrollo rural correrían el riesgo de comenzar a aplicarse tardíamente. No obstante, como parte del debate más amplio con los Estados miembros sobre las propuestas de la PAC y sobre la forma de enlazar mejor los dos períodos de programación 2007-2013 y 2014-2020, se están estudiando en particular aquellas medidas relacionadas con la superficie que garantizan prácticas específicas respetuosas del medio ambiente o, en general, una buena gestión de la tierra.

Además, de acuerdo con el proyecto de Reglamento sobre disposiciones comunes (66), la subvencionabilidad de los gastos del próximo período de programación se iniciará el 1 de enero de 2014, o en la la fecha de presentación de los programas si esta fecha es anterior a aquella. Los Estados miembros pueden por tanto comenzar a aplicar sus programas de desarrollo rural —si están suficientemente estabilizados y bajo su propia responsabilidad— a partir del 1 de enero de 2014, y ello incluso aunque los programas no estén todavía aprobados. Tras su aprobación, será posible ya solicitar al Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (Feader) el reembolso de los gastos que hayan realizado los Estados miembros.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-011507/12

Komisi

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) a Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17. prosince 2012)

Předmět: Programy pro rozvoj venkova: přechodná opatření pro rok 2014

V roce 2014 skončí v Evropě velké množství programů v oblasti zemědělství a životního prostředí, které jsou financovány z prostředků na ně vyhrazených v rozpočtu Evropského zemědělského fondu pro rozvoj venkova (EZFRV). Mezi nimi je mnoho zavedených programů v oblasti zemědělství a životního prostředí, které se provádějí již 10 i více let. Mnozí příjemci těchto již zavedených programů se nacházejí v odlehlých hornatých oblastech a jsou silně závislí na agroenvironmentálních dohodách jakožto zdroji příjmů, které jsou jim poskytovány výměnou za klíčové přínosy veřejnosti. I kdyby byly nové předpisy o rozvoji venkova přijaty bez dalšího odkladu, je téměř jisté, že nové programy nebudou schváleny ani zavedeny do 1. ledna 2014. Nebude-li k dispozici nový program ani podpůrná opatření, zemědělcům nebude moci být nabídnut žádný náhradní program na podporu rozvoje venkova, který by se použil po ukončení jejich stávajících závazků v roce 2014. Vzniká tedy riziko, že dobrý stav životního prostředí, jejž bylo dosud dosaženo, může být ohrožen, což by případně mohlo mít vážné důsledky pro síť Natura 2000 i pro širší venkovské prostředí.

Jaká opatření přijme Komise, aby zajistila, že pokrok v oblasti životního prostředí dosažený v rámci předcházejících programů pro rozvoj venkova bude zachován a příjmy těchto zemědělců zaručeny?

Bezpochyby je důležité zajistit, aby ani zemědělci ani životní prostředí neutrpěli újmu v důsledku toho, že nebylo včas dosaženo shody jak v případě rozpočtu EU, tak při schvalování návrhů SZP tak, aby mohly být další programy pro rozvoj venkova zahájeny v roce 2014?

Odpověď pana Cioloşe jménem Komise

(22. února 2013)

V tuto chvíli je velmi těžké odhadovat případné zpoždění při přijímání právního rámce politiky pro rozvoj venkova. Komise vyvíjí maximální úsilí, aby se přijetí nařízení o rozvoji venkova urychlilo. Pokud by byl právní rámec přijat se zpožděním, hrozilo by, že i provádění programů rozvoje venkova začne opožděně. V rámci širších diskuzí s členskými státy o návrzích SZP a o nejvhodnějším způsobu překlenutí programových období 2007‐2013 a 2014‐2020 jsou brána v potaz zejména opatření týkající se oblastí, které zajišťují ekologicky šetrné postupy či obecně hospodaření s půdou.

Podle návrhu nařízení o společných ustanoveních bude pro příští programové období stanoven začátek způsobilosti výdajů buď ode dne předložení programu, nebo od 1. ledna 2014 – podle toho, co nastane dříve. Členské státy tedy budou moci začít na vlastní riziko provádět své programy rozvoje venkova od 1. ledna 2014, bude-li dostatečně zajištěna jejich stabilita, a to i když tyto programy ještě nebudou schváleny. Náklady vynaložené členskými státy bude Evropský zemědělský fond pro regionální rozvoj moci uhradit po schválení programů.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011507/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) και Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Προγράμματα ανάπτυξης της υπαίθρου: μεταβατικές ρυθμίσεις για το 2014

Σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη, ένας σημαντικός αριθμός γεωργοπεριβαλλοντικών προγραμμάτων χρηματοδοτούμενων από πιστώσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Γεωργικού Ταμείου Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΓΤΑΑ) θα φτάσει στο τέρμα του το 2014. Πολλά από αυτά είναι «καθιερωμένα» γεωργοπεριβαλλοντικά προγράμματα που εφαρμόζονται εδώ και δέκα χρόνια ή και περισσότερο. Πολλοί από τους δικαιούχους αυτών των «καθιερωμένων» προγραμμάτων είναι εγκατεστημένοι σε απομακρυσμένα υψίπεδα και εξαρτώνται σε μέγιστο βαθμό από γεωργοπεριβαλλοντικές συμφωνίες που αποτελούν για αυτούς πηγή εισοδήματος το οποίο λαμβάνουν σε αντάλλαγμα για την παροχή ζωτικών υπηρεσιών προς το γενικό συμφέρον. Ακόμη και αν ο νέος κανονισμός για την ανάπτυξη της υπαίθρου συμφωνηθεί χωρίς άλλη χρονοτριβή, είναι σχεδόν σίγουρο ότι τα νέα προγράμματα δεν πρόκειται να έχουν εγκριθεί εγκαίρως για να αρχίσουν να εφαρμόζονται από 1ης Ιανουαρίου 2014. Δεδομένης της απουσίας νέου προγράμματος και μέτρων στήριξης, οι γεωργοί αυτοί δεν θα έχουν κανένα εναλλακτικό πρόγραμμα ενίσχυσης του τομέα της ανάπτυξης της υπαίθρου στο οποίο να μπορούν να κάνουν αίτηση όταν λήξουν οι σημερινές υποχρεώσεις τους το 2014. Δημιουργείται συνεπώς ο κίνδυνος να χαθούν όσα περιβαλλοντικής φύσης πλεονεκτήματα έχουν επιτευχθεί μέχρι σήμερα, με ενδεχομένως σοβαρές συνέπειες για τις τοποθεσίες Natura 2000 και γενικά την ύπαιθρο.

Ποιες ρυθμίσεις προτίθεται να θεσπίσει η Επιτροπή προκειμένου να διασφαλίσει ότι δεν θα χαθούν τα περιβαλλοντικά οφέλη που έχουν επιτευχθεί μέσω των προηγούμενων προγραμμάτων ανάπτυξης της υπαίθρου και ότι δεν θα θιγεί το εισόδημα αυτών των γεωργών;

Συμφωνεί η Επιτροπή ότι έχει σημασία να εξασφαλιστεί ότι δεν θα θιγούν ούτε οι γεωργοί, ούτε το περιβάλλον εξαιτίας της αδυναμίας να εξευρεθεί εγκαίρως συμφωνία είτε επί του προϋπολογισμού είτε επί των προτάσεων της ΚΓΠ εν όψει των επόμενων προγραμμάτων για την ανάπτυξη της υπαίθρου που πρέπει να αρχίσουν το 2014;

Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(22 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Προς το παρόν, είναι δύσκολο να προβλεφθούν ενδεχόμενες καθυστερήσεις στη θέσπιση του νομικού πλαισίου για την πολιτική αγροτικής ανάπτυξης. Η Επιτροπή καταβάλλει κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια για την επιτάχυνση της έκδοσης του κανονισμού για την αγροτική ανάπτυξη. Ενδεχόμενες καθυστερήσεις θα μπορούσαν να έχουν ως συνέπεια την καθυστερημένη έναρξη της εφαρμογής των προγραμμάτων αγροτικής ανάπτυξης. Στο πλαίσιο των ευρύτερων συζητήσεων με τα κράτη μέλη σχετικά με τις προτάσεις της ΚΓΠ και τον καλύτερο τρόπο κάλυψης του κενού μεταξύ των δύο περιόδων προγραμματισμού, 2007-2013 και 2014-2020, εξετάζονται ειδικότερα τα μέτρα που συνδέονται με την έκταση τα οποία διασφαλίζουν συγκεκριμένες πρακτικές φιλικές προς το περιβάλλον ή, γενικότερα, καλύτερης διαχείρισης της γης.

Επιπλέον, σύμφωνα με το σχέδιο «κανονισμού περί καθορισμού κοινών διατάξεων» (67), η επιλεξιμότητα των δαπανών για την επόμενη περίοδο προγραμματισμού θα ξεκινήσει είτε από την ημερομηνία υποβολής του προγράμματος είτε από την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2014, αναλόγως του ποια ημερομηνία προηγείται. Επομένως, τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να αρχίσουν να εφαρμόζουν τα προγράμματά τους αγροτικής ανάπτυξης, εφόσον είναι επαρκώς σταθεροποιημένα και με δική τους ευθύνη, από την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2014, ακόμη κι αν τα προγράμματα αυτά δεν έχουν ακόμη εγκριθεί. Η επιστροφή των δαπανών που πραγματοποιούν τα κράτη μέλη από το Ευρωπαϊκό Γεωργικό Ταμείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης θα είναι εφικτή μόνο μετά την έγκριση των προγραμμάτων.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011507/12

do Komisji

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) oraz Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Programy rozwoju obszarów wiejskich: ustalenia przejściowe na 2014 r.

W całej Europie duża liczba programów agro-środowiskowych finansowanych ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Rolnego na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich (EFRROW) dobiegnie końca w 2014 r. Wśród nich wiele jest „typowych” programów agro-środowiskowych, które funkcjonowały przez 10 lub więcej lat. Wielu beneficjentów tych „typowych” programów zamieszkuje odległe, wysoko położone rejony i jest w ogromnym stopniu zależna od programów agro-środowiskowych jako źródła dochodu w zamian za dostawę ważnych z punktu widzenia społeczeństwa dóbr. Nawet jeśli nowe rozporządzenie dotyczące rozwoju obszarów wiejskich zostanie bez dalszej zwłoki uzgodnione, prawie pewne jest, że nowe programy nie zostaną zatwierdzone i uruchomione przed 1 stycznia 2014 r. Wobec braku nowego programu i środków wsparcia rolnicy nie będą mieli żadnego alternatywnego programu wsparcia rozwoju wiejskiego, do którego mogliby się zwrócić, jeśli ich istniejące zobowiązania wygasną w 2014 r. W związku z tym istnieje ryzyko, że to co udało się jak dotąd osiągnąć dla środowiska może zostać zaprzepaszczone, powodując potencjalnie poważne konsekwencje dla obszarów Natura 2000 i szerzej pojętego krajobrazu wiejskiego.

Jakie rozwiązania zamierza wprowadzić Komisja, aby zagwarantować, że korzyści uzyskane dla środowiska dzięki poprzednim programom rozwoju obszarów wiejskich zostaną zachowane a dochód tych rolników zabezpieczony?

Z pewnością istotne jest zagwarantowanie, aby ani rolnicy ani środowisko nie ucierpiały w rezultacie braku uzgodnień w sprawie budżetu UE lub wniosków w sprawie WPR w terminie, tak aby kolejne programy rozwoju obszarów wiejskich mogły się rozpocząć w 2014 r.?

Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Daciana Cioloșa w imieniu Komisji

(22 lutego 2013 r.)

Trudno jest obecnie przewidzieć ewentualne opóźnienia w przyjmowaniu nowych ram prawnych w zakresie polityki rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. Komisja dokłada wszelkich starań, aby przyspieszyć przyjęcie rozporządzenia w sprawie rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. Opóźnienia stworzyłyby zagrożenie późniejszego rozpoczęcia realizacji programów rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. Szczegółowe kwestie dotyczące środków odnoszących się do obszarów, na których stosuje się specyficzne, przyjazne dla środowiska praktyki lub sposób zarządzania gruntami, są na ogół poruszane w kontekście szerszych negocjacji z państwami członkowskimi na temat wniosków w sprawie WPR oraz tego, w jaki sposób najlepiej dokonać przejścia z jednego okresu programowania, tj. 2007‐2013, do drugiego, tj. 2014‐2020.

Ponadto zgodnie z projektem „rozporządzenia sprawie wspólnych przepisów” (68), kwalifikowalność wydatków w następnym okresie programowania będzie uwzględniana od wcześniejszego z terminów: albo od przedłożenia danego programu albo od dnia 1 stycznia 2014 r. W związku z tym, jeśli programy rozwoju obszarów wiejskich państw członkowskich będą wystarczająco dopracowane, państwa te mogą od dnia 1 stycznia 2014 r. rozpocząć ich realizację na własną odpowiedzialność, nawet jeżeli programy te nie będą jeszcze zatwierdzone. Zwrot wydatków poniesionych przez państwa członkowskie z Europejskiego Funduszu Rolnego na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich nastąpi po zatwierdzeniu przedmiotowych programów.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011507/12

till kommissionen

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) och Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17 december 2012)

Angående: Program för utveckling av landsbygden: övergångslösningar för 2014

Över hela Europa kommer ett stort antal miljöåtgärder inom jordbruket, finansierade genom Europeiska jordbruksfonden för landsbygdsutveckling (EJFLU), att löpa ut under 2014. Ett flertal ”klassiska” miljöåtgärder har funnits i tio år, eller mer. Många av dem som får stöd genom dessa ”klassiska” åtgärder är jordbrukare i avlägsna bergstrakter, som är kraftigt beroende av den inkomstkälla som dessa miljöåtgärder utgör, och som i gengäld uträttar ett arbete som är av stor allmän nytta. Även om den nya förordningen om landsbygdsutveckling skulle antas snabbt är det nästan helt säkert att de nya programmen inte kommer att vara godkända och i gång den 1 januari 2014. Utan ett nytt program och utan stödåtgärder kommer de berörda jordbrukarna inte att ha något alternativt system för landsbygdsutveckling där de kan söka stöd när deras nuvarande anslag försvinner 2014. Det finns följaktligen en risk att de goda miljöresultat som hittills uppnåtts går förlorade, med potentiellt allvarliga konsekvenser för Natura 2000‐områden och landsbygden i stort.

Vad kommer kommissionen att göra för att se till att de miljövinster som gjorts genom tidigare program för landsbygdens utveckling bibehålls och att de berörda jordbrukarnas inkomster skyddas?

Nog måste det anses viktigt att se till att varken jordbrukarna eller miljön drabbas negativt av att man eventuellt inte lyckas enas om antingen EU:s budget eller förslag angående den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken i tid för att nästa omgång program för landsbygdsutveckling ska kunna dra i gång 2014?

Samlat svar från Dacian Cioloș på kommissionens vägnar

(22 februari 2013)

Det är för närvarande svårt att förutse om den rättsliga ramen för landsbygdsutvecklingspolitiken kommer att antas med förseningar. Kommissionen gör sitt yttersta för att påskynda antagandet av regler om landsbygdsutveckling. Fördröjningar skulle innebära att genomförandet av programmen för landsbygdsutveckling riskerar att bli försenat. I synnerhet när det gäller åtgärder i områden med särskilda miljövänliga metoder eller miljövänlig markförvaltning i allmänhet sker överväganden vid mera omfattande diskussioner med medlemsstaterna om förslagen om den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken och om hur man får den bästa övergången mellan programperioderna 2007‐2013 och 2014‐2020.

Enligt förslaget till förordning om gemensamma bestämmelser kommer utgifternas stödberättigande för nästa programperiod att räknas antingen från det att programmet lämnas in eller från den 1 januari 2014, beroende på vilket som infaller först. Därför kan medlemsstaterna börja genomföra sina program för landsbygdsutveckling, om de är tillräckligt stabila och på egen risk, från och med den 1 januari 2014, även om programmen ännu inte godkänts. Europeiska jordbruksfonden för landsbygdsutveckling kommer att kunna återbetala medlemsstaternas utgifter efter det att programmen godkänts.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011507/12

to the Commission

Brian Simpson (S&D), Spyros Danellis (S&D), Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), Phil Prendergast (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) and Jens Nilsson (S&D)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Rural Development Programmes: transitional arrangements for 2014

Across Europe, a large number of agri-environment schemes, financed by European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) commitments, will be coming to an end in 2014. There are numerous ‘classic’ agri-environment schemes which have been in place for 10 years or more. Many of the beneficiaries of these ‘classic’ schemes are located in remote upland areas and are heavily dependent on agri-environment agreements as a source of income in return for the delivery of vital public benefits. Even if the new rural development regulation is agreed without further delay, it is almost certain that the new programmes will not be approved and in place by 1 January 2014. In the absence of a new programme and support measures, these farmers will have no alternative rural development support scheme to apply for when their existing commitments end in 2014. There is consequently a risk that the environmental good achieved to date may be lost, with potentially serious consequences for Natura 2000 sites and the wider countryside.

What arrangements will the Commission put in place to ensure that the environmental gains achieved by the previous Rural Development Programmes are maintained, and the income of these farmers safeguarded?

It is surely important to ensure that neither farmers nor the environment suffer as a result of a failure to agree either the EU budget or the CAP proposals in time for the next Rural Development Programmes to start in 2014?

Question for written answer E-011587/12

to the Commission

Diane Dodds (NI)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: CAP post-2013

If the Common Agriculture Policy post-2013 is not in place by 1 January 2014, what mechanism will be put in place to allow the continuation of Pillar 2 schemes? If these schemes are not extended, what impact will this policy gap have on farmers and rural dwellers?

Joint answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

At this moment in time, it is difficult to anticipate any possible delays in the adoption of the legal framework for the rural development policy. The Commission is doing its utmost to accelerate adoption of rural development regulation. Delays would create a risk of a late start of the implementation of rural development programmes. Considerations in particular regarding the measures related to areas which ensure specific environmentally friendly practices or land management in general are taking place in the context of broader discussions with the Member States about the CAP proposals and how to best bridge the two programming periods, 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.

Furthermore, according to the draft ‘Common Provisions Regulation’ (69), the eligibility of expenditure for the next programming period will start either from the submission of the programme or 1 January 2014, whichever is earlier. Therefore, Member States can start implementing their rural development programmes, if sufficiently stabilised and at their own risk, from 1 January 2014 onwards even if the programmes are not yet approved. Reimbursements of expenditure incurred by Member States by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development will be possible after the programmes are approved.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011508/12

to the Commission

Ashley Fox (ECR)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: The treatment of bears in Vietnam

I have recently been advised of the possible closure of the Animals Asia Vietnam Bear Rescue Centre in Chat Dau Valley in Tam Dao National Park, Vietnam, to make way for a commercial development project following the declaration of the land as an area of national defence significance. This is the only rescue centre in Vietnam dedicated solely to rescuing bears, and houses 104 rescued moon bears. Before their rescue, these bears had been kept in small cages and painfully drained of their bile for the bile trade. The closure of this centre would entail the eviction of the rescued bears. Given that these bears have undergone years of rehabilitation at the Rescue Centre, relocating them would submit them to renewed mental and physical suffering.

Animals Asia has been working with the Vietnamese Government to end the practice of bear bile farming in Vietnam since 2005. The EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement came into force this year, and negotiations have begun for an EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. In that regard, what steps will the Commission be taking to ensure that the rescued bears can continue to be rehabilitated at the Animals Asia Vietnam Bear Rescue Centre?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2013)

The conservation of, and trade in, bears is regulated at the international level through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and more particularly CITES Resolution 10.8, which specifically relates to those issues.

As to the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the EU Delegation in Hanoi co-signed together with other like-minded partners a joint letter to the Prime Minister expressing concern over the threatened closure of the Vietnam Bear Rescue Centre at Tam Dao National Park and stating that the closure of Vietnam’s first and only bear rescue centre was bound to call into question Vietnam’s commitment to ending bear farming and the broader commitment to protecting endangered wildlife. The letter was sent on 12 October 2012. Following this EU initiative the Prime Minister decided to override the previous decision by the Minister of Agriculture (to move the centre) and instead to let the Bear Centre stay and operate where it is.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011509/12

aan de Commissie

Jan Mulder (ALDE)

(17 december 2012)

Betreft: Biovergisters

De Nederlandse pers maakte onlangs gewag van de fraudegevoeligheid van sommige biovergisters door het gebruik van steeds meer gevaarlijk afval in deze vergisters. Als consequentie daarvan ontstaan er steeds meer risico's voor de menselijke gezondheid en voor het milieu, speciaal door bodemverontreiniging.

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van deze berichten en onderschrijft ze deze?

2.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van soortgelijke berichten uit andere EU lidstaten?

3.

Acht de Commissie het aan de hand van deze berichten nodig nadere wetgeving voor te stellen om de ongewenste consequenties van biogasopwekking tegen te gaan?

4.

Acht de Commissie de huidige wetgeving adequaat in verband met de door de jaren heen geuitte kritiek dat het digestaat wordt aangemerkt als dierlijke mest en niet als een heel ander product, wat het eigenlijk is?

Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie

(18 februari 2013)

De Commissie heeft geen weet van gevallen waarbij gevaarlijk afval wordt gebruikt in biogasinstallaties in Nederland of in andere lidstaten van de EU.

Artikel 18 van de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Afvalstoffen (70) (Richtlijn 2008/98/EG) verbiedt het mengen van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen met andere categorieën gevaarlijke afvalstoffen of andere afvalstoffen. Het gebruik van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen als grondstof in biogasinstallaties is daarom onwettig, tenzij aan alle voorwaarden van artikel 18, lid 2, van de richtlijn is voldaan d.w.z. dat de exploitant van de biogasinstallatie beschikt over een vergunning overeenkomstig artikel 23 van de richtlijn, het afvalbeheer geen gevaar vormt voor de menselijke gezondheid en het milieu, en de handeling in kwestie in overeenstemming is met de beste beschikbare technieken.

De Commissie acht aanvullende wetgeving op dit gebied niet noodzakelijk, aangezien het verbod op het mengen van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen door de bevoegde autoriteiten van de lidstaten moet worden afgedwongen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011509/12

to the Commission

Jan Mulder (ALDE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Biogas plants

Reports have recently appeared in the Dutch press concerning the susceptibility to fraud of some biogas plants due to the use of increasingly hazardous waste in them. As a result, more and more risks are arising to human health and the environment, particularly because of soil pollution.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these reports, and does it endorse them?

2.

Is the Commission aware of similar reports from other EU Member States?

3.

In the light of these reports, does the Commission consider it necessary to propose legislation with the aim of combating the undesirable effects of biogas production?

4.

Does the Commission consider the existing legislation to be adequate, in view of the criticism which has been expressed over the years that the digestate is classified as manure and not as a completely different product, which it is in reality?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

The Commission is not aware of cases of usage of hazardous waste in the biogas plants in Netherlands or in other EU Member States.

Article 18 of the EU Waste Framework Directive (71) (Directive 2008/98/EC) bans the mixing of hazardous waste with other categories of hazardous wastes and with other wastes. Therefore, the use of hazardous waste as an input material in biogas plants is illegal unless the cumulative conditions set out in Article 18.2 of the directive are met. That is, the biogas installation operator holds a permit in accordance with Article 23 of the directive; waste management is carried out without endangering human health and the environment; and the mixing operation conforms to best available techniques.

The Commission does not see a need for additional legislation in this area as the mixing ban should be enforced by the competent autorities of the Member States.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011510/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)

(17. december 2012)

Om: Norge og Det Forenede Kongeriges bidrag til EU-budgettet

I den polske udenrigsminister Radek Sikorskis tale på Blenheim Palace om Det Forenede Kongerige og Europa den 21. september 2012 udtalte ministeren, at »Norges nettobidrag til EU-budgettet i øjeblikket faktisk er højere, per indbygger, end Det Forenede Kongeriges.« Ministeren har udtalt det samme i The Economist.

En dansk EU-ekspert har fremført nøjagtig samme argument, og påstanden er kort tid efter blevet diskuteret i Danmarks Radio.

— Vil Kommissionen oplyse, om det er sandt, at Det Forenede Kongerige betaler et højere bidrag til EU per indbygger end Norge?

Vil Kommissionen desuden oplyse de nøjagtige tal for følgende:

Norges bruttobidrag til EU-budgettet.

Det Forenede Kongeriges bruttobidrag til EU-budgettet.

Norges samlede nettobidrag til EU-budgettet samt nettobidraget per indbygger.

Det Forenede Kongeriges samlede nettobidrag til EU-budgettet samt nettobidraget per indbygger.

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Lanusz Lewandowski

(20. februar 2013)

Kommissionen offentliggør ikke bidrag til EU pr. indbygger, hverken for medlemsstaterne eller EFTA-landene. Medlemsstaternes bidrag til EU-budgettet offentliggøres hvert år i finansoversigten. Den seneste version findes på:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/fin_report/fin_report_11_en.pdf

og der findes detaljerede data for hver medlemsstat for perioden 2000-2011 på:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm

De forhåndenværende oplysninger om Norges og Det Forenede Kongeriges bidrag til EU‐budgettet findes i bilaget.

Det synes dog irrelevant at sammenligne Det Forenede Kongeriges (eller enhver anden medlemsstats) bidrag til og modtagne midler fra EU-budgettet med Norge. Norge bidrager kun til visse specifikke programmer, som landet deltager i. Derfor er Norges direkte bidrag til EU-budgettet af en helt anden størrelsesorden end Det Forenede Kongeriges bidrag.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011510/12

to the Commission

Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Norwegian and UK contributions to the EU

In his Blenheim Palace speech on the UK and Europe of 21 September 2012, Mr Radek Sikorski, Foreign Minister of Poland, stated that ‘at the moment, Norway’s net contribution to the EU budget is actually higher, per capita, than Britain’s’. The same statement by the minister is quoted in The Economist.

Exactly the same argument has been presented by a Danish EU expert, but this claim was disputed shortly afterwards by the Danish public service radio station, Danmarks Radio (DR).

— Will the Commission please clarify whether it is true that the UK pays more per capita to the EU than Norway?

In addition, the Commission is asked to provide precise figures for the following:

Norway’s gross contribution to the EU;

the UK’s gross contribution to the EU;

Norway’s total net contribution to the EU and its net contribution per capita;

the UK’s total net contribution to the EU and its net contribution per capita.

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

The Commission does not publish any contributions per capita either for Member States or for EFTA countries. The contributions by the Member States to the EU budget are published every year in the financial report. The latest version of the financial report can be found under the following link:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/fin_report/fin_report_11_en.pdf

and detailed data per Member State for the period 2000-2011 at:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm

The available information on the United Kingdom's and Norway's total contributions to the EU budget is presented in the annex.

However, comparing contributions to and the receipts from the EU budget of the United Kingdom (or any other Member States) with Norway seems hardly relevant. Norway only contributes to a few specific programmes in which it participates. Consequently, its direct contribution to the EU budget is on a completely different scale compared to the United Kingdom's contribution.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-011511/12

a Bizottság számára

Gáll-Pelcz Ildikó (PPE)

(2012. december 17.)

Tárgy: Az európai autóipari válságról

Szedi áldozatait az autóipari krízis: az Opel és a Ford üzemeket zár be, a Suzuki kivonul az Egyesült Államokból, a Saab megszűnt létezni, a francia autóipar pedig évtizedek óta a legmélyebb válságba jutott. A Center of Automotive Management előrejelzése szerint a helyzet Európában 2013-ban csak tovább romolhat: „Az idén 11,8 millióra csökken az autóeladások száma Európában és jövőre is csak arra számíthatunk, hogy már sorban a hatodik éve csökken az autópiaci forgalom” – áll a tanulmányban. Európában legkevesebb öt vagy nyolc üzem válik feleslegessé, amelyek válságidőkben túlzott költségterhet rónak a gyártókra.

1.

Tud-e a Bizottság átfogó képet adni az Európai Unió autóiparának folyamatban lévő szerkezetátalakításáról?

2.

Tud-e a Bizottság tájékoztatást adni arról, hogy dolgoz-e ki az Unió erős autóiparának fenntartása érdekében új elgondolásokat és esetleg új szakpolitikát?

Antonio Tajani válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. február 13.)

Jelenleg az Európai Unió gépjárműiparában számos szerkezeti változás megy végbe, döntően a jelenlegi makrogazdasági körülmények hatására, amelyekből a legtöbb a strukturális túlkínálathoz köthető.

Ezen átalakulások átfogó vizsgálatához a képviselő úr figyelmébe ajánlom a CARS 21 magas szintű csoport végleges jelentését (72), amelyben részletes elemzés található az EU gépjárműiparának jelenlegi gazdasági helyzetéről.

Az új ágazati politikákat illetően a Bizottság nemrég fogadta el a „CARS 2020: Cselekvési terv a versenyképes és fenntartható európai gépjárműiparért” című közleményt (73), amely négy pilléren nyugszik, és amelynek célja az uniós gépjárműipar egészséges és versenyképes ipari bázisának védelme. E pillérek cselekvéseket tartalmaznak többek között a fejlett technológiákba történő beruházás és a tiszta üzemű gépjárművek irányába mutató innováció elősegítésére; a piaci viszonyok javítására; az ipar globális piacra jutásának támogatására; valamint a készségekbe és a képzésekbe való befektetés elősegítésére.

A CARS 2020 cselekvési terv negyedik pillére az alkalmazkodásra való felkészüléssel és a szerkezetátalakítás lebonyolításával foglalkozik. Hosszú távú cselekvéseket tartalmaz különösen annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy a gépjárműipari munkaerő lépést tartson a technológiai változásokkal.

A Bizottság jelenleg a bejelentett politikák végrehajtásán dolgozik. E folyamat nyomon követésére és az érintett felekkel való párbeszéd továbbfolytatására hamarosan külön „CARS 2020” elnevezésű szakpolitikai folyamat létesül.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011511/12

to the Commission

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: The crisis in the European car industry

The crisis in the car industry is producing victims: both the Opel and the Ford plants are being closed down, Suzuki is withdrawing from the USA, Saab has ceased to exist, and the French car industry is in the deepest crisis which has hit it for decades. According to a forecast by the Centre of Automotive Management, the situation in Europe is likely only to deteriorate further in 2013: ‘The number of car sales in Europe will fall to 11.8 million this year, and in future too, we can only expect activity on the car market to decline for the sixth year in succession’, to quote the study. In Europe, at least five or eight plants will become superfluous, which in times of crisis will impose an excessive financial burden on manufacturers.

1.

Can the Commission provide a comprehensive picture of the structural transformations which are taking place in the European Union’s car industry?

2.

Can the Commission indicate whether it is preparing new ideas and possibly a new sectoral policy with a view to preserving the Union’s strong car industry?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

There are a number of structural transformations taking place in the European Union's automotive industry, mainly as a result of the present macroeconomic conditions, most of which are related to structural overcapacity.

For a comprehensive examination of these transformations, the Honourable Member is referred to the Final Report (74) of the CARS 21 High Level Group, which includes a thorough analysis of the current economic situation of the EU automotive industry.

As regards new sectoral policies, the Commission has recently adopted the CARS 2020 Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe (75), which is articulated around four pillars, aiming to safeguard a healthy and competitive industrial base for the automotive industry in the European Union. These pillars include actions aimed at the promotion of investment in advanced technologies and innovation for clean vehicles; improving market conditions; supporting industry in accessing the global market; and promoting investment in skills and training.

For example, the fourth pillar of the CARS 2020 Action Plan deals with anticipating adaptation and managing restructuring. It contains actions with a long-term horizon, notably to ensure that the car industry's workforce keeps abreast of the technological changes.

The Commission is now working on the implementation of the policies announced. In order to monitor this process, and continue the dialogue with the stakeholders, a dedicated process called ‘CARS 2020’ will soon be established.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011512/12

do Komisji

Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)

(17 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Projekty anty-traffickingowe

Od czasu przyjęcia w 1997 r. wspólnego działania Rady dotyczącego zwalczania handlu ludźmi i seksualnego wykorzystywania dzieci zrealizowano wiele inicjatyw mających na celu przeciwdziałanie tym przestępstwom.

Aby móc ocenić dotychczasowe zaangażowanie Unii Europejskiej w tej materii, proszę Komisję o udostępnienie danych dotyczących dotacji, jakie zostały z w latach 1997-2012 przeznaczone na projekty anty-traffickingowe, w tym m.in. programy STOP, Daphne, Aegis, Tacis, Equal, programy rozwojowe i inne.

W zeszłym roku została przyjęta nowa dyrektywa 2011/36/UE w sprawie zapobiegania handlowi ludźmi i zwalczania tego procederu oraz ochrony ofiar. Czy Komisja posiada informacje, jak przedstawia się implementacja tej dyrektywy w poszczególnych krajach członkowskich i jakie ewentualne trudności przy tym występują?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Cecylię Malmström w imieniu Komisji

(8 lutego 2013 r.)

Komisja Europejska udzieliła wsparcia wielu projektom w dziedzinie handlu ludźmi, w ramach różnych unijnych instrumentów finansowych. Handel ludźmi jest priorytetem programu finansowego „Zapobieganie i walka z przestępczością” (ISEC) od czasu jego uruchomienia w 2007 r. Różne projekty dotyczące handlu ludźmi są też finansowane w ramach programu Dafne: „Środki przeciwdziałania przemocy wobec kobiet, młodzieży i dzieci”; program ogólny „Solidarność i zarządzanie przepływami migracyjnymi” (SOLID); instrumenty finansowe w zakresie współpracy z państwami trzecimi, w tym instrumenty tematyczne, takie jak program tematyczny „Migracja i azyl” oraz instrumenty geograficzne, takie jak instrument finansowania współpracy na rzecz rozwoju (DCI). Główne cele tych projektów to wsparcie i szkolenia w zakresie wdrażania przepisów zwalczających handel ludźmi, dochodzenia i ścigania takich przestępstw oraz wsparcie, ochrona i pomoc dla ofiar handlu ludźmi.

Unijna strona internetowa poświęcona zwalczaniu handlu ludźmi (76) zawiera kompletne informacje na temat projektów finansowanych w przeszłości. Zgodnie ze strategią UE na rzecz wyeliminowania handlu ludźmi (77) Komisja przeprowadzi kompleksowy przegląd tych projektów celem wzmocnienia przyszłych projektów i zapewnienia solidnych podstaw dla spójnych, opłacalnych i strategicznych inicjatyw w zakresie finansowania oraz polityki UE.

Państwa członkowskie powinny dokonać transpozycji dyrektywy w sprawie zwalczania handlu ludźmi (78) do dnia 6 kwietnia 2013 r. Po upływie tego terminu Komisja przedłoży Parlamentowi Europejskiemu i Radzie sprawozdanie oceniające, w jakim stopniu państwa członkowskie podjęły niezbędne działania w celu zapewnienia zgodności z dyrektywą.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011512/12

to the Commission

Joanna Senyszyn (S&D)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Anti-trafficking projects

Since the adoption in 1997 of a joint action by the Council on combating trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children, a large number of initiatives have been mounted with a view to addressing these forms of crime.

So as to be able to assess the EU’s current commitment in this area, could the Commission please provide information on the funding granted between 1997 and 2012 to anti-trafficking projects such as the STOP, Daphne, Aegis, Tacis and Equal programmes, as well as development programmes and others?

The year 2011 saw the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. Does the Commission have information on the state of play with regard to the implementation of the directive in the various Member States and on any difficulties that may have arisen in the process?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

The European Commission has supported numerous projects on trafficking in human beings under a number of EU financial instruments. Trafficking has been a priority of the financial programme ‘Prevention and fight against crime’ (ISEC) since its inception in 2007. Various projects on trafficking are also funded under the Daphne Programme: ‘Measures to combat violence against women, young persons and children’; the General Programme ‘Solidarity and management of migration flows’ (SOLID); financial instruments dealing with cooperation with third countries including thematic instruments such as the Thematic Programme ‘Migration and Asylum’ and geographic instruments such as the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI). The focus has been on support and training for the enactment of anti-trafficking legislation, investigation and prosecution, and on support, protection and assistance to victims of trafficking in human beings.

The EU Anti-Trafficking website (79) provides full information on projects that have been funded in the past. In line with the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings (80), the Commission will conduct a comprehensive review of these projects in order to strengthen future projects and provide a solid basis for coherent, cost effective and strategic EU policy and funding initiatives.

Member States should transpose the anti-trafficking directive (81) by 6 April 2013. The Commission will subsequently submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011513/12

adresată Comisiei

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(17 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Industria siderurgică

Industria siderurgică numără aproximativ 360 000 de lucrători și reprezintă un sector economic crucial al Uniunii Europene.

În contextul actual al politicii industriale a Uniunii Europene, este esențial din punct de vedere strategic să se prevină relocarea combinatelor și a producției siderurgice în afara Uniunii Europene și să se asigure securitatea forței de muncă, astfel încât și în contextul politicii de mediu a UE să se asigure faptul că echilibrul ecologic este consolidat.

În aceste condiții care este strategia Comisiei pentru a stimula creșterea economică, dar și ocuparea forței de muncă din industria siderurgică pe perioada actualei crizei economice și a asigura compatibilitatea cu sănătatea și siguranța cetățenilor de pe teritoriul Uniunii?

Răspuns dat de dl Tajani în numele Comisiei

(5 martie 2013)

Comisia împărtășește opinia distinsului membru în ceea ce privește importanța industriei siderurgice, a prevenirii relocalizării, garantării securității forței de muncă și îmbunătățirii echilibrului ecologic.

În iulie 2012, Comisia a convocat o masă rotundă la nivel înalt privind viitorul industriei siderurgice europene, care a reprezentat o platformă de dialog între membrii Comisiei, industrie și organizațiile sindicale. Parlamentul European a participat la lucrările celor două reuniuni din 2012 în care masa rotundă a realizat o evaluare a provocărilor cheie și a factorilor care afectează competitivitatea sectorului. A treia reuniune a avut loc la 12 februarie 2013 și, în cadrul ei, s-a adoptat un set final de recomandări strategice specifice pentru Comisie. Cele mai importante state membre producătoare de oțel au participat la acest exercițiu, în calitate de observatori, alături de reprezentanți ai Parlamentului European. Trebuie remarcat faptul că dialogul și proiectele de recomandări strategice abordează domenii de importanță pentru durabilitatea economică, socială și ecologică și includ chestiuni cum ar fi rolul cercetării, dezvoltării și inovării în ceea ce privește producția de oțel cu emisii scăzute de dioxid de carbon și eforturile care trebuie susținute în ceea ce privește competențele, resursele și eficiența energetică. Recomandările mesei rotunde la nivel înalt vor fi făcute publice după adoptarea lor de către grup.

Comisia intenționează să dea curs acestor recomandări până în iunie 2013, printr-un plan de acțiune pentru industria siderurgică din UE. Planul de acțiune va stabili o strategie de politică la nivelul UE cu scopul de a garanta că sunt implementate condițiile-cadru adecvate. Acesta va fi apoi transmis Parlamentului European și Consiliului pentru a adopta măsurile corespunzătoare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011513/12

to the Commission

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Steel industry

The steel industry provides around 360 000 jobs and is a crucial economic sector for the European Union.

In the context of the European Union's current industrial policy, it is strategically vital to prevent the relocation of steel plants and production outside the European Union and to ensure the security of the workforce, and in terms of EU environment policy, it is equally essential to ensure that the ecological balance is enhanced.

In this light, what is the Commission's strategy to boost growth and employment in the steel industry during the current economic crisis and ensure that it is compatible with the health and safety of all EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member with regards to the importance of the steel industry, of preventing relocation, ensuring the security of the workforce and enhancing the ecological balance.

In July 2012, the Commission convoked a High-level Roundtable on the future of the European Steel Industry as a platform for dialogue between the members of the Commission, industry and trade unions. The European Parliament participated in the work of the two meetings in 2012 during which the Roundtable carried out an assessment of key challenges and factors affecting the competitiveness of the sector. The third meeting took place on 12 February 2013 and adopted a final set of specific policy recommendations to the Commission. The most important steel producing Member States have participated in this exercise as observers alongside representatives of the European Parliament. It should be noted that the dialogue and draft policy recommendations touch on areas of importance for economic, social and environmental sustainability and deal with issues such as the role of R&D and innovation related to low-carbon steel production and the efforts that need to be carried out as far as skills, resource and energy efficiency. The recommendations of the High Level Roundtable will be made public upon adoption by Group.

The Commission plans to respond to these recommendations, by June 2013 through an Action Plan for the EU steel industry. The action plan will set up an EU-wide policy strategy aiming to ensure that the right framework conditions are in place. It will then be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council for the appropriate action.

(българска версия)

Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-011514/12

до Комисията

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) и Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 декември 2012 г.)

Относно: Информация относно мерки за справяне с младежката безработица

На 30 януари 2012 г., по време на неофициалната среща на високо равнище на Европейския съвет, Комисията сформира осем „екипа за действие“, които бяха изпратени в осемте държави от ЕС с най-високи равнища на младежка безработица (Италия, Испания, Гърция, Словакия, Литва, Португалия, Латвия и Ирландия), като обяви в същото време, че 82 милиарда евро неразпределени европейски средства трябва да се използват за инициативи във връзка с младежката безработица. На 23 май 2012 г. председателят Барозу представи първите резултати от работата на „екипите за действие“. Около 7,3 милиарда евро от предоставените европейски средства са били насочени чрез тази инициатива за ускорено изпълнение или преразпределение в полза на най-малко 460 000 младежи и 56 000 МСП.

Може ли Комисията да заяви:

дали е наличен актуален преглед на работата на „екипите за действие“ и на консултациите с другите седем държави с младежка безработица над средната стойност за ЕС (България, Кипър, Полша, Румъния, Унгария, Франция и Швеция),

дали е налична по-точна и скорошна информация относно финансираните проекти и относно проектите, които са в процес на одобрение, включително информация, която би се отнасяла до възможни промени в оперативните програми,

дали е направен анализ на добрите практики и дали е разработена дългосрочна стратегия за действие относно младежката безработица,

дали е била консултирана някоя младежка организация, както се изисква в съобщението на Комисията, в което се предлага инициатива „Възможности за младежта“, и в резолюцията на Парламента от 24 май 2012 г. относно възможностите за младежта, и ако това е станало, кога, тъй като изглежда, че никакво подобно действие не е било предприето до този момент,

какви мерки спомена председателят Барозу в речта си относно състоянието на Съюза, когато спомена, наред с другото, стартирането на „пакет за младежта“ за създаване на схема за гаранция за младежта и рамка за качество на професионалното обучение — и кога ще ги видим,

дали са налични резултатите от консултациите относно „рамката за качество за улесняване на професионалното обучение“,

как се развива инициативата „Възможности за младежта“ и какви мерки са взети?

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

(27 февруари 2013 г.)

На 5 декември 2012 г. беше приет Пакета за младежка заетост (82), обявен от председателя Барозу. В пакета Комисията представи своя анализ на стратегията и актуализирана информация за прилагането на инициативата „Възможности за младежта“ (83), на действията на равнището ЕС, както и информация за мерките, предприети от 28 страни — по-специално за осемте страни, набелязани през февруари 2012 г, относно мобилизиране на средства или промяна на програмите по фондовете на ЕС.

До този момент финансиране от ЕС в размер на около 16 млрд. EUR е насочено целево към ускорено усвояване или преразпределено чрез тази инициатива, като се очаква най-малко 780 000 млади хора и 55 000 МСП да се възползват от него (84). Това е свързано с промени в програмите, които вече са направени. Наскоро бяха представени ограничен брой допълнителни искания, най-вече от Испания и Италия, за промени в програмите, за които Комисията трябва да вземе решение.

Комисията се допита до заинтересованите страни, включително Европейския младежки форум. Държавите членки трябваше да организират консултации на национално равнище. Обширни консултации с младите хора по въпросите на младежката заетост бяха проведени в рамките на структурирания диалог между младите хора и лицата, определящи политиката през 2010‐2011 г., резултатите от който бяха включени в работата на Комисията в тази област (85).

Парламентът обсъди предложението за създаване на гаранция за младежта и през януари прие резолюция в негова подкрепа. Преговорите в Съвета по създаването на гаранция за младежта са започнали с оглед приемането на препоръката през февруари 2013 г.

Що се отнася до рамката за качество на стажовете, понастоящем Комисията проучва мненията на социалните партньори съгласно член 154 от ДФЕС. Отговорите от проведеното през април 2012 г. широко допитване са достъпни на интернет страницата на ГД „Трудова заетост“ (86).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011514/12

a la Comisión

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) y Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Solicitud de información sobre las medidas para combatir el desempleo juvenil

Durante una cumbre informal del Consejo Europeo, celebrada el 30 de enero de 2012, la Comisión creó ocho «equipos de acción» que fueron enviados a los ocho Estados miembros con las tasas de desempleo juvenil más elevadas: Italia, España, Grecia, Eslovaquia, Lituania, Portugal, Letonia e Irlanda. Asimismo, la Comisión informó de que 82 000 millones de euros de fondos europeos pendientes de asignación se destinarán a iniciativas para combatir el desempleo juvenil. El 23 de mayo, el Presidente Barroso presentó los primeros resultados de la labor de los «equipos de acción». Alrededor de 7 300 millones de euros de los fondos asignados se canalizaron a través de esta iniciativa para desbloquearse o reasignarse con mayor rapidez, en beneficio de al menos de 460 000 jóvenes desempleados y 56 000 pequeñas y medianas empresas.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión:

si hay disponible un informe actualizado sobre la labor llevada a cabo por los «equipos de acción» y las consultas realizadas con los otros siete Estados miembros con una tasa de desempleo juvenil que se encuentra por encima de la media comunitaria (Bulgaria, Chipre, Francia, Hungría, Polonia, Rumanía y Suecia);

si hay disponible información más precisa y reciente sobre los proyectos financiados por la UE y los que se encuentran en fase de aprobación, incluidos todos aquellos proyectos que pudieran ocasionar cambios en los programas operativos;

si se ha realizado un análisis de buenas prácticas, y si se ha desarrollado una estrategia de acción a largo plazo para potenciar el empleo juvenil;

si se ha consultado a alguna asociación juvenil, conforme a lo dispuesto en la Comunicación de la Comisión en la que se proponía una «Iniciativa de Oportunidades para la Juventud» y en la Resolución del Parlamento Europeo, de 24 de mayo de 2012, sobre la «Iniciativa de Oportunidades para la Juventud», y en caso afirmativo, cuándo, puesto que no parece que se haya adoptado aún ninguna medida al respecto;

cuáles son las medidas anunciadas por el Presidente Barroso durante su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión en el que mencionó, entre otras cosas, el lanzamiento de un «un paquete de iniciativas para la juventud» que establecería un sistema de garantías juveniles y un marco de calidad que facilitará la formación profesional, y cuándo se prevé su realización;

si los resultados de la consulta sobre un «marco de calidad que facilitará la formación profesional» están disponibles;

si puede proporcionar datos actualizados sobre el progreso de la «Iniciativa de Oportunidades para la Juventud» y qué medidas se han adoptado?

Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión

(27 de febrero de 2013)

El paquete de medidas para el empleo juvenil (87) anunciado por el Presidente Barroso fue adoptado el 5 de diciembre de  2012. En este conjunto de medidas, la Comisión presentó su análisis, su estrategia, una actualización de la aplicación de la «Iniciativa de Oportunidades para la Juventud» (88), algunas acciones a nivel de la UE y 28 fichas de países con información sobre la movilización o la reprogramación de fondos de la UE, destinados en particular a los ocho países individualizados en febrero de 2012.

A través de esta iniciativa se han destinado hasta el momento, para asignación acelerada o reasignación, unos 16 000 000 millones de euros, de los que probablemente se beneficiarán al menos unos 780 000 jóvenes y 55 000 PYME (89). Estas sumas corresponden a reprogramaciones que ya han tenido lugar; más recientemente se ha presentado un pequeño número de solicitudes de reprogramación, sobre todo de España e Italia, que está pendiente de decisión de la Comisión.

La Comisión ha celebrado consultas con las partes interesadas, incluido el Foro Europeo de la Juventud. Las consultas a nivel nacional quedaron a cargo de los Estados miembros. En 2010-2011 se celebraron asimismo amplias consultas sobre empleo juvenil con jóvenes en el marco del Diálogo Estructurado entre los jóvenes y los responsables de la política de juventud, consultas cuyos resultados pasaron a engrosar la base de los trabajos de la Comisión en este ámbito (90).

El Parlamento debatió la «Garantía juvenil» y en enero adoptó una resolución para respaldarla. Las negociaciones en el Consejo sobre la Garantía juvenil han dado comienzo y se pretende que la Recomendación sea adoptada en febrero de 2013.

Por lo que se refiere al Marco de calidad para los periodos de prácticas, la Comisión está recabando la opinión de los interlocutores sociales, como dispone el artículo 154 del TFUE. Pueden verse las respuestas a la consulta pública de abril de 2012 en las páginas web de la DG de Empleo (91).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011514/12

an die Kommission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) und Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Informationen zu Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit

Während der informellen Tagung des Europäischen Rates vom 30. Januar 2012 hat die Kommission acht „Aktionsgruppen“ eingerichtet, die in die Mitgliedstaaten mit einer hohen Jugendarbeitslosigkeit (Italien, Spanien, Griechenland, Slowakei, Litauen, Portugal, Lettland und Irland) entsandt wurden; sie kündigte hierbei an, dass bislang nicht zugewiesene EU-Mittel in Höhe von 82 Mrd. EUR für Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit verwandt werden sollen. Am 23. Mai 2012 legte Präsident Barroso die ersten von den „Aktionsgruppen“ erzielten Ergebnisse vor. Von den vorgesehenen EU-Mitteln wurden etwa 7,3 Mrd. EUR für eine beschleunigte Umsetzung zugunsten von mindestens 460 000 jungen Menschen und 56 000 KMU vorgesehen bzw. umgewidmet.

Die Kommission wird gebeten darzulegen,

— ob eine aktualisierte Bewertung der Tätigkeit der „Aktionsgruppen“ und der Konsultationen mit den anderen sieben Ländern, in denen die Jugendarbeitslosenrate über dem EU-Durchschnitt liegt (Bulgarien, Zypern, Frankreich, Ungarn, Polen, Rumänien und Schweden), verfügbar ist,

— ob genauere und aktuellere Informationen zu den geförderten Projekten und zu Projekten, die derzeit genehmigt werden (einschließlich Projekte, die mögliche Änderungen der operationellen Programme betreffen können), vorliegen,

— ob bewährte Verfahren analysiert wurden und ob eine langfristige Aktionsstrategie für die Beschäftigung junger Menschen formuliert worden ist,

— ob, wie in der Mitteilung der Kommission, in der „Chancen für junge Menschen“ vorgeschlagen werden, und in der Entschließung des Parlaments vom 24. Mai 2012 zu den Chancen junger Menschen gefordert, eine Jugendorganisation konsultiert wurde, und, soweit dies der Fall war, zu welchem Zeitpunkt, denn bislang wurden offenbar keine Maßnahmen ergriffen,

— auf welche Maßnahmen sich Präsident Barroso in seiner Rede zur Lage der Union bezogen hat, die unter anderem die Einführung eines „Jugendpakets“ vorsehen, um eine Garantieregelung für junge Menschen einzuführen und einen Qualitätsrahmen für die berufliche Bildung zu schaffen — und wann hiermit zu rechnen ist?

— ob die Ergebnisse der Konsultation zu dem Qualitätsrahmen für die berufliche Bildung vorliegen,

— welche Fortschritte bei der Initiative „Chancen für junge Menschen“ zu verzeichnen sind und welche Maßnahmen bereits ergriffen worden sind.

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(27. Februar 2013)

Das von Präsident Barroso angekündigte Beschäftigungspaket für junge Menschen (92) wurde am 5. Dezember 2012 genehmigt. In diesem Paket legte die Kommission ihre Analyse, ihre Strategie und eine Aktualisierung im Zusammenhang mit der Umsetzung der Initiative „Chancen für junge Menschen“ (93) vor; dargestellt werden ferner die auf EU-Ebene ergriffenen Maßnahmen sowie 28 länderspezifische Fact Sheets mit Informationen über die Mobilisierung und Umverteilung von EU-Mitteln insbesondere zugunsten der acht im Februar 2012 ausgewählten Länder.

Rund 16 Mrd. EUR aus EU-Mitteln wurden bisher für die beschleunigte Umsetzung oder die Neuzuweisung im Rahmen dieser Initiative eingesetzt, die mindestens 780 000 jungen Menschen und 55 000 KMU zugutekommen dürften (94). Die Mittel betreffen die bereits erfolgte Umverteilung. Kürzlich ging eine begrenzte Zahl weiterer Anträge auf Umverteilung insbesondere von Spanien und Italien ein, wozu die entsprechenden Kommissionsbeschlüsse noch ausstehen.

Die Kommission hat die Interessenträger an, u. a. das Europäische Jugendforum, konsultiert. Die Konsultationen auf nationaler Ebene waren Aufgabe der Mitgliedstaaten. Im Rahmen des strukturierten Dialogs zwischen jungen Menschen und Entscheidungsträgern fanden 2010-2011 ausführliche Konsultationen mit jungen Menschen statt, deren Ergebnisse in die Arbeit der Kommission in diesem Bereich eingeflossen sind (95).

Nach ausführlichen Erörterungen über eine Jugendgarantie verabschiedete das Europäische Parlament im Januar eine entsprechende befürwortende Entschließung. Inzwischen hat der Rat die Verhandlungen über die Jugendgarantie aufgenommen und wird im Februar 2013 eine Empfehlung hierzu annehmen.

Gemäß Artikel 154 AEUV holt die Kommission derzeit die Stellungnahmen der Sozialpartner zu dem in Aussicht genommenen Qualitätsrahmen für Praktika ein. Die Antworten im Verlauf der öffentlichen Konsultationen vom April 2012 sind auf der Website der GD Beschäftigung (96) zugänglich.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011514/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) και Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ενημέρωση όσον αφορά μέτρα για την αντιμετώπιση της ανεργίας των νέων

Στις 30 Ιανουαρίου 2012, κατά την άτυπη σύνοδο κορυφής του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου, η Επιτροπή συγκρότησε οκτώ «ομάδες δράσης», οι οποίες στάλθηκαν στις οκτώ χώρες της ΕΕ με τα υψηλότερα ποσοστά ανεργίας των νέων (Ιταλία, Ισπανία, Ελλάδα, Σλοβακία, Λιθουανία, Πορτογαλία, Λετονία και Ιρλανδία), ανακοινώνοντας παράλληλα ότι 82 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ αδιάθετων ευρωπαϊκών κονδυλίων επρόκειτο να δεσμευτούν σε πρωτοβουλίες για την ανεργία των νέων. Στις 23 Μαΐου 2012, ο Πρόεδρος Barroso παρουσίασε τα πρώτα αποτελέσματα του έργου των «ομάδων δράσης». Από τις αναληφθείσες πιστώσεις της ΕΕ, περίπου 7,3 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ διοχετεύθηκαν μέσω της πρωτοβουλίας αυτής για εσπευσμένη διάθεση ή ανακατανομή, προς όφελος τουλάχιστον 460 000 νέων και 56 000 ΜΜΕ.

Μπορεί να αναφέρει η Επιτροπή:

εάν διατίθεται επικαιροποιημένη επισκόπηση του έργου των «ομάδων δράσης» και των διαβουλεύσεων με τις υπόλοιπες επτά χώρες με ποσοστό ανεργίας των νέων πάνω από τον μέσο όρο της ΕΕ (Βουλγαρία, Κύπρος, Γαλλία, Ουγγαρία, Πολωνία, Ρουμανία και Σουηδία),

εάν διατίθενται πιο ακριβείς και πρόσφατες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα χρηματοδοτούμενα έργα και τα έργα που υπόκεινται σε διαδικασία έγκρισης, συμπεριλαμβανομένων πληροφοριών που ενδέχεται να αφορούν τυχόν μεταβολές των επιχειρησιακών προγραμμάτων,

εάν έχει πραγματοποιηθεί ανάλυση των ορθών πρακτικών και εάν έχει καταρτιστεί μακροπρόθεσμη στρατηγική δράσης για την ανεργία των νέων,

εάν έχει πραγματοποιηθεί διαβούλευση με κάποια οργάνωση νεολαίας, όπως είχε ζητηθεί στο πλαίσιο της ανακοίνωσης της Επιτροπής με την οποία προτεινόταν η πρωτοβουλία «Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους», και στο ψήφισμα του Κοινοβουλίου της 24ης Μαΐου 2012 σχετικά με τις ευκαιρίες για τους νέους, και, εάν ισχύει κάτι τέτοιο, πότε πραγματοποιήθηκε αυτή, καθώς δεν φαίνεται να έχουν αναληφθεί σχετικές πρωτοβουλίες μέχρι στιγμής,

σε ποια μέτρα αναφερόταν ο πρόεδρος Barroso στην ομιλία του για την κατάσταση της Ένωσης — όπου ανέφερε, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι θα παρουσιαστεί «δέσμη μέτρων για τη νεολαία» με σκοπό τη θέσπιση συστήματος παροχής εγγυήσεων για τη νεολαία και ποιοτικού πλαισίου για την επαγγελματική κατάρτιση — και πότε θα υλοποιηθούν τα μέτρα αυτά,

εάν είναι διαθέσιμα τα αποτελέσματα της διαβούλευσης σχετικά με το «ποιοτικό πλαίσιο που θα διευκολύνει την επαγγελματική κατάρτιση»,

ποια είναι η πρόοδος της πρωτοβουλίας «Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους» και ποια μέτρα έχουν ληφθεί;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(27 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Η δέσμη μέτρων για την απασχόληση των νέων (97) όπως ανακοινώθηκε από τον Πρόεδρο Barroso, εγκρίθηκε στις 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2012. Στην εν λόγω δέσμη μέτρων, η Επιτροπή παρουσίασε την ανάλυσή της, τη στρατηγική της και μια επικαιροποίηση σχετικά με την εφαρμογή της πρωτοβουλίας «Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους» (98), δράσεις σε επίπεδο ΕΕ, καθώς και 28 δελτία ανά χώρα με πληροφορίες σχετικά με την κινητοποίηση ή τον επαναπρογραμματισμό των ευρωπαϊκών κονδυλίων, ιδίως για τις οκτώ χώρες στις οποίες απευθυνόταν τον Φεβρουάριο του 2012.

Περίπου 16 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από τις χρηματοδοτήσεις της ΕΕ προορίζονται, μέχρι στιγμής, για ταχύτερη διανομή ή ανακατανομή, μέσω της εν λόγω πρωτοβουλίας, υπέρ 780 000 νέων και 55 000 ΜΜΕ τουλάχιστον (99). Το ποσό αυτό αφορά τον επαναπρογραμματισμό, ο οποίος έχει ήδη πραγματοποιηθεί, ενώ ένας περιορισμένος αριθμός περαιτέρω απαιτήσεων για επαναπρογραμματισμό υποβλήθηκε πρόσφατα, ειδικότερα από την Ισπανία και την Ιταλία, οι οποίες αναμένουν την απόφαση της Επιτροπής.

Η Επιτροπή πραγματοποίησε διαβουλεύσεις με τους ενδιαφερομένους, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του Ευρωπαϊκού φόρουμ για τη νεολαία. Οι διαβουλεύσεις σε εθνικό επίπεδο αφέθηκαν στα κράτη μέλη. Εκτενείς διαβουλεύσεις με νέους σχετικά με την απασχόληση των νέων διεξήχθησαν στο πλαίσιο του διαρθρωμένου διαλόγου, μεταξύ των νέων και των υπευθύνων για τη λήψη αποφάσεων το 2010-2011, τα αποτελέσματα των οποίων τροφοδότησαν το έργο της Επιτροπής σ’ αυτό το πεδίο (100).

Το Κοινοβούλιο συζήτησε την πρωτοβουλία «Ευρωπαϊκές εγγυήσεις για τους νέους» και ενέκρινε ψήφισμα, το οποίο θα υποστηρίξει τον Ιανουάριο. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις στο Συμβούλιο σχετικά με τις εν λόγω εγγυήσεις για τους νέους έχουν ξεκινήσει, με σκοπό την έγκριση της σύστασης τον Φεβρουάριο του 2013.

Όσον αφορά το πλαίσιο ποιότητας για τις περιόδους πρακτικής άσκησης, η Επιτροπή καλεί, επί του παρόντος, τους κοινωνικούς εταίρους να εκφράσουν τις απόψεις τους δυνάμει του άρθρου 154 της ΣΛΕΕ. Οι απαντήσεις στην ανοικτή διαβούλευση που πραγματοποιήθηκε τον Απρίλιο του 2012, είναι διαθέσιμες στην ιστοσελίδα της ΓΔ Απασχόλησης (101).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011514/12

à la Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) et Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 décembre 2012)

Objet: Demande d'information sur les mesures visant à combattre le chômage des jeunes

Lors du Conseil européen informel du 30 janvier 2012, la Commission a constitué huit «équipes d'action» qui ont été envoyées dans les huit États membres de l'Union dans lesquels le taux de chômage des jeunes est le plus élevé (Italie, Espagne, Grèce, Slovaquie, Lituanie, Portugal, Lettonie et Irlande). Elle a en outre annoncé, à cette occasion, que 82 milliards d'euros en provenance de fonds européens n'ayant pas encore été affectés seraient alloués afin d'appuyer des initiatives visant à lutter contre le chômage des jeunes. Le 23 mai 2012, le président Barroso a présenté les premiers résultats obtenus par ces «équipes d'action». Quelque 7,3 milliards d'euros de fonds de l'Union ont été, à la faveur de cette initiative, destinés à être dégagés plus rapidement ou réaffectés dans le but de bénéficier à au moins 460 000 jeunes et 56 000 PME.

La Commission pourrait-elle répondre aux questions suivantes:

Existe-t-il un bilan actualisé du travail accompli par les «équipes d'action» ainsi que desconsultations menées avec les sept autres pays dont le taux de chômage des jeunes estsupérieur à la moyenne de l'Union européenne (Bulgarie, Chypre, France, Hongrie,Pologne, Roumanie et Suède)?

Des données plus précises et récentes sont-elles disponibles sur les projets financés ou enen cours d'approbation, y compris tous les projets susceptibles de concerner d'éventuellesmodifications des programmes opérationnels?

Les bonnes pratiques ont-elles fait l'objet d'une analyse, et une stratégie d'action à longterme en faveur de l'emploi des jeunes a-t-elle été définie?

Une consultation a-t-elle eu lieu avec des organisations de jeunes, comme il était prévudans la communication de la Commission qui proposait une «initiative sur lesperspectives d'emploi des jeunes» de même que dans la résolution du Parlementeuropéen, du 24 mai 2012, sur les perspectives d'emploi des jeunes? Dans l'affirmative,quand a-t-elle été menée, dans la mesure où il semble qu'aucune action n'ait encore étéentreprise dans ce domaine?

À quelles mesures se référait le président Barroso dans son discours sur l'état de l'Union,lorsqu'il mentionnait, entre autres, le lancement d'un «paquet Jeunesse» instaurant undispositif de garantie pour la jeunesse et un cadre de qualité pour faciliter la formationprofessionnelle? Quand est-il prévu de mettre en œuvre ce train de mesures?

Les résultats de la consultation sur le cadre de qualité pour faciliter la formationprofessionnelle sont-ils disponibles?

Quels sont les progrès enregistrés au titre de l'«initiative sur les perspectives d'emploi desjeunes», et quelles mesures ont été adoptées dans ce cadre?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(27 février 2013)

Le «paquet Emploi jeunes» (102) annoncé par le président Barroso a été adopté le 5 décembre 2012. La Commission y a présenté son analyse, sa stratégie et un bilan actualisé de l'application de l'initiative sur les perspectives d'emploi des jeunes (103), les actions à mener à l'échelon de l'UE ainsi que 28 fiches-pays contenant des informations sur la mobilisation ou la reprogrammation des fonds de l'UE, en particulier pour les huit États membres visés en février 2012.

Environ 16 milliards d'euros de fonds de l'UE ont jusqu'ici fait l'objet d'une utilisation accélérée ou d'une réaffectation au titre de l'initiative sur les perspectives d'emplois des jeunes, et au moins 780 000 jeunes et 55 000 PME sont susceptibles d'en bénéficier (104). Ces chiffres concernent une reprogrammation qui a déjà eu lieu; un petit nombre de demandes supplémentaires de reprogrammation ont été récemment introduites, notamment par l'Espagne et l'Italie, et doivent encore faire l'objet d'une décision de la Commission.

La Commission a consulté les parties prenantes, y compris le Forum européen de la jeunesse. Les consultations à l'échelon national ont été laissées à la responsabilité des États membres. La jeunesse a été amplement consultée sur l'emploi des jeunes dans le cadre du dialogue structuré entre jeunes et responsables politiques en 2010 et 2011, et les résultats de cette consultation ont alimenté les travaux de la Commission dans ce domaine (105).

Le Parlement a débattu de la «Garantie pour la jeunesse» et a adopté une résolution la soutenant en janvier. Les négociations au sein du Conseil sur l'établissement de cette garantie ont commencé en vue de l'adoption d'une recommandation en février 2013.

En ce qui concerne le cadre de qualité pour les stages, la Commission recueille actuellement l'avis des partenaires sociaux conformément à l'article 154 du TFUE. Les réponses à la consultation publique, entamée en avril 2012, sont accessibles sur le site web de la DG Emploi (106).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011514/12

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) e Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Informazioni sulle misure per combattere la disoccupazione giovanile

Il 30 gennaio 2012, durante il vertice informale del Consiglio europeo, la Commissione ha istituito otto gruppi d'azione da inviare negli otto paesi dell'Unione europea con il più alto tasso di disoccupazione (Italia, Spagna, Grecia, Slovacchia, Lituania, Portogallo, Lettonia e Irlanda), annunciando inoltre l'impiego di 82 miliardi di euro di fondi europei non assegnati da destinare a iniziative per la disoccupazione giovanile. Il 23 maggio il Presidente Barroso ha presentato i primi risultati conseguiti dal gruppo d'azione. Circa 7,3 miliardi di euro dei suddetti fondi europei erano stati canalizzati attraverso questa iniziativa per essere stanziati o riassegnati più rapidamente a favore di almeno 460 000 giovani e 56 000 PMI.

Può la Commissione far sapere:

se è disponibile un'analisi aggiornata sull'attività dei gruppi d'azione e sulle consultazioni con gli altri sette paesi che presentano un tasso di disoccupazione sopra la media europea (Bulgaria, Cipro, Francia, Ungheria, Polonia, Romania e Svezia);

se sono disponibili informazioni più accurate e recenti sui progetti finanziati e su quelli in corso di approvazione, compresi quelli relativi a eventuali modifiche dei programmi operativi;

se è stata elaborata un'analisi delle buone pratiche e se è stata formulata una strategia d'azione a lungo termine per l'occupazione giovanile;

se ed eventualmente quando sono state consultate le organizzazioni giovanili, come richiesto nella Comunicazione della Commissione europea in cui è stata proposta l'iniziativa «Opportunità per i giovani» e nella risoluzione del Parlamento europeo del 24 maggio 2012 sulle opportunità per i giovani, poiché non risultano ad oggi azioni intraprese in tal senso;

quali saranno e quando verranno concretizzate le misure annunciate dal Presidente Barroso durante il discorso sullo Stato dell'Unione in cui si menzionava, tra le altre cose, il lancio di un «pacchetto gioventù» volto a creare un sistema di garanzia per i giovani e un quadro di qualità per facilitare la formazione professionale;

se sono disponibili i risultati della consultazione «quadro di qualità per facilitare la formazione professionale»;

qual è lo stato di avanzamento dell'iniziativa «Opportunità per i giovani» e quali misure sono state adottate?

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(27 febbraio 2013)

Il pacchetto per l'Occupazione giovanile (107) annunciato dal presidente Barroso è stato adottato il 5 dicembre 2012. In tale pacchetto la Commissione ha presentato la propria analisi, la propria strategia e un aggiornamento sull'attuazione dell'iniziativa Opportunità per i giovani (108), le azioni a livello di UE nonché 28 schede per paese contenenti informazioni sulla mobilitazione o riprogrammazione dei fondi UE, in particolare per gli otto paesi selezionati nel febbraio 2012.

Con questa iniziativa sono stati destinati a un'erogazione accelerata o a una riassegnazione circa 16 miliardi di euro di finanziamenti UE che dovrebbero andare a favore di almeno 780 000 giovani e di 55 000 PMI (109). Ciò è legato a una riprogrammazione che ha già avuto luogo, mentre di recente è stato presentato un numero limitato di ulteriori richieste di riprogrammazione, segnatamente da Spagna e Italia, che ora sono in attesa di decisione della Commissione.

La Commissione ha consultato gli stakeholder compreso il Forum europeo della gioventù. Le consultazioni a livello nazionale sono state affidate agli Stati membri. Nel 2010-2011 si sono svolte ampie consultazioni con i giovani in tema di occupazione giovanile nell'ambito del dialogo strutturato tra i giovani e i decisori politici, i cui risultati hanno alimentato i lavori della Commissione in questo ambito (110).

Il Parlamento ha dibattuto la Garanzia per i giovani e ha adottato a gennaio una risoluzione al suo appoggio. In seno al Consiglio sono iniziati i negoziati relativi alla Garanzia per i giovani ed è prevista l'adozione della raccomandazione nel febbraio 2013.

Per quanto concerne il Quadro di qualità per i tirocini, la Commissione sta raccogliendo i pareri delle parti sociali in forza dell'articolo 154 del TFUE. Le risposte alla consultazione aperta dell'aprile 2012 sono accessibili sul sito web della DG Occupazione (111).

(Latviešu valodas versija)

Jautājums, uz kuru jāatbild rakstiski, E-011514/12

Komisijai

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) un Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(2012. gada 17. decembris)

Temats: Informācija par pasākumiem jauniešu bezdarba problēmas risināšanai

Eiropadomes neoficiālā samita laikā 2012. gada 30. janvārī Komisija izveidoja astoņas darba grupas, kas tika nosūtītas uz astoņām ES valstīm, kurās ir augstākie jauniešu bezdarba rādītāji (Itālija, Spānija, Grieķija, Slovākija, Lietuva, Portugāle, Latvija un Īrija), vienlaikus paziņojot, ka jauniešu bezdarba novēršanas iniciatīvām no vēl neizmantotajiem Eiropas līdzekļiem būtu jāpiešķir EUR 82 miljardi. 2012. gada 23. maijā Komisijas priekšsēdētājs Ž. M. Barrozu iepazīstināja ar pirmajiem darba grupu rezultātiem. No piešķirtajiem ES līdzekļiem apmēram EUR 7,3 miljardi ir izmantoti ar šīs iniciatīvas starpniecību nolūkā vismaz 460 000 jauniešu un 56 000 MVU atvieglināt līdzekļu saņemšanu vai pārdalīšanu.

Ņemot to vērā, vai Komisija var precizēt:

vai ir pieejams atjaunināts pārskats par darba grupu paveikto un konsultācijām ar pārējām septiņām valstīm, kurās jauniešu bezdarba līmenis pārsniedz vidējo rādītāju ES (Bulgārija, Kipra, Francija, Ungārija, Polija, Rumānija un Zviedrija)?

vai ir pieejama precīzāka un jaunāka informācija par finansētajiem projektiem un par apstiprināšanā esošajiem projektiem, ietverot jebkādu informāciju, kas varētu attiekties uz iespējamajām darbības programmu izmaiņām?

vai ir analizēti labas prakses piemēri un vai ir izstrādāta ilgtermiņa rīcības stratēģija jauniešu bezdarba novēršanai?

vai ir notikusi apspriešanās ar kādu no jauniešu organizācijām, kā tas prasīts Komisijas paziņojumā, ar ko ierosina “Jaunatnes iespēju iniciatīvu”, un Parlamenta 2012. gada 24. maija rezolūcijā par iniciatīvu jauniešu nodarbinātības izredžu palielināšanai, un gadījumā, ja šāda apspriešanās ir notikusi, vai iespējams norādīt, kad tā ir notikusi, jo pagaidām nekas neliecina, ka šādi pasākumi ir notikuši?

uz kādiem pasākumiem Komisijas priekšsēdētājs Ž. M. Barrozu atsaucās savā runā par Savienības stāvokli, kad viņš cita starpā minēja, ka ir sākta jauniešiem paredzēta tiesību aktu kopuma īstenošana nolūkā radīt jauniešu garantijas shēmu un kvalitatīvu sistēmu arodapmācībai, un kad ar šiem pasākumiem varēs iepazīties?

vai ir pieejami rezultāti konsultācijām par kvalitatīvu sistēmu arodapmācības sekmēšanai?

kā norit “Jaunatnes iespēju iniciatīvas” īstenošana un kādi pasākumi ir veikti?

Atbildi Komisijas vārdā sniedza Lāslo Andors

(2013. gada 27. februāris)

Jauniešu nodarbinātības pasākumu kopums (112), ko izsludināja Komisijas priekšsēdētājs Ž. M. Barrozu, tika pieņemts 2012. gada 5. decembrī. Šajā kopumā Komisija iekļāva “Jaunatnes iespēju iniciatīvas” (113) ieviešanas analīzi, stratēģiju un jaunāko informāciju par šīs iniciatīvas ieviešanu, pasākumus ES līmenī, kā arī tādus pārskatus par 28 valstīm, kuros iekļauta informācija par ES fondu izmantošanu un pārplānošanu, jo īpaši attiecībā uz astoņām 2012. gada februārī izraudzītajām valstīm.

Līdz šim saistībā ar šo iniciatīvu aptuveni EUR 16 miljardi ES finansējuma ir paredzēti paātrinātai piešķiršanai vai pārdalei, un vismaz 780 000 jauniešu un 55 000 MVU varētu gūt labumu (114). Tas attiecas uz pārprogrammēšanu, kas jau ir notikusi; nesen ir iesniegts neliels skaits pārprogrammēšanas pieprasījumu (konkrēti Spānija un Itālija) un tiek gaidīts Komisijas lēmums.

Komisija apspriedās ar ieinteresētajām personām, arī ar Eiropas Jaunatnes forumu. Apspriešanās valsts līmenī bija dalībvalstu ziņā. Plašas apspriešanās ar jauniešiem par jauniešu nodarbinātību 2010.–2011. gadā noritēja strukturētā jauniešu un politikas veidotāju dialoga satvarā, kura rezultāti iekļauti Komisijas darbā šajā jomā (115).

Parlaments apsprieda Eiropas Jaunatnes iniciatīvu un janvārī pieņēma rezolūciju tās atbalstam. Pārrunas Padomē par Jaunatnes garantiju uzsāktas, lai 2013. gada februārī pieņemtu ieteikumu.

Attiecībā uz stažēšanās kvalitātes sistēmu Komisija saskaņā ar LESD 154. pantu pašlaik noskaidro sociālo partneru viedokli. Atbildes uz 2012. gada aprīļa atklāto apspriešanu ir pieejamas Nodarbinātības ģenerāldirektorāta vietnē (116).

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-011514/12

Komisijai

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) ir Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(2012 m. gruodžio 17 d.)

Tema: Informacija apie priemones, kuriomis siekiama sumažinti jaunimo nedarbą

2012 m. sausio 30 d. neoficialiame Europos Vadovų Tarybos susitikime Komisija įsteigė aštuonias veiksmų grupes, kurios buvo nusiųstos į aštuonias ES šalis, kuriose yra didžiausias jaunimo nedarbo lygis (Italija, Ispanija, Graikija, Slovakija, Lietuva, Portugalija, Latvija ir Airija), ir tuo pat metu paskelbė, kad 82 mlrd. eurų neasignuotųjų Europos lėšų įsipareigota iniciatyvoms, skirtoms jaunimo nedarbo klausimui spręsti, finansuoti. 2012 m. gegužės 23 d. pirmininkas J. M. Barroso pateikė pirmuosius veiksmų grupių darbo rezultatus. Šiai iniciatyvai įgyvendinti skirta maždaug 7,3 mlrd. eurų iš įsipareigotų ES lėšų, siekiant greičiau jas panaudoti arba perskirstyti, tikintis suteikti pagalbą ne mažiau kaip 460 000 jaunuolių ir 56 000 MVĮ.

Ar Komisija gali patvirtinti:

ar parengta nauja veiklos grupių atlikto darbo ir konsultacijų su kitomis septyniomis šalimis, kuriose jaunimo nedarbo lygis viršija ES vidurkį (Bulgarija, Kipras, Prancūzija, Vengrija, Lenkija, Rumunija ir Švedija), apžvalga?

ar yra tikslesnės ir naujesnės informacijos apie finansuojamus projektus ir pateiktus patvirtinti projektus, įskaitant visus projektus, kurie galėtų būti susiję su galimais veiklos programų pakeitimais?

ar išanalizuota pažangioji patirtis ir ar parengta ilgalaikė veiklos strategija jaunimo nedarbo srityje?

ar konsultuotasi su kokia nors jaunimo organizacija, kaip reikalaujama Europos Komisijos komunikate „Jaunimo galimybių iniciatyva“ ir Europos Parlamento 2012 m. gegužės 24 d. rezoliucijoje dėl jaunimo galimybių, ir jei konsultuotasi, kada, nes, regis, iki šiol tokių veiksmų nebuvo imtasi?

kokias priemones pirmininkas J. M. Barroso minėjo savo kalboje dėl Sąjungos padėties, kurioje, be kita ko, paminėjo pradedamą įgyvendinti „jaunimo paketą“, skirtą jaunimo garantijų schemai ir kokybiškai profesinio mokymo sistemai sukurti, ir kada tos priemonės bus pradėtos taikyti?

ar žinomi konsultavimosi, naudojantis kokybiška sistema, skirta profesiniam mokymui palengvinti, rezultatai?

kaip įgyvendinama „Jaunimo galimybių iniciatyva“ ir kokių priemonių imtasi

L. Andor atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. vasario 27 d.)

Komisijos Pirmininko J.-M. Barroso paminėtas Jaunimo užimtumo srities dokumentų rinkinys (117) buvo priimtas 2012 m. gruodžio 5 d. Tame rinkinyje Komisija pateikė analizę, strategiją ir „Jaunimo galimybių iniciatyvos“ (118) įgyvendinimo pažangą, nurodė ES lygmens veiksmus ir 28 valstybių suvestinę informaciją apie ES lėšų nukreipimą ir programų pakeitimą, ypač aštuoniose valstybėse, kurios buvo svarstomos 2012 m. vasario mėn.

Iki šiol maždaug 16 mlrd. eurų ES lėšų skirta tam, kad iniciatyvos rezultatai būtų pasiekti greičiau arba kad ją įgyvendinant lėšos būtų perskirstytos; tai galėtų būti naudinga mažiausiai 780 000 jaunuolių ir 55 000 mažųjų ir vidutinių įmonių (119). Tos lėšos susijusios su jau atliktais programų pakeitimais; neseniai Ispanija ir Italija pateikė dar keletą programų pakeitimo prašymų, ir Komisija juos dabar nagrinėja.

Komisija konsultavosi su suinteresuotosiomis šalimis, įskaitant Europos jaunimo forumą. Ar rengti nacionalines konsultacijas, sprendė valstybės narės. Išsamios konsultacijos su jaunimu dėl jaunimo užimtumo vyko 2010‐2011 m. jaunimo ir ES institucijų struktūrinio dialogo forma, ir į jų rezultatus Komisija atsižvelgė šios srities darbuose (120).

Parlamentas aptarė jaunimo garantijų iniciatyvą ir sausio mėn. priėmė jai palankią rezoliuciją. Derybos Taryboje dėl jaunimo garantijos prasidėjo tikintis 2013 m. vasario mėn. priimti rekomendaciją.

Dėl stažuočių kokybės sistemos Komisija šiuo metu renka socialinių partnerių nuomones pagal SESV 154 straipsnį. Su atsakymais į 2012 m. balandžio mėn. viešos konsultacijos klausimus galima susipažinti Komisijos Užimtumo generalinio direktorato (DG EMPL) svetainėje (121).

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-011514/12

a Bizottság számára

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Bagó Zoltán (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), Szájer József (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Járóka Lívia (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Bauer Edit (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), Surján László (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Gál Kinga (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Kósa Ádám (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Őry Csaba (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) és Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(2012. december 17.)

Tárgy: Információ a fiatalokat érintő munkanélküliség kezelését célzó intézkedésekről

2012.

január 30-án az Európai Tanács nem hivatalos ülésén a Bizottság nyolc

„akciócsoportot” hozott létre, amelyeket azokba az európai országokba küldött, ahol a legmagasabb a fiatal munkanélküliek aránya (Olaszország, Spanyolország, Görögország, Szlovákia, Litvánia, Portugália, Lettország és Írország), és egyidejűleg bejelentette, hogy 82 milliárd eurót, amely az európai alapokból még nem került kiosztásra, a fiatalokat érintő munkanélküliség leküzdését célzó kezdeményezésekre különít el. 2012. május 23-án Barroso elnök ismertette az akciócsoportok munkájának első eredményeit. Az elkülönített uniós forrásokból körülbelül 7,3 milliárd eurót juttattak el a gyorsított teljesítésre vagy újrafelosztásra vonatkozó e kezdeményezés révén legalább 460 000 fiatal és 56 000 kkv támogatására.

Meg tudja-e mondani a Bizottság, hogy

rendelkezésre áll-e az

„akciócsoportok” munkájának és a fiatalok uniós átlag feletti munkanélküliségi arányával rendelkező hét országgal (Bulgáriával, Ciprussal, Franciaországgal, Lengyelországgal, Magyarországgal, Romániával és Svédországgal) folytatott konzultációknak naprakész felülvizsgálata,

elérhető-e pontosabb és frissebb információ a támogatott projektekről és a jóváhagyásra váró projektekről, beleértve az operatív programok esetleges változásait érintő információkat is,

készült-e elemzés a bevált gyakorlatokról, illetve kialakítottak-e hosszú távú stratégiát a fiatalok munkanélküliségére vonatkozóan,

konzultáltak-e ifjúsági szervezetekkel, ahogyan azt a Bizottság

„Több lehetőséget a fiataloknak” kezdeményezést javasló közleménye és a Parlament 2012. május 24-i, a fiatalok lehetőségeiről szóló állásfoglalása kérte, és amennyiben igen, mikor, mivel eddig nem úgy tűnik, mintha sor került volna konzultációra,

milyen intézkedésekre utalt Barroso elnök az Unió helyzetéről szóló beszédében – amikor többek között említést tett egy ifjúsági intézkedéscsomag elindításáról, amelynek célja a szakképzés ifjúsági garanciarendszerének és minőségi keretrendszerének létrehozása –, és mikor lehetünk tanúi ezen intézkedések megvalósulásának,

rendelkezésre állnak-e a szakképzést megkönnyítő minőségi keretrendszerről szóló konzultáció eredményei,

hogyan halad a

„Több lehetőséget a fiataloknak” kezdeményezés és milyen intézkedéseket tettek eddig?

Andor László biztos válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. február 27.)

2012.

december 5-én elfogadásra került a Barroso elnök által bejelentett, fiatalok foglalkoztatására vonatkozó csomag

2012.

december 5-én elfogadásra került a Barroso elnök által bejelentett, fiatalok foglalkoztatására vonatkozó csomag

 (122) A csomag a Bizottság által készített elemzést és stratégiát, valamint a „Több lehetőséget a fiataloknak” kezdeményezés (123) végrehajtására vonatkozó naprakész információkat tartalmazza, bemutatja egyrészt az uniós szintű intézkedéseket, másrészt 28 ország, elsősorban a 2012 februárjában kijelölt nyolc ország helyzetét az uniós források mobilizálását, illetve átprogramozását tekintetbe véve.

Az említett kezdeményezés keretében eddig mintegy 16 milliárd euró összegű uniós forrást különítettek el soron kívüli kiosztás vagy átcsoportosítás céljára, amelyből valószínűsíthetően legalább 780 000 fiatal és 55 000 kkv részesül majd (124). Ezek az adatok a már végrehajtott átprogramozásra vonatkoznak, ezen kívül néhány további átprogramozási kérelem is érkezett nemrégiben, elsősorban Spanyolország és Olaszország részéről, amelyekről még nem született bizottsági döntés.

A Bizottság egyeztetett az érdekelt felekkel, többek között az Európai Ifjúsági Fórummal. A nemzeti szintű konzultációk a tagállamok hatáskörébe tartoztak. 2010‐2011 folyamán széles körű konzultációk folytak a fiatalokkal a foglalkoztatásukat érintő kérdésekről, a döntéshozók és a fiatalok strukturált párbeszéd keretében egyeztettek, ennek eredményeit pedig a Bizottság beépítette a témával kapcsolatos tevékenységébe (125).

Az ifjúsági garanciát a Parlament megvitatta, majd januárban állásfoglalást fogadott el annak támogatásáról. A Tanács szintén megkezdte az ifjúsági garanciával kapcsolatos tárgyalásokat, hogy az erről szóló ajánlást 2013 februárjában el lehessen fogadni.

A szakmai gyakorlatok minőségi keretrendszerével kapcsolatban a Bizottság jelenleg konzultál a szociális partnerekkel, az EUMSZ 154. cikkének megfelelően. A 2012. áprilisi nyilvános konzultáció során érkezett válaszok a Foglalkoztatási Főigazgatóság honlapján (126) érhetők el.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-011514/12

aan de Commissie

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) en Jean‐Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 december 2012)

Betreft: Informatie over maatregelen  ter bestrijding van de jeugdwerkloosheid

Op 30 januari 2012, tijdens de informele top van de Europese Raad, heeft de Commissie acht actieteams opgericht die zijn uitgezonden naar de acht EU-landen met de hoogste jeugdwerkloosheidscijfers (Italië, Spanje, Griekenland, Slowakije, Litouwen, Portugal, Letland en Ierland) en heeft zij tegelijk aangekondigd dat 82 miljard EUR aan niet-toegewezen Europese middelen beschikbaar zou worden gesteld voor initiatieven op het gebied van jeugdwerkloosheid. Op 23 mei 2012 heeft voorzitter Barroso de eerste resultaten van het werk van de actieteams gepresenteerd. Van de beschikbaar gestelde EU-middelen is ongeveer 7,3 miljard EUR door dit initiatief gesluisd met het oog op versnelde  terbeschikkingstelling of herbestemming, ten gunste van op zijn minst 460 000 jongeren en 56 000 kmo's.

Kan de Commissie meedelen:

of een geactualiseerde evaluatie van het werk van de actieteams en van het overleg met de zeven andere landen met een jeugdwerkloosheidscijfer boven het EU-gemiddelde (Bulgarije, Cyprus, Frankrijk, Hongarije, Polen, Roemenië en Zweden) beschikbaar is,

of preciezere en recentere informatie beschikbaar is over de gefinancierde projecten en de projecten in de goedkeuringsfase, inclusief eventuele projecten die betrekking kunnen hebben op mogelijke veranderingen in operationele programma's,

of een analyse is uitgevoerd van goede praktijken en of een strategie voor langetermijnactie op het gebied van jeugdwerkloosheid is geformuleerd,

of er jeugdorganisaties zijn geraadpleegd, overeenkomstig het verzoek in de mededeling van de Commissie betreffende het voorstel voor het initiatief „Kansen voor jongeren” en de resolutie van het Europees Parlement van 24 mei 2012 over dit initiatief, en, zo ja, wanneer, aangezien het er niet op lijkt dat al actie in deze zin is ondernomen,

welke maatregelen voorzitter Barroso bedoelde in zijn toespraak over de staat van de Unie, toen hij het onder andere had over de creatie een „jongerenpakket” met een jeugdgarantieregeling en een kwaliteitskader voor beroepsopleiding, en wanneer deze er zullen komen,

of de resultaten van de raadpleging over het „kwaliteitskader om het volgen van een beroepsopleiding te faciliteren” beschikbaar zijn,

hoe het met het initiatief „Kansen voor jongeren” is gesteld en welke maatregelen zijn genomen?

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(27 februari 2013)

Het door voorzitter Barroso aangekondigde jeugdwerkgelegenheidspakket (127) werd op 5 december 2012 goedgekeurd. In dit pakket presenteerde de Commissie haar beoordeling, haar strategie en een update betreffende de tenuitvoerlegging van het initiatief „Kansen voor jongeren” (128). Verder bevat het pakket activiteiten op EU-niveau en 28 landenfiches met informatie over de beschikbaarstelling of herprogrammering van EU-middelen, met name voor de acht in februari 2012 voor ondersteuning uitgekozen landen.

In het kader van dit initiatief is tot dusver overeengekomen om circa 16 miljard euro aan EU-financiering te herbestemmen of sneller beschikbaar te stellen, en ten minste 780 000 jongeren en 55 000 kmo's zullen hier waarschijnlijk van profiteren (129). Dit heeft betrekking op herprogrammeringen die reeds hebben plaatsgevonden; een beperkt aantal verdere aanvragen voor herprogrammeringen zijn recentelijk ingediend, met name door Spanje en Italië, en wachten momenteel op een besluit van de Commissie.

De Commissie heeft de belanghebbenden geraadpleegd, inclusief het Europees Jeugdforum. De raadplegingen op nationaal niveau werden overgelaten aan de lidstaten. Tijdens de gestructureerde dialoog tussen jongeren en beleidsmakers in 2010-2011 werden uitgebreide gesprekken gehouden met jongeren over jeugdwerkloosheid; de resultaten hiervan zijn gebruikt voor de werkzaamheden van de Commissie op dit gebied (130).

Het Parlement heeft de jeugdgarantie besproken en heeft in januari een resolutie aangenomen  ter ondersteuning ervan. Onderhandelingen in de Raad betreffende de jeugdgarantie zijn begonnen met het oog op de goedkeuring van de aanbeveling in februari 2013.

Met betrekking tot het Europees kwaliteitshandvest voor stages raadpleegt de Commissie de sociale partners momenteel krachtens artikel 154 VWEU. Antwoorden op de openbare raadpleging van april 2012 zijn toegankelijk op de website van DG Werkgelegenheid (131).

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011514/12

do Komisji

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) oraz Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Informacja na temat środków niezbędnych do rozwiązania problemu bezrobocia wśród młodzieży

Na nieformalnym szczycie Rady Europejskiej w dniu 30 stycznia 2012 r. Komisja utworzyła osiem „grup działania”, które miały zostać wysłane do ośmiu państw członkowskich o najwyższej stopie bezrobocia osób młodych (Włochy, Hiszpania, Grecja, Słowacja, Litwa, Portugalia, Łotwa i Irlandia) i jednocześnie ogłosiła, że nierozdzielne do tej pory środki z funduszy europejskich w wysokości 82 mld euro zostaną przeznaczone na wsparcie inicjatyw na rzecz walki z bezrobociem osób młodych. W dniu 23 maja 2012 r. przewodniczący Barroso przedstawił pierwsze wyniki prac „grup działania”. Z przyznanych funduszy UE około 7,3 mld EUR zostało przekazanych w ramach tej inicjatywy na przyspieszoną realizację lub realokację, z czego skorzystało co najmniej 460 000 młodych ludzi i 56 000 MŚP.

Czy Komisja może potwierdzić:

czy dostępny jest zaktualizowany przegląd prac „grup działania” i konsultacji z pozostałymi siedmioma państwami o stopie bezrobocia osób młodych przekraczającej średnią UE (Bułgaria, Cypr, Francja, Węgry, Polska, Rumunia i Szwecja),

czy dostępne są bardziej precyzyjne i bardziej aktualne informacje na temat finansowanych projektów i projektów będących w trakcie procedury zatwierdzania, w tym projektów, które mogłyby być związane z ewentualnymi zamianami w programach operacyjnych,

czy przeprowadzono analizę dobrych praktyk i czy określono strategię długoterminowych działań na rzecz zatrudnienia młodych,

czy przeprowadzono konsultacje z jakąkolwiek organizacją młodzieżową, jak postulowano w komunikacie Komisji proponującym inicjatywę „Szanse dla młodzieży” i w rezolucji Parlamentu z dnia 24 maja 2012 r. w sprawie szans dla młodzieży, a jeżeli tak, kiedy to miało miejsce, bo nie wydaje się, żeby takie działania zostały dotąd podjęte,

jakie działania miał na myśli przewodniczący Barroso, kiedy w swoim orędziu o stanie Unii mówił, między innymi, o wprowadzeniu pakietu na rzecz młodzieży w celu stworzenia systemu gwarancji dla młodzieży i ram na rzecz zapewniania jakości w odniesieniu do szkolenia zawodowego, i kiedy je zobaczymy,

czy dostępne są wyniki konsultacji na temat ram na rzecz zapewniania jakości mających ułatwić szkolenie zawodowe,

jak przebiega realizacja inicjatywy „Szanse dla młodzieży” i jakie działania zostały podjęte?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji

(27 lutego 2013 r.)

W dniu 5 grudnia 2012 r. przyjęto zapowiedziany przez przewodniczącego José M. Barroso pakiet na rzecz zatrudnienia młodzieży (132). Komisja przedstawiła w tym pakiecie swoją analizę, strategię i aktualne informacje dotyczące wdrażania inicjatywy „Szanse dla młodzieży” (133), działań na poziomie UE oraz 28 kart dotyczących poszczególnych państw z informacjami na temat mobilizacji lub przeprogramowania unijnych funduszy, w szczególności ośmiu państw, na których skoncentrowano się w lutym 2012 r.

Około 16 mld EUR z unijnych środków przeznaczono na przyspieszoną realizację lub realokację za pomocą tej inicjatywy, z czego ma skorzystać co najmniej 780 tys. młodych ludzi i 55 tys. MŚP (134). Dane te dotyczą przeprogramowania już dokonanego; pewną niewielką liczbę wniosków o przeprogramowanie, które oczekują na decyzję Komisji, przedstawiły niedawno między innymi Hiszpania i Włochy.

Komisja przeprowadziła konsultacje z zainteresowanymi stronami, w tym także z Europejskim Forum Młodzieży. Konsultacje na poziomie krajowym pozostawały w gestii państw członkowskich. W ramach usystematyzowanego dialogu młodych ludzi z decydentami w latach 2010-2011 odbyły się zakrojone na szeroką skalę konsultacje z młodymi ludźmi poświęcone kwestii zatrudnienia młodzieży, których wyniki uwzględniono w pracach Komisji w tej dziedzinie (135).

Parlament Europejski omówił proponowaną gwarancję dla młodzieży i w styczniu br. przyjął rezolucję popierającą ją. Rada rozpoczęła negocjacje na temat gwarancji dla młodzieży, a przyjęcie zalecenia planowane jest na luty 2013 r.

Co się tyczy kwestii ram jakości dla staży, Komisja zbiera obecnie opinie partnerów społecznych zgodnie z art. 154 TFUE. Na stronie internetowej DG ds. Zatrudnienia (136) można zapoznać się z odpowiedziami nadesłanymi w ramach otwartych konsultacji z kwietnia 2012 r.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011514/12

à Comissão

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) e Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 de dezembro de 2012)

Assunto: Informações sobre as medidas de combate ao desemprego entre os jovens

Em 30 de janeiro de 2012, durante a cimeira informal do Conselho Europeu, a Comissão criou oito «equipas operacionais», que foram enviadas para os oito países da UE com as mais elevadas taxas de desemprego entre os jovens (Itália, Espanha, Grécia, Eslováquia, Lituânia, Portugal, Letónia e Irlanda), anunciando, ao mesmo tempo, que iriam ser atribuídos 82 mil milhões de euros provenientes de fundos europeus não atribuídos a iniciativas de fomento de emprego para os jovens. Em 23 de maio de 2012, o Presidente Barroso apresentou os primeiros resultados do trabalho dessas «equipas operacionais». Dos fundos comunitários atribuídos, cerca de 7,3 mil milhões de euros haviam já sido canalizados a título desta iniciativa para distribuição ou reafetação aceleradas, beneficiando, pelo menos, 460 000 jovens e 56 000 PME.

Poderá a Comissão revelar:

se está disponível uma versão atualizada, quer do trabalho das «equipas operacionais», quer das consultas mantidas com os outros sete países com uma taxa de desemprego jovem superior à média da UE (Bulgária, Chipre, França, Hungria, Polónia, Roménia e Suécia);

se estão disponíveis informações mais precisas e recentes sobre projetos já financiados e sobre projetos a aguardar aprovação, inclusive sobre matérias que poderiam dizer respeito a eventuais alterações aos programas operacionais;

se já foi levada a cabo uma análise sobre práticas de excelência e se já foi elaborada uma estratégia de ação a longo prazo para o emprego jovem;

se alguma organização juvenil foi consultada, como se solicitou na Comunicação da Comissão que propôs uma «Iniciativa Oportunidades para a Juventude» e na resolução do Parlamento Europeu, de 24 de maio de 2012, sobre o mesmo tema (e, em caso afirmativo, em que datas), na medida em que não parece que uma tal ação tenha sido até agora empreendida;

a que medidas se referia o Presidente Barroso no seu discurso sobre o Estado da União — quando mencionou, entre outras coisas, o lançamento de um «pacote para a juventude» destinado a instituir um sistema de garantia jovem e uma estrutura de qualidade para a formação profissional — e quando é que elas verão a luz do dia;

se os resultados da consulta sobre a «estrutura de qualidade para facilitar a formação profissional» já se encontram disponíveis;

o modo como a «Iniciativa Oportunidades para a Juventude» tem vindo a progredir e quais as medidas que já foram tomadas.

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

O pacote relativo ao emprego dos jovens (137) anunciado pelo Presidente Barroso foi adotado em 5 de dezembro de 2012. Neste pacote, a Comissão apresentou a sua análise, a sua estratégia e uma atualização relativa à implementação da iniciativa Oportunidades para a Juventude (138), ações a nível da UE e ainda 28 fichas por país com informações sobre a mobilização ou reprogramação de fundos da UE, em particular, os oito países em causa em fevereiro de 2012.

Até agora, foram canalizados cerca de 16 mil milhões de euros do financiamento da UE para distribuição acelerada ou reafetação a título desta iniciativa que beneficia pelo menos 780 000 jovens e 55 000 PME  (139). Estes números estão relacionados com a reprogramação que já ocorreu, mas ainda existe um número limitado de pedidos de reprogramação enviados recentemente, nomeadamente pela Espanha e pela Itália, e que aguardam pela decisão da Comissão.

A Comissão consultou as partes interessadas, incluindo o Fórum Europeu da Juventude. Os Estados-Membros ficaram encarregues das consultas a nível nacional. Os jovens foram amplamente consultados sobre o emprego jovem no quadro de um diálogo estruturado entre os jovens e os responsáveis políticos, em 2010 e 2011. Os resultados desta consulta foram introduzidos no trabalho que a Comissão desenvolve neste domínio (140).

O Parlamento debateu a Garantia Europeia da Juventude e aprovou, em janeiro, uma resolução que a apoia. As negociações no Conselho sobre a Garantia Europeia da Juventude já foram iniciadas com o objetivo de adotar a recomendação em fevereiro de 2013.

Quanto ao quadro de qualidade para os estágios, a Comissão está atualmente a recolher as opiniões dos parceiros sociais ao abrigo do artigo 154.° do TFUE. As respostas da consulta aberta de abril de 2012 estão disponíveis no sítio Web da DG Emprego (141).

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011514/12

adresată Comisiei

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) şi Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Informații privind măsurile ce vizează combaterea șomajului în rândul tinerilor

La 30 ianuarie 2012, cu ocazia reuniunii informale a Consiliului European, Comisia a înființat opt „echipe de acțiune” care au fost trimise în cele opt țări din UE unde se înregistrează cele mai ridicate rate ale șomajului în rândul tinerilor (Italia, Spania, Grecia, Slovacia, Lituania, Portugalia, Letonia și Irlanda) și a anunțat, în același timp, că 82 de miliarde de euro din fonduri europene nealocate urmează să fie angajate pentru inițiative destinate combaterii șomajului în rândul tinerilor. La 23 mai 2012, președintele Barroso a prezentat primele rezultate ale activității „echipelor de acțiune”. Din fondurile europene angajate, circa 7,3 miliarde de euro au fost canalizate prin intermediul acestei inițiative în scopul distribuirii accelerate sau realocării, în beneficiul a cel puțin 460 000 de tineri și 56 000 de IMM-uri.

Poate Comisia preciza:

dacă este disponibilă o actualizare revizuită a activității „echipelor de acțiune” și a consultărilor cu celelalte șapte țări unde se înregistrează o rată a șomajului în rândul tinerilor peste media UE (Bulgaria, Cipru, Franța, Ungaria, Polonia, România și Suedia);

dacă sunt disponibile informații mai precise și mai recente privind proiectele finanțate și privind proiectele în curs de aprobare, inclusiv informații care s-ar putea referi la posibile modificări ale programelor operaționale;

dacă s-a realizat o analiză a bunelor practici și dacă a fost formulată o strategie de acțiune pe termen lung care să vizeze șomajul în rândul tinerilor;

dacă a fost consultată vreo organizație de tineret, după cum se solicită în Comunicarea Comisiei prin care se propune „Inițiativa privind oportunitățile pentru tineri” și în Rezoluția Parlamentului din 24 mai 2012 privind oportunitățile pentru tineri și, în caz afirmativ, momentul la care această consultare a avut loc, deoarece nu pare că până în prezent a fost realizată o astfel de acțiune;

la ce măsuri s-a referit Președintele Barroso în discursul său privind starea Uniunii atunci când a menționat, printre altele, lansarea unui „pachet pentru tineri” pentru a înființa sistemul de garantare pentru tineri și cadrul de calitate pentru formarea profesională și momentul în care vom vedea aceste măsuri;

dacă sunt disponibile rezultatele consultării privind „cadrul de calitate pentru facilitarea formării profesionale”;

cum progresează „Inițiativa privind oportunitățile pentru tineri” și ce măsuri au fost luate?

Răspuns dat de dl Andoron în numele Comisiei

(27 februarie 2013)

Pachetul privind ocuparea forței de muncă în rândul tinerilor (142) anunțat de președintele Barroso, a fost adoptat la 5 decembrie 2012. În acest pachet, Comisia și-a prezentat analiza, strategia și o actualizare a implementării Inițiativei privind oportunitățile pentru tineri (143), acțiunile întreprinse la nivelul UE, precum și cele 28 fișe de țară cu informații referitoare la mobilizarea sau reprogramarea fondurilor UE, în special pentru cele opt țări vizate în februarie 2012.

Până în prezent, aproximativ 16 miliarde EUR din finanțarea UE au făcut obiectul distribuirii accelerate sau realocării prin această inițiativă, numărul potențialilor beneficiari fiind de 780 000 în rândul tinerilor și de 55 000 în rândul IMM-urilor (144). Acestea se referă la reprogramarea care a avut loc deja, un număr limitat de cereri suplimentare pentru reprogramare fiind prezentate recent, în special de către Spania și Italia și sunt în așteptarea deciziei Comisiei.

Comisia a consultat părțile interesate, inclusiv Forumul European al Tineretului. Consultările la nivel național au fost lăsate la latitudinea statelor membre. În perioada 2010-2011, între tineri și factorii decizionali au avut loc consultări ample în cadrul dialogului structurat pe tema ocupării forței de muncă tinere, ale căror rezultate au fost incluse în activitatea Comisiei în acest domeniu (145).

Parlamentul a dezbătut Garanția pentru tineret și a adoptat o rezoluție în favoarea acesteia în ianuarie. De asemenea, au început negocierile în cadrul Consiliului cu privire la Garanția pentru tineret, în vederea adoptării Recomandării în februarie 2013.

În ceea ce privește cadrul de calitate pentru stagii, Comisia consultă, în prezent, punctele de vedere ale partenerilor sociali, în conformitate cu articolul 154 din TFUE. Răspunsurile la consultarea publică din aprilie 2012 sunt disponibile pe site-ul internet al DG Ocuparea forței de muncă (146).

(Slovenské znenie)

Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-011514/12

Komisii

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) a Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17. decembra 2012)

Vec: Informácie o opatreniach na boj proti nezamestnanosti

Dňa 30. januára 2012, počas neformálneho samitu Európskej rady, Komisia zostavila osem akčných tímov, ktoré vyslala do ôsmich krajín EÚ s najvyššou mierou nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí (Taliansko, Španielsko, Grécko, Slovensko, Litva, Portugalsko, Lotyšsko a Írsko), a zároveň oznámila, že 82 miliárd EUR z nepridelených európskych fondov sa vyčlenení na iniciatívy v oblasti nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí. Dňa 23. mája 2012 predseda Barroso predložil prvé výsledky práce akčných tímov. Z poskytnutých fondov EÚ bolo na túto iniciatívu vyčlenených približne 7,3 miliárd EUR, aby urýchlili poskytovanie a prerozdeľovanie a priniesli úžitok aspoň 460 000 mladým ľuďom a 56 000 MSP.

Môže Komisia uviesť,

— či je k dispozícii aktualizovaný prehľad práce akčných tímov a konzultácií s ďalšími siedmimi krajinami, v ktorých je miera nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí vyššia ako priemer EÚ (Bulharsko, Cyprus, Francúzsko, Maďarsko, Poľsko, Rumunsko, Švédsko),

— či sú k dispozícii presnejšie a aktuálnejšie informácie o financovaných projektoch a o projektoch, ktoré čakajú na schválenie, vrátane všetkých, ktoré sa môžu týkať možných zmien v operačných programoch$

— či sa osvedčené postupy analyzovali a či sa pre zamestnanosť mladých ľudí vytvorila dlhodobá akčná stratégia$

— či bola nejaká mládežnícka organizácia požiadaná o vyjadrenie, ako o to žiadala Komisia v oznámení, kde navrhovala iniciatívu Príležitosti pre mladých, a ako to uviedol Parlament v uznesení z 24. mája 2012 o príležitostiach pre mladých ľudí, a ak bola, tak kedy, pretože sa zdá, že zatiaľ sa nič také neudialo$

— o akých opatreniach hovoril predseda Barroso v prejave o stave Únie, keď okrem iného spomenul zavedenie balíka opatrení pre mladých, ktorý pomôže vytvoriť systém záruk pre mladých ľudí a rámec zabezpečenia kvality odbornej prípravy, a kedy budú zavedené$

— či sú k dispozícii výsledky konzultácií o rámci zabezpečenia kvality odbornej prípravy$

— ako napreduje iniciatíva Príležitosti pre mladých a aké opatrenia sa prijali?

Odpoveď pána Andora v mene Komisie

(27. februára 2013)

Balík opatrení v oblasti zamestnanosti mladých (147), ktorý oznámil predseda Barroso, bol prijatý 5. decembra 2012. V tomto balíku Komisia predstavila svoju analýzu, stratégiu a aktuálny stav realizácie iniciatívy „Príležitosti pre mladých“ (148), opatrení na úrovni EÚ, ako aj 28 výkazov krajín, ktoré obsahujú informácie o využití alebo zmene plánovania finančných prostriedkov EÚ, najmä pre osem cieľových krajín vybraných vo februári 2012.

Doposiaľ bolo na urýchlené poskytovanie alebo prerozdeľovanie v rámci tejto iniciatívy vyčlenených približne 16 miliárd EUR z finančných prostriedkov EÚ, pričom je pravdepodobné, že z toho bude mať úžitok minimálne 780 000 mladých ľudí a 55 000 MSP (149). Týka sa to už realizovanej zmeny plánovania; nedávno bol predložený určitý obmedzený počet ďalších žiadostí o zmenu plánovania (najmä zo strany Španielska a Talianska), o ktorých rozhodne Komisia.

Komisia požiadala o vyjadrenie zainteresované strany vrátane Európskeho fóra mládeže. Konzultácie na národnej úrovni boli prenechané členským štátom. V rámci štruktúrovaného dialógu medzi mladými ľuďmi a tvorcami politík prebehli v rokoch 2010 – 2011 rozsiahle konzultácie s mladými ľuďmi o otázkach zamestnanosti mládeže, pričom ich výsledky Komisia zohľadňuje vo svojej práci v tejto oblasti (150).

Parlament prerokoval záruku pre mladých ľudí a prijal uznesenie na jej podporu v januári. Rada už začala o záruke pre mladých ľudí rokovať s cieľom prijať odporúčanie vo februári 2013.

Pokiaľ ide o rámec kvality pre stáže, Komisia v súčasnosti zisťuje názory sociálnych partnerov v zmysle článku 154 ZFEÚ. Odozvy na otvorenú konzultáciu z apríla 2012 sú k dispozícii na internetovej stránke GR pre zamestnanosť (151).

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-011514/12

za Komisijo

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) in Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17. december 2012)

Zadeva: Informacije o ukrepih za spoprijem z brezposelnostjo mladih

Komisija je na neuradnem vrhu Evropskega sveta 30. januarja 2012 ustanovila osem skupin za ukrepanje, ki so bile napotene v osem držav članic EU z najvišjimi stopnjami brezposelnosti mladih (Italija, Španija, Grčija, Slovaška, Litva, Portugalska, Latvija in Irska), ter hkrati napovedala, da se bo 82 milijard evrov še nedodeljenih sredstev iz evropskih skladov namenilo pobudam v zvezi z brezposelnostjo mladih. Predsednik Barroso je 23. maja 2012 predstavil prve rezultate dela skupin za ukrepanje. Približno 7,3 milijarde evrov navedenih sredstev EU je bilo usmerjenih prek te pobude, da bi bila hitreje dodeljena ali prerazporejena v korist najmanj 460 000 mladih in 56 000 malih in srednjih podjetij.

Ali lahko Komisija pove:

ali je na voljo posodobljen pregled dela skupin za ukrepanje in posvetovanj z drugimi sedmimi državami, v katerih so stopnje brezposelnosti nad povprečjem EU (Bolgarija, Ciper, Francija, Madžarska, Poljska, Romunija in Švedska);

ali so na voljo natančnejše in novejše informacije o financiranih projektih in projektih v postopku odobritve, vključno s tistimi, ki bi lahko zadevali morebitne spremembe operativnih programov;

ali je bila opravljena analiza zgledov dobre prakse in izdelana strategija dolgoročnega ukrepanja za zaposlenost mladih;

ali je bilo opravljeno posvetovanje s kakšno mladinsko organizacijo, kot je bilo zahtevano v sporočilu Komisije, v katerem je bila predlagana pobuda „Priložnosti za mlade“, in v resoluciji Parlamenta z dne 24. maja 2012 o priložnostih za mlade, in če je bilo, kdaj natančno, saj ne kaže, da bi bili doslej sprejeti kaki tovrstni ukrepi;

na katere ukrepe se je nanašal predsednik Barroso v govoru o poročilu o stanju v Uniji, ko je med drugim omenil uvedbo ukrepov „svežnja za mlade“ za uvedbo jamstva za mlade in okvira za kakovost poklicnega usposabljanja, ter kdaj jih bomo lahko videli;

ali so na voljo rezultati posvetovanj o okviru kakovosti za spodbujanje poklicnega usposabljanja in

kako napreduje pobuda „Priložnosti za mlade“ in kateri ukrepi so bili sprejeti?

Odgovor g. Andorja v imenu Komisije

(27. februar 2013)

Sveženj o zaposlovanju mladih (152), ki ga je napovedal predsednik Barroso, je bil sprejet 5. decembra 2012. Komisija je v tem svežnju predstavila svojo analizo, strategijo in najnovejše informacije o izvajanju pobude o priložnostih za mlade (153), ukrepe na ravni EU in 28 dosjejev za posamezne države z informacijami o sprostitvi ali spremenjenem načrtovanju porabe sredstev EU, zlasti za osem držav, določenih februarja 2012.

Doslej je bilo s to pobudo približno 16 milijard EUR sredstev EU namenjenih za pospešeno izvajanje ali prerazporeditev, od česar naj bi imelo korist najmanj 780 000 mladih in 55 000 MSP (154). Ti podatki se nanašajo na ponovno načrtovanje, ki je že bilo izvedeno, nedavno pa je bilo vloženo manjše število dodatnih zahtevkov za ponovno načrtovanje, zlasti Španije in Italije, ki še čakajo na odločitev Komisije.

Komisija se je posvetovala z zainteresiranimi stranmi, tudi z Evropskim mladinskim forumom. Posvetovanje na nacionalni ravni je bilo prepuščeno državam članicam. V letih 2010–2011 so potekala obsežna posvetovanja z mladimi o zaposlovanju mladih v okviru strukturiranega dialoga med mladimi in oblikovalci politike, rezultate teh posvetovanj pa je Komisija upoštevala pri svojem delu na tem področju (155).

Parlament je razpravljal o jamstvu za mlade in ga podprl z januarja sprejeto resolucijo. Pogajanja o jamstvu za mlade v Svetu so se začela, da bi se februarja 2013 sprejelo priporočilo.

Komisija trenutno na podlagi člena 154 PDEU zbira stališča socialnih partnerjev o okviru za kakovost pripravništev. Odgovori na odprto posvetovanje iz aprila 2012 so na voljo na spletišču GD za zaposlovanje (156).

(Suomenkielinen versio)

Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-011514/12

komissiolle

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) ja Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17. joulukuuta 2012)

Aihe: Tiedot toimista nuorisotyöttömyyden torjumiseksi

Eurooppa-neuvoston epävirallisessa huippukokouksessa 30. tammikuuta komissio perusti kahdeksan toimintaryhmää, jotka lähetettiin kahdeksaan nuorisotyöttömyydestä eniten kärsivään EU-maahan (Italia, Espanja, Kreikka, Slovakia, Liettua, Portugali, Latvia ja Irlanti). Samalla komissio ilmoitti, että 82 miljardia euroa unionin sitomattomia varoja osoitetaan nuorisotyöttömyyttä koskeviin aloitteisiin. Puheenjohtaja Barroso esitteli toimintaryhmien työn ensimmäiset tulokset 23. toukokuuta 2012. Unionin tähän aloitteiseen myöntämistä määrärahoista noin 7,3 miljardia kohdennettiin tavoitteiden saavuttamisen nopeuttamiseen tai jaettavaksi uudelleen niin, että ne hyödyttävät 460 000 nuorta ja 56 000 pk-yritystä.

Voiko komissio ilmoittaa

— onko saatavana päivitetty katsaus toimintaryhmien työstä ja keskusteluista niiden seitsemän maan kanssa, joiden nuorisotyöttömyys ylittää EU:n keskiarvon (Bulgaria, Kypros, Ranska, Unkari, Puola, Romania ja Ruotsi),

— onko saatavana täsmällisiä ja tuoreita tietoja rahoitetuista hankkeista ja hyväksyttävänä olevista hankkeista, mukaan luettuina hankkeet, jotka mahdollisesti koskevat toimintaohjelmiin mahdollisesti tehtäviä muutoksia,

— onko tehty analyysi hyvistä käytänteistä ja onko laadittu nuorisotyöttömyyttä koskeva pitkän aikavälin toimintastrategia,

— onko nuorisojärjestöjä kuultu, kuten pyydetään komission tiedonannossa, jossa ehdotetaan ”Mahdollisuuksia nuorille ‐aloitetta”, ja parlamentin 24. toukokuuta 2012 antamassa päätöslauselmassa mahdollisuuksista nuorisolle, ja jos on, milloin, sillä näyttää siltä, että tällaisia toimia ei ole vielä toteutettu,

— mitä toimia puheenjohtaja Barroso tarkoitti puheessaan unionin tilasta, kun hän mainitsi muun muassa nuorisopaketin käynnistämisen nuorisotakuujärjestelmän ja ammatillisen koulutuksen laatukehyksen luomiseksi, ja milloin näemme näiden toimien toteutuvan,

— ovatko tulokset ammatillisen koulutuksen edistämisen laatukehystä koskevista kuulemisista saatavina,

— miten Mahdollisuuksia nuorille ‐aloite etenee ja mitä toimia sen puitteissa on toteutettu?

László Andorin komission puolesta antama vastaus

(27. helmikuuta 2013)

Puheenjohtaja Barroson esittämä nuorisotyöttömyyspaketti (157) on hyväksytty 5. joulukuuta 2012. Paketissa komissio esittelee Mahdollisuuksia nuorille ‐aloitetta koskevan analyysin, strategian ja aloitteen täytäntöönpanoa koskevan ajantasaisen tilanteen (158), EU:n toimet sekä 28 maakohtaista katsausta, jotka sisältävät tietoa EU:n varojen käyttöönotosta ja uudelleenohjelmoinnista, erityisesti niiden kahdeksan maan osalta, joihin kohdistettiin kohdentamistoimia helmikuussa 2012.

Tähän mennessä aloitteessa on varattu noin 16 miljardia euroa EU:n varoja nopeaan kohdentamiseen tai uudelleenosoittamiseen, mistä ainakin 780 000 nuorta ja 55 000 pk-yritystä todennäköisesti hyötyy (159). Edellä tarkoitetut luvut liittyvät jo toteutettuun uudelleenohjelmointiin, ja lisäksi erityisesti Espanja ja Italia ovat äskettäin esittäneet joitakin uusia uudelleenohjelmointipyyntöjä, jotka odottavat komission päätöstä.

Komissio on kuullut sidosryhmiä, muun muassa Euroopan nuorisofoorumia. Kansallisen tason kuulemiset on jätetty jäsenvaltioiden vastuulle. Poliittisten päättäjien ja nuorten välisen jäsennellyn vuoropuhelun yhteydessä vuonna 2010‐2011 järjestettiin nuorisotyöllisyydestä laajat nuorten kuulemiset, joista saatuja tuloksia komissio on käyttänyt työssään (160).

Euroopan parlamentti on keskustellut nuorisotakuusta ja hyväksynyt sitä tukevan päätöslauselman tammikuussa. Nuorisotakuuta koskevat keskustelut on aloitettu neuvostossa, joka pyrkii hyväksymään sitä koskevan suosituksen helmikuussa 2013.

Harjoittelujaksojen laatukehyksen osalta komissio selvittää parhaillaan Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 154 artiklan mukaisesti työmarkkinaosapuolten mielipiteitä. Huhtikuussa 2012 järjestetyn avoimen kuulemistilaisuuden vastaukset ovat nähtävissä työllisyyden pääosaston verkkosivustolla (161).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011514/12

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE), Elena Băsescu (PPE), Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Nuno Melo (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Licia Ronzulli (PPE), Anna Záborská (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Sari Essayah (PPE), Mariya Gabriel (PPE), Burkhard Balz (PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Jan Kozłowski (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Zoltán Bagó (PPE), Jim Higgins (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Eduard Kukan (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE), Piotr Borys (PPE), Iva Zanicchi (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), József Szájer (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE), Anne Delvaux (PPE), Giovanni La Via (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), Georges Bach (PPE), Lívia Járóka (PPE), Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE), Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE), Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE), Philippe Boulland (PPE), Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), Mario Mauro (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Amalia Sartori (PPE), Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), Inese Vaidere (PPE), Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE), Edit Bauer (PPE), Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Marietta Giannakou (PPE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), László Surján (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE), Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Astrid Lulling (PPE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Peter Šťastný (PPE), Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), Véronique Mathieu (PPE), Milan Zver (PPE), Ádám Kósa (PPE), Rachida Dati (PPE), Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE), Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), Brice Hortefeux (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Paul Rübig (PPE), Csaba Őry (PPE), Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Michèle Striffler (PPE), Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), Pilar Ayuso (PPE), Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), Sophie Auconie (PPE), Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), Seán Kelly (PPE), Othmar Karas (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Diogo Feio (PPE), Gabriele Albertini (PPE), Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Andrey Kovatchev (PPE) and Jean-Marie Cavada (PPE)

(17 December 2012)

Subject: Information on measures to tackle youth unemployment

On 30 January 2012, during the informal summit of the European Council, the Commission set up eight ‘action teams’ that were sent to the eight EU countries with the highest rates of youth unemployment (Italy, Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Lithuania, Portugal, Latvia and Ireland), announcing, at the same time, that EUR 82 billion of unassigned European funds were to be committed to initiatives for youth unemployment. On 23 May 2012 President Barroso presented the first results of the work of the ‘action teams’. Of the EU funds committed, about EUR 7.3 billion had been channelled through this initiative for accelerated delivery or reallocation, to the benefit of at least 460 000 young people and 56 000 SMEs.

Can the Commission state

— whether an updated review of the work of the ‘action teams’, and of the consultations with the other seven countries with a youth unemployment rate above the EU average (Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden), is available,

— whether more precise and recent information is available on funded projects and on projects undergoing approval, including any that might concern possible changes to operational programmes,

— whether an analysis has been made of good practices, and whether a long-term action strategy for youth employment has been formulated,

— whether any youth organisation has been consulted, as requested in the Commission’s Communication proposing a ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’ and in Parliament’s resolution of 24 May 2012 on youth opportunities, and, if so, when, since it does not seem as if any such action has been taken so far,

— what measures President Barroso was referring to in his speech on the State of the Union — when he mentioned, among other things, the launch of a ‘youth package’ to create a youth guarantee scheme and a quality framework for vocational training — and when we will see them,

— whether the results of the ‘quality framework to facilitate vocational training’ consultation are available,

— how the ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’ is progressing and what measures have been taken?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Youth Employment Package (162) announced by President Barroso was adopted on 5 December 2012. In this package, the Commission presented its analysis, its strategy and an update on the implementation of the Youth Opportunity Initiative (163), EU-level actions as well as 28 country-fiches with information on mobilisation or reprogramming of EU funds, in particular for the eight countries targeted in February 2012.

About EUR 16 billion of EU financing has been targeted for accelerated delivery or reallocation through this initiative so far, with at least 780 000 young people and 55 000 SMEs likely to benefit (164). These relate to re-programming which has already taken place, a limited number of further requests for reprogramming have recently been submitted, notably by Spain and Italy and are awaiting Commission decision.

The Commission consulted the stakeholders including the European Youth Forum. Consultations at national level were left to Member States. Extensive consultations with young people on youth employment were held under the Structured Dialogue between young people and policy-makers in 2010-2011, the results of which fed into the Commission's work in this area (165).

The Parliament debated the Youth Guarantee and adopted a resolution supporting it in January. Negotiations in the Council on the Youth Guarantee have started with a view to the adoption of the recommendation in February 2013.

For the Quality Framework for Traineeships, the Commission is currently seeking the views of social partners under Article 154 TFEU. Replies to the April 2012 open consultation are accessible on DG Employment website (166).

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011515/12

to the Commission

Trevor Colman (NI)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Implementing rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements

Can the Commission advise me as to why, when Parliament insisted in 2006 that EU rules on flight time limitations (FTL) could only be set at a minimum level, allowing Member States to maintain or adopt stricter safety standards if they so wished, this will no longer be possible under the new EU rules?

The current ‘non-regression’ principle, enshrined in today’s legislation, has enabled several countries to strive for higher safety levels than prescribed by the EU. This will no longer be possible under the new EU rules. Countries will be forced to adopt the same regulations, even when they are weaker than those currently in place, as is the case in the UK.

Would the Commission share my opinion that the EU should enable Member States to supplement the EU-wide rules with ‘safety enhancements’ in those areas where there would otherwise be reductions in safety standards or where the Member State would like to see enhanced protection?

Failing this, the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 371 ‘The Avoidance of Fatigue In Aircrews’ should be used as a guideline for the proposed amending regulation.

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2013)

The Recital enshrined in today’s legislation (EU-OPS Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (167)) that enables Member States to apply more protective flight time limitations (FTL) is justified because the current rules are not based on a detailed assessment of scientific principles, national and international practices and given that some areas are left to Member States’ discretion.

Such detailed assessment has been performed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) when preparing its proposals for revised FTL rules. EASA also proposes to cover all areas of FTL by common rules or recommendations.

The Agency believes that the proposed rules would provide a robust, balanced and realistic basis for European operators, equivalent to most exigent (safest) EU national regimes. These views are shared by most Member States, including the UK.

The possibility to apply national stricter FTL rules deviating from provisions proposed by EASA would still be allowed, in line with prescribed procedures already existing in the framework of the EASA Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (168).

As it is the case today under EU-OPS, the revised FTL rules would be without prejudice to more protective social legislation, including stringent collective labour agreements.

The Commission is currently assessing the opinion released by EASA with a view to prepare a draft legislative measure to be adopted under the relevant comitilogy rules.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011516/12

an die Kommission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(18. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Sozialdumping durch Entsendung von Scheinselbstständigen aus Drittstaaten

Immer häufiger beschäftigen polnische Baufirmen Arbeiter aus Drittstaaten, vor allem aus der Ukraine, Weißrussland, Georgien, Moldawien und der Russischen Föderation. Durch die interne polnische Saisonarbeitsregelung dürfen die Staatsangehörigen dieser Länder ohne Arbeitsgenehmigung bis zu sechs Monate im Jahr in Polen arbeiten. Nach einem Monat Beschäftigung in Polen können sie zur Dienstleistungsausführung nach Deutschland entsandt werden. Sie werden fast ausschließlich aufgrund eines Auftragsvertrages beschäftigt, der derzeit in Polen eine weit verbreitete und beliebte Form der Umgehung von regulären Beschäftigungsverhältnissen bildet. Vom Auftragsverhältnis werden in Polen nur geringe oder keine Sozialversicherungsbeiträge abgeführt, und die Arbeitnehmer haben keinen arbeitsrechtlichen Schutz.

Der polnische Sozialversicherungsträger ZUS, der für die Ausstellung von A1‐Entsendebescheinigungen zuständig ist, vertritt eine erweiterte Auslegung des Begriffs „Beschäftigter“ in Artikel 12 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 883/2004, aufgrund welcher auch die Auftragnehmer als Arbeitnehmer im rechtlichen Sinne angesehen werden. Diese zweifelhafte Auslegung weicht nicht nur von polnischem Recht ab, sondern stellt auch einen Verstoß gegen die europäischen Vorgaben dar.

Infolgedessen werden die A1-Bescheinigungen über die Anwendung von polnischem Sozialrecht für die Auftragnehmer ausgestellt, für die keine Sozialversicherungsbeiträge abgeführt werden. Die Bescheinigung entfaltet absolute Bindewirkung und schließt die Anwendung des deutschen Sozialversicherungsrechts vollständig aus. So können polnische Arbeitgeber Arbeiter ohne Sozialversicherungskosten nach Deutschland entsenden, was die Benachteiligung der Beschäftigten und Wettbewerbsverzerrungen zur Folge hat.

1.

Ist sich die Kommission dieses Problems bewusst?

2.

Welche Maßnahmen möchte die Kommission ergreifen, um gegen diese Art von Lohndumping vorzugehen?

3.

Wie soll sichergestellt werden, dass die Entsendung von Scheinselbstständigen aus Drittstaaten unterbunden wird?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(25. Februar 2013)

1.

Der Kommission ist das von der Frau Abgeordneten beschriebene Problem nicht bekannt.

1.

Der Kommission ist das von der Frau Abgeordneten beschriebene Problem nicht bekannt.

2.

Für die von der Frau Abgeordneten beschriebene Situation ist in den Artikeln 5 und 6 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 987/2009

1.

Der Kommission ist das von der Frau Abgeordneten beschriebene Problem nicht bekannt.

2.

Für die von der Frau Abgeordneten beschriebene Situation ist in den Artikeln 5 und 6 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 987/2009

 (169) ein Vermittlungsverfahren für Fälle vorgesehen, in denen Mitgliedstaaten unterschiedliche Auffassungen vertreten, welches nationale Recht anzuwenden sei. Gemäß diesem Verfahren (170) kann der zuständige Träger in Deutschland den Träger, der die A1-Bescheinigung ausgestellt hat, kontaktieren. Er kann um die notwendige Klarstellung der Entscheidung ersuchen und gegebenenfalls verlangen, dass das fragliche Dokument widerrufen oder für ungültig erklärt, bzw. die Entscheidung überprüft oder annulliert wird.

Der ersuchte Träger ist verpflichtet, innerhalb einer festgelegten Frist zu antworten. Wenn die Träger — und in einer zweiten Stufe — die Behörden der betreffenden Mitgliedstaaten keine Einigung erzielen, kann die Angelegenheit der Verwaltungskommission für die Koordinierung der Systeme der sozialen Sicherheit (171) vorgelegt werden. Als letzten Schritt kann die Kommission ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen einen Mitgliedstaat einleiten, wenn dieser gegen EU-Recht verstößt. Jeder Mitgliedstaat und jede Einzelperson kann die Kommission darüber informieren, dass ein anderer Mitgliedstaat möglicherweise gegen EU-Recht verstößt.

3.

Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Durchsetzung der Richtlinie 96/71/EG

3.

Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Durchsetzung der Richtlinie 96/71/EG

 (172) beinhaltet Maßnahmen, die dazu beitragen sollten, das Phänomen der Scheinselbstständigkeit besser in den Griff zu bekommen. Vor allem die Kriterien zur Klärung des Begriffs „Entsendung“ und die Einführung einer beschränkten, unmittelbaren Haftung des Subunternehmers sollten in dieser Hinsicht hilfreich sein.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011516/12

to the Commission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Social dumping through the posting of bogus self-employed persons from third countries

There are more and more Polish building companies using employees from third countries, especially Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia and the Russian Federation. Polish seasonal employment laws allow nationals of these countries to work for up to six months a year in Poland without a work permit. After working for one month in Poland they can be posted to Germany in order to provide services. Nearly all of them are employed on the basis of a ‘mission contract’, which in Poland is a widely used and popular means of circumventing normal employer-employee relations. Such contracts are only subject to limited social security contributions or none at all, and employees have no protection under labour law.

The Polish social security institution ZUS, responsible for issuing A1 posting certificates, is in favour of a broad interpretation of the term ‘employee’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004, allowing those working on such contracts to be viewed as legal employees. Not only is this dubious interpretation inconsistent with Polish law, it is also in breach of European standards.

As a result, A1 certificates of Polish social security rights are only issued for contractors not paying social security contributions. These certificates are fully binding and completely exclude application of German social security legislation. This means that Polish employees can post their employees to Germany without having to pay social security costs, thus disadvantaging employees and leading to distortions of competition.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2.

Which steps could the Commission take to deal with this kind of wage dumping?

3.

How can the posting of bogus self-employed persons from third countries be prevented?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

1.

The Commission is not aware of the problem as described by the Honourable Member.

1.

The Commission is not aware of the problem as described by the Honourable Member.

2.

In the situation as described by the Honourable Member, Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009

1.

The Commission is not aware of the problem as described by the Honourable Member.

2.

In the situation as described by the Honourable Member, Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009

 (173) provide for a conciliation procedure to be followed in cases where there is a difference of views between Member States concerning the determination of the applicable legislation. Under this procedure (174), the competent institution in Germany may contact the institution that issued the A1 certificate to ask for a necessary clarification of the decision, and, where appropriate, to withdraw or declare invalid the relevant document, or to review or annul its decision.

The requested institution is obliged to reply within a fixed deadline. If the institutions and, in a second stage, the authorities of the Member State cannot reach an agreement, the matter may be referred to the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (175) The Commission can as an ultimate step open an infringement procedure against a Member State if it fails to comply with EC law. It is open for Each Member State or individual to inform the Commission of any possible violation of EC law by another Member State.

3.

The Commission's proposal on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC

3.

The Commission's proposal on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC

 (176) contains measures which should contribute to tackle better the phenomenon of false self-employment. In particular the criteria clarifying the notion of posting and the introduction of a limited direct subcontractor liability should provide useful tools in this respect.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011518/12

à la Commission

Maurice Ponga (PPE)

(18 décembre 2012)

Objet: Liberté de circulation des travailleurs dans les PTOM — Principe de non-discrimination

La quatrième partie du traité FUE, qui porte sur l'association des PTOM à l'Union, décrit les principes de cette association. L'article 203 précise la procédure et indique que c'est au Conseil d'établir, en statuant à l'unanimité et sur proposition de la Commission, les dispositions relatives aux modalités et à la procédure de l'association entre les PTOM et l'Union.

Le Conseil s'est prononcé sur les modalités de l'association par le biais d'une décision du 27 novembre 2001, révisée par la suite le 19 mars 2007 (la «décision d'association outre-mer», ou DAO).

Concernant le droit d'établissement et de la prestation de services, le principe est celui de la non-discrimination entre les États membres, les ressortissants des PTOM pouvant être privilégiés par rapport à ceux des États membres. En effet, l'article 45 de la DAO prévoit que «les autorités des PTOM traitent les sociétés, ressortissants et entreprises des États membres de manière non moins favorable qu'ils traitent les sociétés, ressortissants et entreprises d'un pays tiers et ne discriminent pas entre les sociétés, ressortissants et entreprises des États membres», même si, «dans le but de promouvoir ou soutenir l'emploi local, les autorités d'un PTOM peuvent établir des réglementations, en faveur de leurs habitants et des activités locales».

Cependant, aucune disposition ne semble avoir été prise dans la DAO concernant la libre circulation des travailleurs.

1.

En l'absence de disposition particulière prévue dans la DAO relative à la libre circulation des travailleurs, la Commission considère-t-elle qu'en la matière, le principe de non-discrimination, aménagé comme c'est le cas pour la liberté d'établissement et de prestation de services, s'applique mutatis mutandis?

2.

Dans le cas contraire, les PTOM ont-ils le droit de discriminer les citoyens européens entre eux en vertu de leur droit local?

Réponse donnée par M. Piebalgs au nom de la Commission

(20 février 2013)

1.

Le traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne (TFUE) prévoit que la liberté de circulation des travailleurs des pays et territoires d'outre-mer (PTOM), visés à son annexe II, doit être explicitement régie par des actes du Conseil (article 202 du TFUE). Aucun acte de ce type n'a jusqu'à présent été adopté par le Conseil.

Selon le TFUE, les relations entre l'UE et les PTOM sont définies par une décision du Conseil (décision d'association outre-mer). La décision d'association outre-mer actuellement en vigueur ne contient pas de dispositions régissant la liberté de circulation des travailleurs. Sur la base de l'article 199, paragraphe 5, du TFUE concernant la liberté d'établissement et de prestation de services, les autorités des PTOM ont l'obligation d'accorder le statut de la nation la plus favorisée aux États membres et d'interdire toute discrimination entre les ressortissants, les sociétés ou les entreprises des États membres. Étant donné que l'article 202 du TFUE demande explicitement que la libre circulation des travailleurs en relation avec les PTOM soit régie par des actes adoptés par le Conseil, il est impossible de remplacer cette obligation en appliquant mutadis mutandis les dispositions d'un acte du Conseil existant concernant l'association entre les PTOM et l'UE, car celui-ci a une base juridique différente.

2.

Sur la base de ce qui précède, le droit des citoyens de l'Union européenne de travailler dans les PTOM est uniquement régi par le droit territorial propre à chaque PTOM. C'est ce droit qui détermine si les règles en matière de libre circulation des travailleurs peuvent ou non s'appliquer différemment (aux ressortissants des États membres de l'UE et aux habitants de chaque PTOM).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011518/12

to the Commission

Maurice Ponga (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Free movement of workers in the OCTs — principle of non-discrimination

Part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out the principles underpinning the association of the OCTs with the EU. Article 203 clarifies the procedure and states that it is the responsibility of the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, to lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the OCTs with the Union.

The Council set out detailed rules for the association by way of a decision on 27 November 2001, subsequently amended on 19 March 2007 (the ‘Overseas Association Decision’, or OAD).

Regarding the right of establishment and the right to provide services, the underlying principle is non-discrimination between the Member States, while OCT nationals can be prioritised over Member State nationals. Indeed, Article 45 of the OAD stipulates that ‘the OCT authorities shall afford nationals, companies or enterprises of the Member States treatment that is no less favourable than that which they extend to nationals, companies or enterprises of third countries and shall not discriminate between nationals, companies or enterprises of Member States’, although ‘the authorities of an OCT may with a view to promoting or supporting local employment, adopt regulations to aid their inhabitants and local activities’.

However, no provision seems to have been made in the OAD with regard to the free movement of workers.

1.

In the absence of specific provisions in the OAD with regard to the free movement of workers, does the Commission consider that the principle of non-discrimination, adapted in the same way as for the freedom of establishment and to provide services, applies here

mutatis mutandis

?

2.

If not, do the OCTs have the right to discriminate between EU citizens in accordance with their local law?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

1.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) foresees that the freedom of movement of workers for Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) listed in Annex II of the TFEU must explicitly be regulated by acts of the Council (Article 202 of the TFEU). No such act has hitherto been adopted by the Council.

According to the TFEU, relations between the Union and the OCTs are defined by a Council Decision (Overseas Association Decision (177)). The Overseas Association Decision currently in force does not include provisions regulating the freedom of movement of workers. On the basis of Article 199(5) of the TFEU regarding the freedom of establishment and trade in services, it obliges OCTs authorities to grant most favoured nation status to, and prohibit discrimination between, nationals, companies or enterprises of Member States. As Article 202 of the TFEU explicitly requires acts adopted by Council to regulate the free movement of workers in relation to OCTs, it is not possible to substitute this requirement by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of an existing Council act on the association of OCTs with the EU, which has a different legal basis.

2.

On the basis of the above, the rights of EU citizens to work in OCTs are regulated solely by the respective territorial law of the OCTs. These laws determine whether different treatment [of nationals of EU Member States and the inhabitants of the respective OCTs] is allowed or prohibited with regard to the free movement of workers.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011519/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 décembre 2012)

Objet: Protection des PME contre les escroqueries

Chaque jour, des entreprises, des professionnels et des organisations de la société civile établis dans l'Union sont victimes de fraudes par marketing. Ces fraudes vont de la communication d'informations fausses ou trompeuses sur le service à l'envoi d'offres gratuites qui s'avèrent payantes ou de formulaires trompeurs demandant la mise à jour d'informations dans des annuaires professionnels. Les chiffres révèlent une nouvelle tendance susceptible de toucher les entreprises du monde entier. Les techniques de marketing de masse se diffusant partout, les éditeurs d'annuaires aux fins d'escroqueries les plus notoires pourraient envoyer jusqu'à 6 millions de formulaires par an. Le préjudice financier que subissent les diverses entreprises victimes d'escroqueries à l'annuaire professionnel oscillerait, selon les estimations, entre 1 000 euros et 5 000 euros par an pour chaque entreprise. Les 23 millions de petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) que compte l'Europe représentent 99 % des entreprises de l'Union et ont généré 85 % de nouveaux emplois nets dans l'Union entre 2002 et 2010. Elles sont le principal moteur de la croissance économique, et leurs droits devraient être protégés.

1.

Comment la Commission compte-t-elle améliorer l'exécution des règles visant à lutter contre les pratiques commerciales trompeuses par-delà les frontières?

2.

Comment la Commission compte-t-elle renforcer les règles interdisant certaines pratiques?

3.

En quoi consiste l'analyse d'impact exhaustive de la Commission et invitera-t-elle les différents acteurs (dont les PME) à y participer?

4.

À quelle date la Commission compte-t-elle faire sa proposition?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(1er mars 2013)

Comme elle l'a indiqué dans une communication récente (178), la Commission européenne est convaincue que la lutte contre les pratiques commerciales trompeuses requiert à la fois une meilleure exécution de la législation et un renforcement des règles visant à protéger les entreprises, notamment dans le cadre d'opérations transfrontières.

En ce qui concerne l'exécution, la Commission entend, à titre de mesure préliminaire, mettre en place une coopération informelle ad hoc entre les États membres pour que ceux-ci partagent leurs informations et coordonnent leurs actions. La première réunion du groupe constitué à cet effet est prévue en mars 2013.

En outre, la Commission a lancé, dans le cadre des travaux de préparation de sa proposition législative, une analyse d'impact approfondie afin de déterminer les options à retenir.

La Commission a déjà consulté les parties intéressées à la fin de 2011, lors d'une large consultation publique. Elle va aussi, à présent, associer pleinement les acteurs concernés, en particulier les PME, et les États membres à l'élaboration de sa proposition législative.

Pour cela, elle a mis en place un «panel de PME» pour recueillir les avis des petites et moyennes entreprises quant aux pratiques commerciales trompeuses.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011519/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Protecting SMEs against scams

Every day, businesses, professionals and civil society organisations in the European Union fall victim to mass marketing fraud. Scams can take a number of different forms, including the provision of false or misleading information about services, fake ‘free offers’ and fraudulent forms requesting information updates for business directories. The figures point to a new trend that could affect businesses worldwide. Given the extensive reach of mass-marketing techniques, the most notorious producers of scam directories could be sending out as many as 6 million such fraudulent forms per year. The financial loss suffered by the various businesses that fall victim to professional directory scams has been estimated at between EUR 1000 and EUR 5000 per enterprise, per year. Europe’s 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent 99% of the total number of businesses in the European Union and generated 85% of new jobs in the EU between 2002 and 2010. They are the main driver of economic growth and their rights should be protected.

1.

How does the Commission intend to improve the enforcement of the rules aimed at combating misleading commercial practices across borders?

2.

How does the Commission intend to strengthen the rules prohibiting specific practices?

3.

What does the Commission’s exhaustive impact analysis comprise and will it ask the various players concerned (including SMEs) to be involved in it?

4.

On what date does the Commission intend to introduce its proposal?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

As announced in a recent Communication (179), the European Commission believes that the problem of misleading marketing practices requires both stepped up enforcement and strengthening of the rules protecting businesses, especially in cross-border transactions.

With regard to the enforcement and as a preliminary step, the Commission intends to establish an ad hoc informal cooperation among Member States to share information and coordinate actions. The first meeting of this group is planned for March 2013.

Moreover, the Commission, in view of its preparation for a legislative proposal, has launched an extensive impact assessment process to identify the best policy options.

The Commission already consulted stakeholders in an extensive public consultation at the end of 2011. The Commission will equally now fully involve stakeholders, and in particular SMEs, as well as the Member States in the preparation process for a legislative proposal.

To this end, the Commission has launched an SME Test Panel asking small and medium-sized enterprises about misleading marketing practices.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011520/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 décembre 2012)

Objet: Décès d'un arbitre de football — violence envers le corps arbitral

En décembre 2012, aux Pays-Bas, un arbitre de football a été assassiné sur un terrain par quelques adolescents. La semaine précédente, le père d'un jeune joueur de 15 ans a, durant une autre rencontre, tabassé et envoyé à l'hôpital un autre arbitre. Ces faits sont hélas devenus courants. Chaque semaine, les arbitres de football sont victimes de leur hobby et certains le payent de leur vie.

Le 30 juin 2000, la Commission déclarait, dans une communication sur la fonction sociale du sport, que «le football ne peut pas être un sport de délassement pour la famille si les parents craignent d'emmener, voire d'envoyer seuls leurs enfants au stade à cause des groupes de hooligans. Et je constate avec une grande préoccupation que des phénomènes de violence ne se limitent point à des grands évènements de masse; des phénomènes de violence se produisent aussi en ligue régionale ou même cantonale, chez les adultes aussi bien que chez les jeunes».

1.

Pour faire suite à cette déclaration, la Commission compte-t-elle s'exprimer de manière officielle sur ces débauches de violence dont les arbitres sont victimes?

2.

La Commission envisage-t-elle de collaborer avec la FIFA et l'UEFA dans des campagnes de sensibilisation visant jeunes et adultes?

3.

La Commission ne pourrait-elle pas mettre en place un groupe de travail avec les autorités footballistiques compétentes afin de déterminer quels pourraient être les outils les plus adéquats pour lutter contre ce fléau?

Réponse donnée par Mme Vassiliou au nom de la Commission

(12 février 2013)

Le décès rapporté par l'Honorable Parlementaire prouve que la violence dans le domaine du sport ne concerne pas que les spectateurs. La Commission salue les mesures concrètes prises au niveau national. Dans ce contexte, l'échange de bonnes pratiques peut certainement contribuer à la lutte contre la violence. C'est la raison pour laquelle la Commission a apporté son soutien à des projets transnationaux visant à lutter contre la violence et l'intolérance dans le sport dans le cadre des actions préparatoires dans le domaine du sport. En outre, la Commission a proposé de donner la priorité à ce dossier dans le futur chapitre consacré au sport du programme «Erasmus pour tous», le nouveau programme pour l'éducation, la formation, la jeunesse et le sport (180).

Dans sa communication intitulée «Développer la dimension européenne du sport» (181),la Commission rappelle qu'il importe dans ce domaine de déployer des efforts conjoints au niveau de l'Union européenne. Elle encourage la mise en place d'une approche plus vaste couvrant un large éventail de disciplines sportives et comprenant des volets préventif et répressif.

Dans le cadre de son dialogue structuré, la Commission entretient des contacts réguliers avec l'UEFA, la FIFA, l'Association européenne des clubs (ECA) et l'Association des ligues européennes de football professionnel (EPFL) au sujet des évolutions récentes dans le domaine du football. La lutte contre la violence et l'intolérance est l'un des thèmes récurrents abordés dans le cadre de l'ordre du jour permanent.

Par ailleurs, la prévention et la violence dans le sport et la lutte contre celle-ci est l'une des priorités du plan de travail de l'Union européenne en faveur du sport pour 2011-2014 (182). Cependant, aucun groupe d'experts spécialement chargé de la violence dans le sport n'a été créé par le Conseil dans le cadre du plan de travail. La Commission fera rapport sur les résultats du plan de travail d'ici la fin 2013 et prendra en compte le thème de la violence à l'encontre des sportifs, ainsi que des arbitres, pour la planification des futures actions dans le domaine du sport.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011520/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Football referee death — violence against match officials

In December 2012, a football referee was fatally attacked on the field in the Netherlands by a number of teenagers. At another match the previous week, the father of a young 15-year-old player attacked another referee, who was then hospitalised. Such events have unfortunately become common. Every week, football referees are victims of their hobby and some are paying with their lives.

On 30 June 2000, in a communication on the social function of sport, the Commission declared that ‘football cannot be a family leisure activity if parents fear taking or sending their children on their own to a match because of groups of hooligans. And I note with great concern that violence is not limited to major mass events, but is also occurring in the lower leagues, among adults as well as young people’.

1.

To follow up on this declaration, will the Commission make an official statement on this profusion of violence of which referees are the victims?

2.

Does the Commission envisage working with FIFA and UEFA on awareness campaigns targeting young people and adults?

3.

Could the Commission not set up a working group with the relevant football authorities to ascertain what might be the most suitable tools for combating this scourge?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

The fatality reported by the Honourable Member demonstrates that violence in sport is not limited to spectators' violence. The Commission welcomes concrete measures taken at the national level. In this context the exchange of good practices can certainly contribute to the fight against violence. This is the reason why the Commission has provided support to transnational projects to fight violence and intolerance in sports in the framework of the preparatory actions in the field of sport. Moreover, the Commission has proposed to give priority to this topic in the future Sport Chapter of ‘Erasmus for All’, the new Programme for education, training, youth and sport (183).

The Commission stresses the importance of European joint efforts in the field in its communication ‘Developing the European dimension in sport’ (184). It promotes a wider approach covering many sport disciplines, striking a balance between prevention and law enforcement measures.

In the framework of its structured dialogue the Commission has regular contacts with UEFA, FIFA, the European Club Association and the European professional football leagues about several developments in football. The fight against violence and intolerance is one of the topics on the rolling agenda.

Furthermore, the prevention of and fight against violence in sport is one of the priorities for the European Union Work Plan for Sport for 2011-2014 (185). However, no group of experts to deal specifically with violence in sport was set up by the Council in the framework of the Work Plan. The Commission will report by the end of 2013 on the results of the Work Plan and will take into consideration the issue of violence against sports people, including match officials, for the planning of future activities in the field of Sport.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011521/12

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Possibili finanziamenti per la realizzazione di un progetto scientifico-culturale nel Comune di Radicofani, in provincia di Siena

L'Associazione «Astroturistika Astrofili» da anni si occupa della divulgazione scientifica e culturale dell'astronomia. Tale associazione attualmente è impegnata nella realizzazione di un progetto scientifico-culturale, denominato «Astroturismo», nel Comune di Radicofani in provincia di Siena. L'obiettivo di questo progetto è quello di istituire un polo scientifico di ricerca e didattica astronomica con cui ampliare il già esistente osservatorio astronomico e attraverso il quale dare impulso al turismo culturale e allo sviluppo economico nell’area sud della provincia di Siena.

Il parco a tema scientifico si inserirebbe all'interno del Parco delle Stelle Val d'Orcia, patrimonio mondiale dell'Umanità, riconosciuto dall'UNESCO, e costituirebbe un centro di ricerca e di studio per la diffusione della conoscenza dello spazio e delle stelle, oltre che diventare un centro di attrazione turistica. Tale centro offrirebbe per di più percorsi formativi agli studenti e laboratori culturali per persone di ogni età.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere:

se esistono possibili finanziamenti per il progetto suesposto;

quali azioni o programmi sono previsti per la ricerca scientifica e la cultura nella nuova programmazione 2014-2020;

quale è il quadro generale della situazione.

Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione

(20 febbraio 2013)

1.

Il programma Toscana per il 2007-2013 cofinanziato dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR), potrebbe eventualmente finanziare il progetto menzionato dall'onorevole deputata nel contesto dell'asse V (Valorizzazione delle risorse endogene per lo sviluppo territoriale sostenibile).

In linea con il principio di gestione condivisa che si applica per l'attuazione della politica di coesione, la selezione e l'implementazione dei progetti rientra nelle responsabilità delle autorità nazionali. Per ulteriori informazioni la Commissione suggerisce pertanto all'onorevole deputata di mettersi direttamente in contatto con l'autorità di gestione del programma:

Autorità di gestione del programma operativo Toscana:

Regione Toscana

Direzione Generale Competitività del sistema regionale e sviluppo delle competenze

Via Luca Giordano, 13

50132 — FIRENZE

autoritagestionecreo@regione.toscana.it

2.

Le discussioni in merito alle disposizioni legislative per il periodo 2014-2020 sono ancora in corso. Gli investimenti destinati ad essere supportati in questo periodo dal FESR devono avere un impatto socioeconomico sull'economia regionale in termini di innovazione, competitività, crescita e occupazione e avere una chiara correlazione con le priorità enunciate nella Strategia Europa 2020.

3.

Una panoramica di progetti analoghi cofinanziati a valere su Fondi strutturali a livello di UE è disponibile al seguente indirizzo:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/index_it.cfm

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011521/12

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Possibility of funding for a scientific and cultural project in the municipality of Radicofani, province of Siena

For many years, the Astroturistika Astrofili association has been dealing with the scientific and cultural popularisation of astronomy. This association is currently involved in a scientific and cultural project called ‘Astroturismo’ in the town of Radicofani, province of Siena. The aim of this project is to establish a scientific research and astronomy education hub through which to expand the existing astronomical observatory and to boost cultural tourism and economic development in the south of the province of Siena.

The scientific theme park would be part of the Parco delle Stelle in the Val d'Orcia, a Unesco World Heritage site, and would be, in addition to becoming a tourist attraction, a research and study centre for the dissemination of knowledge of space and the stars. This centre would also provide training courses for students and cultural workshops for people of all ages.

Can the Commission therefore:

say whether any funding might be available for this project;

say what measures or programmes have been planned for scientific research and culture in the new 2014-2020 programming period;

give an overview of the situation?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

1.

The 2007-2013 Tuscany programme co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) could possibly finance the project mentioned by the Honourable Member under priority V (Enhancement of endogenous resources for sustainable territorial development).

In line with the shared management principle used for the implementation of cohesion policy, project selection and implementation is the responsibility of the national authorities. For more information the Commission therefore suggests the Honourable Member contacts directly the managing authority of the programme:

Managing authority of operational programme Toscana:

Regione Toscana

Direzione Generale Competitività del sistema regionale e sviluppo delle competenze

Via Luca Giordano, 13

50132 — FIRENZE

autoritagestionecreo@regione.toscana.it

2.

Discussions on the legislative provisions for the 2014-2020 period are currently ongoing. Investments to be supported in this period by the ERDF shall have a socioeconomic impact on the regional economy in terms of innovation, competitiveness, growth and jobs, and have a clear link with the priorities outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy.

3.

An overview of similar projects

co-financed under the Structural Funds at EU level is available at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/index_en.cfm

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011522/12

adresată Comisiei

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Liberalizarea dreptului de plantare a viței de vie

Subiectul liberalizării dreptului de plantare a viței de vie începând cu 2016 a stârnit în ultima vreme numeroase controverse în lumea vitivinicolă și în lumea economică europeană. Desigur, țările cu tradiție în producerea vinurilor sunt împotriva acestei liberalizări, care ar putea să le aducă reale prejudicii economice și ar duce la scăderea calității și imaginii vinurilor europene.

În acest context, din punctul de vedere al Comisiei, care va fi impactul finalizării acestor restricții, a liberalizării drepturilor de plantare, asupra pieței vinului european?

Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei

(7 februarie 2013)

Pe întreaga durată a anului 2012, în cadrul unui grup la nivel înalt, au avut loc o serie de discuții referitoare la reglementarea plantării viței de vie în Uniunea Europeană. Grupul la nivel înalt a fost înființat în urma preocupărilor exprimate de câteva state membre producătoare de vinuri, de anumiți membri ai Parlamentului European și de mai multe organizații de părți interesate la nivelul UE. Ultima reuniune a grupului la nivel înalt a avut loc la 14 decembrie 2012.

În concluziile acesteia, s-a indicat că majoritatea membrilor sunt dispuși să participe la definirea unui nou sistem de autorizare a plantării de viță de vie pentru toate statele membre producătoare de vinuri și pentru toate categoriile de vin, într-un cadru comun la nivelul UE. Noul sistem ar trebui să fie mai deschis decât cel actual și ar trebui să permită, în anumite limite, noi plantări de viță de vie în diferitele state membre ale UE. În plus, ar trebui să se instituie un nou mecanism general de protecție la nivelul UE, pentru asigurarea unei creșteri ordonate a noilor plantații.

În curând, raportul final cu aceste concluzii va fi transmis comisarului și tuturor părților implicate (Consiliul, Parlamentul European etc.) și va fi făcut public. Măsurile în urma acestui raport vor fi decise în contextul discuțiilor referitoare la reforma PAC.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011522/12

to the Commission

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Liberalisation of vine planting rights

The liberalisation of vine planting rights from 2016 has been the subject of much controversy recently among winegrowers and in the European business world. Traditional wine-producing countries are naturally opposed to this liberalisation, which could cause real economic damage and lead to a deterioration in the quality and image of European wines.

In this context, what impact does the Commission expect the ending of restrictions and the liberalisation of planting rights to have on the European wine market?

Answer given by Mr Cioloș on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

A discussion took place during the whole year of 2012 on the regulation of vine plantings in the European Union in the context of a High Level Group (HLG). This HLG was established following the concerns expressed by several wine-producing Member States, certain European Parliament MEPs and a number of stakeholder organisations at EU level. The last meeting of this HLG took place on 14 December 2012.

In its conclusions, it was indicated that the majority of the members are ready to work on the definition of a new system of vine planting authorisations for all wine-producing Member States and all categories of wine, within a common framework at EU level. The new system should be more open than the current one and should allow, within certain limits, new vine plantings in the different Members States of the EU. Moreover, a general safeguard mechanism should be established at EU level in order to ensure an orderly growth of new plantings.

A final report with these conclusions will be shortly transmitted to the Commissioner and all concerned parties (Council, European Parliament, etc.), and will be made public. The follow-up will be done in the context of discussions related to the CAP reform.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011523/12

an die Kommission

Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE)

(18. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Novelle der Arbeitszeitrichtlinie 2003/88EG und die Situation der ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit allgemein bzw. der Freiwilligen Feuerwehr im besonderen

Wie Ende der letzten Woche bekannt wurde, sind die Verhandlungen über eine Revision der EU-Arbeitszeitrichtlinie, die seit Dezember 2011 zwischen den Sozialpartnern geführt wurden, gescheitert.

Kann die Kommission in diesem Zusammenhang folgende Fragen beantworten:

Welche weiteren Schritte plant die Kommission? Wie sieht der zeitliche Rahmen aus? Wird die Kommission nun ihrerseits einen Vorschlag unterbreiten?

Von besonderem Interesse ist die Situation in den Mitgliedstaaten in Bezug auf die Arbeitszeitrichtlinie und die ehrenamtliche Tätigkeit allgemein bzw. die Tätigkeiten der Freiwilligen Feuerwehr im besonderen. Derzeit sind die Regelungen in Bezug auf eine Höchstarbeitszeit sehr unterschiedlich ausgestaltet. Nach deutschem und österreichischem Recht gelten Personen, die als Freiwillige tätig sind, nicht als Arbeitnehmer, fallen demnach also auch nicht unter die Arbeitszeitrichtlinie, die nur für Arbeitnehmer gilt. In anderen Mitgliedstaaten sieht die Situation jedoch anders aus — was die Lage kompliziert macht. Das zuständige Mitglied der Kommission äußerte bereits, dass man nicht Feuerwehrleute generell vom Geltungsbereich der Richtlinie ausnehmen kann; eine Klärung der Situation ist jedoch unbedingt notwendig. Wie will die Kommission dies sicherstellen?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(22. Februar 2013)

Die branchenübergreifenden Sozialpartner auf EU-Ebene, die über eine Überarbeitung der Arbeitszeitrichtlinie verhandelten, haben der Kommission Ende Dezember 2012 mitgeteilt, dass sie die Verhandlungen unterbrochen haben, da sie Schwierigkeiten hatten, einen für alle Seiten annehmbaren Kompromiss zu erzielen. Die Frist für den Abschluss der Verhandlungen lief am 31. Dezember 2012 aus.

Die Kommission holt derzeit u. a. von den Verhandlungsführern alle erforderlichen Informationen über die Ergebnisse der Verhandlungen ein und wird zum gegebenen Zeitpunkt über das weitere Vorgehen entscheiden, um die Umsetzung der Richtlinie in mehreren Punkten, z. B. was den Status freiwilliger Feuerwehrleute angeht, zu klären und zu verbessern.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011523/12

to the Commission

Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Amendment to the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC and the situation of voluntary work in general and volunteer firefighters in particular

It transpired at the end of last week that the negotiations on the revision of the EU Working Time Directive that had been taking place between the social partners since December 2011 had failed.

In this context, can the Commission answer the following questions:

What further steps is the Commission planning? How does the timeframe look? Will the Commission now publish a proposal of its own?

Of particular interest is the situation in the Member States as regards the Working Time Directive, voluntary work in general and the work of volunteer firefighters in particular. The rules on maximum working time currently differ considerably. Under German and Austrian law, persons serving as volunteers do not count as employees and do not, therefore, fall within the scope of the Working Time Directive, which applies only to employees. In other Member States, however, the situation is different — which complicates matters. The Commissioner responsible has already said that there could be no blanket exemption from the directive for firefighters; however, the situation needs without fail to be clarified. How does the Commission propose to achieve this?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The EU cross-industry social partners who were negotiating a revision of the Working Time Directive informed the Commission at the end of December 2012 that the negotiations were suspended owing to difficulties in reaching a mutually acceptable compromise. The deadline for those negotiations was 31 December 2012.

The Commission is currently gathering the necessary information, including from negotiators, about the outcomes of the negotiations and will decide in due course on how to proceed in order to clarify and improve the implementation of the directive on a number of issues, including the status of volunteer fire-fighters.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011524/12

an die Kommission

Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE)

(18. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Lebendrupf/Federgewinnung von lebenden Gänsen

In Bezug auf Lebendrupf bzw. die Federgewinnung von lebenden Gänsen wird in der Richtlinie 98/58/EG über den Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere festgelegt, dass sichergestellt werden soll, dass den Tieren keine unnötigen Schmerzen, Leiden oder Schäden zugefügt werden. Die EFSA veröffentlichte 2010 ein Gutachten, das zu dem Schluss gelangte, dass dieses Verfahren zwar durchgeführt werden könne, ohne dass den Tieren Schmerzen zugefügt werden, allerdings unter den derzeit üblichen Bedingungen das Rupfen von Federn auf schmerzhafte Art unvermeidbar ist. Sie empfehlen daher die Einführung eines Kontrollsystems, um sicherzustellen, dass von lebenden Gänsen nur in der Mauser Federn gewonnen werden. In der zu Hausgänsen formulierten Empfehlung des Ständigen Ausschusses des Europarates zum europäischen Übereinkommen zum Schutz von Tieren in landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltungen heißt es, dass „Federn, einschließlich Daunen, nicht von lebenden Vögeln gerupft werden dürfen“. Es werden jedoch immer mehr Fälle von Tierquälerei bekannt (v. a. in Ungarn und Polen).

Kann die Kommission in diesem Zusammenhang folgende Fragen beantworten:

Wie sieht die Kommission die Gesetzeslage allgemein in Bezug auf Lebendrupf? Wie werden die verschiedenen Rechtsinstrumente bewertet? Unter welchen Umständen dürfen Federn von lebenden Gänsen gewonnen werden?

Welche EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben das Europäische Übereinkommen zum Schutz von Tieren in landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltungen unterzeichnet? Wie wurde die Umsetzung bisher überprüft? Welche Daten werden in Bezug auf die verwendeten Verfahren und die Kontrollen erhoben?

Welche weiteren Schritte hat die Kommission nach dem Gutachten der EFSA und deren Empfehlung zur Einführung eines Kontrollsystems unternommen? Wie will die Kommission sicherstellen, dass die europäischen Verbraucher über die Art und Weise der Gewinnung von Gänsefedern unterrichtet bzw. hierzu die Möglichkeit haben? Ist ein europäisches Gütesystem geplant?

Welche weiteren Schritte plant die Kommission, um sicherzustellen, dass die Situation sich endlich verbessert — insbesondere in Ungarn und Polen?

Wie bewertet die Kommission die derzeit angestrebte Initiative von europäischen Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Lebendrupf/ Federgewinnung von lebenden Gänsen allgemein zu verbieten?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(13. Februar 2013)

Die Kommission verweist auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E 11289/2012 (186) zur Rechtslage in Bezug auf Lebendrupf/Federgewinnung von lebenden Gänsen und die von der Kommission getroffenen Maßnahmen zur Überwachung der Situation.

25 Mitgliedstaaten haben das Europäische Übereinkommen zum Schutz von Tieren in landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltungen ratifiziert. Die Liste der Unterzeichnerländer ist auf der Website des Europarats (187) einsehbar. Da die Europäische Union das Übereinkommen unterzeichnet und ratifiziert hat, sind das Übereinkommen und die darauf aufbauenden Empfehlungen Bestandteil des EU-Rechts und als solche für alle Mitgliedstaaten sowie für die Europäische Union rechtlich bindend.

Laut dem Verband der Europäischen Bettfedern‐ und Bettwarenindustrie e. V. (EDFA) werden mehr als 98 % der von der Branche verwendeten Daunen und Federn nach dem Schlachten der Tiere gewonnen.

Nach der Annahme der EU-Strategie für den Schutz und das Wohlergehen von Tieren 2012-2015 (188) denkt die Kommission außerdem derzeit darüber nach, wie die Tierschutzinformationen für Verbraucher verbessert werden können.

Die Kommission erkennt die Initiative verschiedener europäischer Tierschutzorganisationen an, die sich dafür einsetzen, auch die Gewinnung von Federn von lebenden Gänsen zu verbieten. Die Kommission ist jedoch der Ansicht, dass in diesem Bereich Fortschritte besser dadurch erzielt werden können, dass die derzeitigen EU-Rechtsvorschriften in den wenigen betroffenen Mitgliedstaaten besser durchgesetzt und alle betroffenen Akteure stärker sensibilisiert werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011524/12

to the Commission

Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Live plucking/gathering feathers from live geese

With regard to live plucking and gathering feathers from live geese, Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes states that it must be ensured that animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The EFSA published a report in 2010 concluding that the procedure could be performed without causing pain to the birds, but that painful plucking of feathers was unavoidable under currently typical conditions. It therefore recommended introducing a control system to ensure that only moulting feathers are gathered from live geese. The recommendation of the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes of the Council of Europe, on domestic geese, states that ‘feathers, including down, shall not be plucked from live birds’. However, the number of cases of animal cruelty coming to light is constantly increasing (particularly in Hungary and Poland).

Could the Commission answer the following questions on this issue:

What is the Commission's view, in general, of the legal situation regarding live plucking? What is its assessment of the various legal instruments? Under what circumstances is it permissible to gather feathers from live geese?

Which EU Member States have signed the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes? How has implementation been monitored to date? What information has been gathered regarding the procedures used and inspections?

What further steps has the Commission taken following the EFSA's report and its recommendation that a control system should be introduced? How does the Commission propose to ensure that European consumers are informed about how goose feathers are obtained, or have the opportunity to access such information? Are there plans for a European quality system?

What further steps does the Commission plan to take to ensure that the situation finally improves, particularly in Hungary and Poland?

What is the Commission's assessment of the initiative currently being pursued by European non-governmental organisations to ban live plucking/gathering feathers from live geese completely?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

The Commission would refer to its answer to Written Question E 11289/2012 (189) regarding the legal situation on plucking/harvesting feathers from live geese and the steps taken by the Commission to monitor the situation.

25 Member States signed and ratified the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes; the detailed list is available on the website of the Council of Europe (190). However, since the European Union signed and ratified the Convention, the Convention and its subsequent recommendations are part of EC law. As such they are legally binding for all Member States as well as for the Union.

According to the European Down and Feather Association, 98% of the down and feathers processed by their industry is collected after the slaughter of birds.

In addition, the Commission, following the adoption of the EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015 (191), is presently reflecting on how information to consumers on animal welfare can be improved.

The Commission acknowledges the initiative of several European animal welfare NGOs asking to ban also the practice of gathering feathers from live geese. However, the Commission considers that progress on this issue can be better achieved by improved enforcement of the current EU legislation in the few Member States concerned, and by increased awareness of all actors on this issue.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011526/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(18 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αξιοκρατική επιλογή επικεφαλής δημοσίων οργανισμών στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με το Μνημόνιο για τις οικονομικές και δημοσιονομικές πολιτικές (Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies) το οποίο υπογράφηκε μεταξύ της Ελλάδας, της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας και του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου, τον Μάρτιο 2012, η Ελλάδα δεσμεύεται σε προαπαιτούμενη δράση που αφορά τον διορισμό Γενικού Γραμματέα για τα έσοδα, με διαφανή, συγκεκριμένα και αξιοκρατικά κριτήρια.

Πριν από 2,5 χρόνια ανέλαβε επικεφαλής του Οργανισμού Αγροτικών Ασφαλίσεων (ΕΛΓΑ) ο κ. Θόδωρος Σαρρής, ο οποίος, σύμφωνα με αλλεπάλληλα δημοσιεύματα στον ελληνικό τύπο, εκτέλεσε παραδειγματικά τα καθήκοντά του: περιόρισε δραστικά τις ψεύτικες αποζημιώσεις, διπλασίασε τα ετήσια έσοδα από 75 σε 150 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου, μεταρρύθμισε τις διαδικασίες είσπραξης εσόδων ώστε να μην πληρώνουν μόνο οι έντιμοι αγρότες, περιόρισε το κονδύλι μισθοδοσίας από 53 εκατ. σε 16 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου και ενώ το 2010 ο ΕΛΓΑ χρωστούσε 4,2 δις ευρώ και, κάθε χρόνο δημιουργούσε νέο έλλειμμα 400 εκ. ευρώ περίπου, σήμερα έγινε πλεονασματικός.

Παρ' όλα αυτά, προς έκπληξη της ελληνικής κοινής γνώμης, η κυβέρνηση προχώρησε τις ημέρες αυτές στην αιφνιδιαστική αντικατάστασή του, χωρίς αιτιολογία υλοποιώντας κατά τα δημοσιεύματα του τύπου σχετική συμφωνία διανομής κυβερνητικών θέσεων μεταξύ των τριών κομμάτων των κυβερνητικών εταίρων.

Ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, εάν ως μέλος της Τρόικας, σκοπεύει να ενθαρρύνει την αξιοκρατική επιλογή επικεφαλής μεγάλων δημόσιων οργανισμών στην Ελλάδα, οι οποίοι διαχειρίζονται εθνικά ή/ και ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια.

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(5 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή εργάζεται δραστήρια για να ενθαρρύνει την αξιοκρατική επιλογή των επικεφαλής των μεγάλων δημόσιων οργανισμών στην Ελλάδα. Για παράδειγμα έχει ξεκινήσει ένα εκτεταμένο εγχείρημα βάσει του Μνημονίου Συνεννόησης, στο πλαίσιο του οποίου οι αξιολογήσεις των επιδόσεων των δημοσίων υπαλλήλων πρέπει να έχουν ολοκληρωθεί μέχρι τον Δεκέμβριο του 2013 (βλ. τμήμα 2.7.1.1.2 του Μνημονίου).

Όσον αφορά τους επικεφαλής των σημαντικών δημόσιων οργανισμών, οι ελληνικές αρχές έχουν δεσμευτεί να διορίσουν ως Γενικό Γραμματέα Εσόδων πρόσωπο με εμπειρία ως ανώτατο διοικητικό στέλεχος, εμπειρία σε φορολογικά θέματα και άψογη φήμη. Στην εν λόγω υπηρεσία τα διευθυντικά στελέχη υπόκεινται στον καθορισμό στόχων όσον αφορά τις επιδόσεις και σε τακτικές αξιολογήσεις.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011526/12

to the Commission

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Selection on the basis of merit of heads of public institutions in Greece

According to the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies between Greece, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which was signed in March 2012, Greece is committed to a ‘prior action’ involving the appointment of a Secretary General for revenue by transparent, specific and meritocratic criteria.

Two and a half years ago, Mr Theodoros Sarris took over as head of the Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA). According to repeated reports in the Greek press, he has performed his duties in an exemplarily fashion: he has drastically reduced the number of false claims, doubled annual revenue from EUR 75 to approximately EUR 150 million, reformed the revenue collection procedures so as to avoid a situation in which only honest farmers pay, reduced payroll expenses from EUR 53 million to approximately EUR 16 million and, whereas in 2010 the ELGA owed EUR 4.2 billion and every year registered a new deficit of some EUR 400 million, today it runs a surplus.

Nevertheless, to the surprise of Greek public opinion, the government has just unexpectedly replaced him, without providing any justification: according to press reports, it is honouring an agreement to distribute governmental positions between the three parties in government.

Will the Commission say whether, as a member of the Troika, it intends to encourage the merit-based selection of the heads of major public organisations in Greece which manage national and/or EU funds?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission actively works to encourage the merit-based selection of the heads of major public organisations in Greece. For instance a comprehensive exercise is being undertaken in line with the memorandum of understanding (MoU), whereby the assessments of performance of civil servants is to be completed by December 2013 (see Section 2.7.1.1.2 of the MoU).

Concerning the heads of important public organisations, the Greek Authorities have committed to appoint as Secretary General of the revenue administration a person with senior management experience, expertise in tax matters, and an impeccable reputation. In this administration the managers are subject to performance targets and regular assessments.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011527/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Bycatch technology

The European Union has rules in place on fishing net sizes, but bycatch remains a problem.

A British inventor has developed a series of ‘escape rings’ for fish which can be fitted to trawler nets; they exploit the escape behaviour and physiology of different fish, meaning that fewer undersized fish are caught. This innovation has recently won an award from the James Dyson Foundation, which is based in the South-West region of the UK.

Is the Commission aware of this innovation? Will officials look at how its application could further reduce bycatch in European waters?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

The Commission is always interested and supportive of new and innovative solutions to reduce by-catches and eliminate discards.

Improving the selectivity of fishing gear is beneficial for reducing unwanted catches. However, before any such device could be considered applicable to EU fisheries, it needs to be scientifically and technically assessed through testing at sea. Such testing will provide an understanding of the potential benefits in terms of by-catch reduction and discard elimination.

Funding for the development of selective fishing methods and initiatives geared at by-catch reduction and elimination of discards including testing of such devices under pilot projects is eligible under the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). These funds are managed nationally by the Member States. The Commission considers it very important that support is provided for initiatives on selective fishing and has included this in its proposal for the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011529/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(18 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Πλήρης προστασία από δυσμενείς εργασιακές μεταβολές των μεταταχθέντων, βάσει (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 του Συμβουλίου, εργαζομένων από την Ελληνική Βιομηχανία Ζάχαρης

Στο πλαίσιο της αναδιάρθρωσης του κλάδου ζάχαρης στην ΕΕ και για την εναρμόνιση της Ελληνικής Βιομηχανίας Ζάχαρης ΑΕ (ΕΒΖ ΑΕ) προκρίθηκε η συμμετοχή της στο Ευρωπαϊκό Πρόγραμμα Χορήγησης Ενίσχυσης για τις Επιχειρήσεις που εγκαταλείπουν μέρος της παραγωγής τους, βάσει ποσόστωσης, και, αντιστοίχως η υπαγωγή της στο κανονιστικό πλαίσιο του (ΕΚ)αριθ. 320/2006 του Συμβουλίου. Τόσο στο σχέδιο αναδιάρθρωσης, όσο και στην αίτηση αποποίησης που υποβλήθηκε από την ΕΒΖ ΑΕ στο Υπoυργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων υπήρξε δέσμευση — απόλυτα συμβατή με το άρθρο 4 (γ) του (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 — υλοποίησης ενός Κοινωνικού Προγράμματος με προτεραιότητα στους εργαζομένους των δύο εργοστασίων της επιχείρησης σε Λάρισα και Ξάνθη που θα έπαυαν τη λειτουργία τους. Το Υπουργείο Εργασίας (8.6.2007) συγκρότησε ειδική ομάδα εργασίας. Οι δύο δράσεις του Κοινωνικού Προγράμματος ενσωματώθηκαν στην ελληνική έννομη τάξη με το ν. 3660/2008 και προέβλεπαν:

α) Πρόγραμμα Ειδικής Επιδότησης Ανεργίας και β) Δυνατότητα Μεταφοράς Προσωπικού — Αναγκαστικές Μετατάξεις στην Περιφερειακή Αυτοδιοίκηση σε νεοσυσταθείσες προσωποπαγείς — και όχι οργανικές θέσεις — με πλήρη εργασιακά και ασφαλιστικά δικαιώματα. Η ΕΒΖ ΑΕ προέβη σε όλες τις απαραίτητες ενέργειες όπως φαίνεται και από την Τελική Έκθεση (σύμφωνα με τον (ΕΚ) αριθ. 968/2006 της Επιτροπής 27.6.2006) στην οποία αναφέρεται ρητά η δέσμευση για διασφάλιση των θέσεων εργασίας και ειδικότερα των εργαζομένων στις μονάδες που έκλεισαν. Με τον 4046/2012, όμως, οι εν λόγω εργαζόμενοι δεν εξαιρούνται από το Πρόγραμμα Κινητικότητας-Διαθεσιμότητας με συνέπεια τον κίνδυνο περαιτέρω απώλειας εργασιακών δικαιωμάτων ή ακόμη και της εργασίας τους. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Πώς κρίνει το γεγονός της μη εξαίρεσης των μεταταχθέντων εργαζομένων της ΕΒΖ ΑΕ όταν το έτερο σκέλος του Προγράμματος, η Ειδική Επιδότηση Ανεργίας, εφαρμόζεται κανονικά και με δεδομένο ότι η διασφάλιση των συγκεκριμένων εργασιακών θέσεων προβλέπεται ρητά στους σχετικούς Ευρωπαϊκούς Κανονισμούς, αποτελώντας σαφή δέσμευση της χώρας μας;

Ποιο είναι το μοντέλο που ακολουθήθηκε στα υπόλοιπα κράτη-μέλη, οι επιχειρήσεις των οποίων συμμετείχαν στο συγκεκριμένο Πρόγραμμα Αναδιάρθρωσης;

Προτίθεται να εκδώσει σχετικές συστάσεις προς την Ελλάδα προκειμένου να εξαιρούνται οι μεταταχθέντες βάσει Ευρωπαϊκών Προγραμμάτων εργαζόμενοι από τις διαδικασίες κινητικότητας;

Απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Βάσει του νομικού πλαισίου της Ένωσης για το ταμείο αναδιάρθρωσης στον τομέα της ζάχαρης, τα κράτη μέλη είχαν πλήρη ευθύνη για την εφαρμογή του στο έδαφός τους:

Το άρθρο 5 παράγραφος 1 του κανονισμού του Συμβουλίου (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 (192) ορίζει ότι «τα κράτη μέλη αποφασίζουν όσον αφορά τη χορήγηση της ενίσχυσης αναδιάρθρωσης »,

Το άρθρο 5 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 ορίζει ότι «τα κράτη μέλη παρακολουθούν, ελέγχουν και επαληθεύουν την υλοποίηση της ενίσχυσης αναδιάρθρωσης, όπως την έχουν εγκρίνει »,

Τα κράτη μέλη ενημέρωσαν την Επιτροπή για τις αποφάσεις τους. Η ανακοίνωση αυτή είχε αποκλειστικά ενημερωτικό χαρακτήρα και δεν συνιστούσε επίσημη έγκριση των αποφάσεων των κρατών μελών από τις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής:

Το άρθρο 9 παράγραφος 7 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 968/2006 (193) ορίζει ότι «τα κράτη μέλη αποφασίζουν όσον αφορά την επιλεξιμότητα του κοινωνικού προγράμματος και ενημερώνουν την επιχείρηση και την Επιτροπή σχετικά με την απόφασή τους »,

Το άρθρο 10 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 968/2006 της Επιτροπής ορίζει ότι «Αντίγραφο του συνολικού εγκριθέντος σχεδίου αναδιάρθρωσης αποστέλλεται στην Επιτροπή από την αρμόδια αρχή του κράτους μέλους ».

Συνεπώς, δεν εμπίπτει στις αρμοδιότητες της Επιτροπής να απευθύνει συστάσεις στις ελληνικές αρχές σχετικά με την εφαρμογή του ταμείου αναδιάρθρωσης.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011529/12

to the Commission

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Full protection from adverse changes in employment conditions for Hellenic Sugar Industry employees transferred on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

As part of the restructuring of the EU sugar industry and in order to harmonise the Hellenic Sugar Industry Ltd, it was announced that the latter would be included in the European aid scheme for enterprises renouncing part of their production quotas and be subjected to the regulatory framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 320 / 2006. Both the restructuring scheme and the application to renounce part of the quota submitted by the above company to the Ministry of Rural Development and Food contained a commitment — fully compatible with Article 4(c) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 — to implement a Social Programme giving priority to workers at the two Hellenic Sugar Industry plants in Larissa and Xanthi, respectively, which will cease production. On 8 June 2007, the Ministry of Labour set up a special working group on this issue. The two actions of the Social Programme were incorporated into Greek law by Law 3660/2008 and provided for the following:

A special unemployment allowance scheme and

the possibility of transferring personnel — compulsory transfers to local government in newly established ad personam (and not establishment plan) posts, with full employment and insurance rights. The company made all the necessary arrangements, as the final report shows (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of /27/06/2006) which refers specifically to the commitment to secure jobs in particular of workers at plants that have closed. However, in law No 4046/2012 these workers are not excluded from the mobility-availability programme and thus face the risk of a further loss of employment rights or even of losing their jobs. In this context, will the Commission say:

How does it view the failure to exempt Hellenic Sugar Industry employees given that the other part of the programme, the special unemployment allowance scheme, is being applied fully and given that the relevant European regulations specifically provide for safeguards for the jobs in question which thus constitutes a clear commitment for Greece?

What is the model followed in other Member States whose companies have participated in this restructuring scheme?

Will it issue recommendations to Greece to exempt workers being transferred under EU programmes from the mobility procedures?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

Within the legal framework of the Union's sugar restructuring fund, Member States had full responsibility for its implementation within their territory:

Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 (194) states that ‘Member States shall decide on the granting of the restructuring aid ’;

Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 states that ‘Member States shall monitor, control and verify the implementation of the restructuring aid as approved by it ’;

Member States informed the Commission of their decisions. This communication was purely informative and did not imply formal approval of the Member States' decisions by the Commission's services:

Article 9(7) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 (195) states that ‘Member States shall decide on the eligibility of the social plan and inform the undertaking and the Commission of its decision ’;

Article 10(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 states that ‘A full copy of the approved restructuring plan shall be sent by the competent authority to the Commission ’;

It is therefore not within the competence of the Commission to issue recommendations to the Greek authorities on the implementation of the restructuring fund.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011531/12

do Komisji

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(18 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Dalsze ewentualne sankcje wobec Korei Północnej

Satelita wystrzelony przez Koreę Północną na rakiecie dalekiego zasięgu w dniu 12 grudnia krąży po orbicie bez zakłóceń według informacji dostarczonych przez władze Korei Południowej. Rządy na całym świecie potępiły wystrzelenie rakiety, twierdząc że stanowi to naruszenie prawa międzynarodowego. Korea Północna argumentuje, że umieszczenie satelity na orbicie miało charakter pokojowy, ale mimo to pojawiły się powszechne obawy co do wznowienia działań militarnych przez Koreę Północną.

Unia Europejska również potępiła wystrzelenie rakiety, jako jedna z wielu instytucji politycznych. Catherine Ashton nazwała je kolejnym krokiem w od dawna trwających staraniach Koreańskiej Republiki Ludowo-Demokratycznej w celu zdobycia technologii produkcji rakiet balistycznych. Podkreśliła także, że UE rozważy odpowiednią reakcję na to wydarzenie, w bliskiej współpracy z najważniejszymi partnerami, i zasugerowała ewentualność wprowadzenia dalszych środków ograniczających lub nałożenia sankcji na Koreę Północną.

Moje pytanie do Komisji dotyczy tego, na jakim etapie znajduje się Komisja w przyjmowaniu tych nowych środków ograniczających i kiedy możemy się spodziewać kolejnego oświadczenia w tej sprawie.

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

(26 lutego 2013 r.)

System sankcji UE wobec Korei Północnej służy zarówno wdrożeniu sankcji nałożonych przez Organizację Narodów Zjednoczonych (ONZ), jak i zastosowaniu autonomicznych, dodatkowych środków mających na celu wzmocnienie środków podjętych na szczeblu ONZ. W tym kontekście należy zauważyć, że w ramach ONZ nadal prowadzone są rozmowy w sprawie podjęcia ewentualnych działań w odniesieniu do Koreańskiej Republiki Ludowo-Demokratycznej (KRLD) w związku z wystrzeleniem rakiety w grudniu 2012 r. Działania UE, także w kwestii ewentualnego przyjęcia nowych autonomicznych, dodatkowych środków ograniczających, zostaną określone stosownie do wyniku tych rozmów. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji oświadczyła, że UE rozważy właściwą odpowiedź w ścisłym porozumieniu ze swoimi najważniejszymi partnerami.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011531/12

to the Commission

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Further possible sanctions against North Korea

The satellite that North Korea launched on a long-range rocket on 12 December is orbiting normally, according to South Korean officials. Authorities from around the world have condemned this launch as being in violation of international law. North Korea claims that this was a peaceful satellite launch, but it has sparked widespread fears of renewed North Korean military action.

The European Union is one of the political authorities to condemn the launch; Catherine Ashton called it another step in a long-running attempt by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to acquire ballistic missile technology. She also stated that the EU would consider an appropriate response, in close consultation with key partners, suggesting the possibility of further restrictive measures or sanctions against North Korea.

I would like to ask where the Commission is in terms of adopting these new restrictive measures and when we can expect another announcement to be made.

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

(26 February 2013)

The EU’s sanctions regime against North Korea implements both United Nations (UN) sanctions and includes additional autonomous measures reinforcing the measures taken at UN level. In this context, it is noted that in the UN, discussions are still ongoing as regards possible steps with regard to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), after the rocket launch of December 2012. The EU’s response, including possible adoption of new additional autonomous restrictive measures, will be determined in the light of the outcome of discussions at UN level. The HR/VP has stated that the EU would consider an appropriate response in close consultation with key partners.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011532/12

à la Commission

Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D)

(18 décembre 2012)

Objet: Activités de promotion et de développement du 112 et du projet «eCall»

En ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre du numéro d'urgence européen 112 et du projet «eCall» (basé sur le 112), il apparaît qu'une grande activité a été déployée pour faciliter le développement d'eCall. Il semble cependant que, dans le même temps, un nombre beaucoup plus réduit d'activités aient été organisées pour améliorer le fonctionnement du 112.

La Commission peut-elle transmettre une liste détaillée des activités organisées pour chacun de ces sujets et présenter les justifications des efforts consentis pour chacun d'entre eux?

Réponse donnée par Mme Kroes au nom de la Commission

(20 février 2013)

Le numéro d'urgence 112 et les initiatives autour du service eCall desservent le même objectif, qui est de secourir efficacement les citoyens européens en situation de détresse. Ecall est financé dans le cadre du projet HeERO, qui relève du programme d'appui stratégique en matière de TIC et vise à la mise en place d'un système électronique de sécurité appelant automatiquement les services d'urgence en cas d'accident grave. L'appel sera dirigé, comme tout autre appel d'urgence, vers le numéro 112. Grâce aux financements de l'UE, le déploiement et la mise en œuvre du système eCall pourront être assurés par le secteur concerné à l'horizon 2015, dans tous les États membres. Le modem intégré à la voiture permettra une localisation précise à partir des données GNSS.

En ce qui concerne le numéro d'urgence 112, la Commission s'efforce constamment de promouvoir l'usage. L'année dernière, elle a ainsi invité les compagnies de transport à sensibiliser les touristes à l'existence de ce numéro, qui peut sauver des vies. Cette année, la Commission souhaiterait associer aussi les agences de voyages à ces efforts. De plus, année après année, la publication de l'enquête annuelle Eurobaromètre et du rapport sur la mise en œuvre du 112 facilite les échanges de meilleures pratiques entre États membres. Pour renforcer l'efficacité des appels d'urgence, la Commission a engagé des discussions avec les experts des États membres afin de contribuer à la diffusion des meilleures solutions pour la mise en œuvre de critères plus stricts de localisation des appels. Des informations à jour sur les initiatives autour du 112 sont disponibles sur le site web http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/112.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011532/12

to the Commission

Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Activities promoting and developing 112 and the ‘eCall’ project

With regard to the introduction of the European emergency number 112 and the ‘eCall’ project (based on 112), it would seem that much has been done to facilitate the development of eCall. However, it seems that much less has been done to improve the way that 112 works.

Can the Commission forward a detailed list of the activities organised for each of these projects, and explain why these activities have been undertaken?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

The 112 emergency number and eCall initiatives have the same goal, bringing effective relief to European citizens in distress. ECall is financed throught the ICT Policy Support Programme in the HeERO project to promote an electronic safety system automatically calling emergency services in case of a serious accident. This call will be directed, like any other emergency call, to the 112 number. EU financing contributed to ensure that by 2015 the eCall system will be deployed by the industry and implemented in all Member States. In eCall the inbuilt modem of the car would provide accurate caller location based on GNSS data.

Regarding the 112 emergency number, the Commission continuously promotes the usage of the number. Last year the Commission called on transport companies to promote this life-saving number amongst tourists. This year the Commission would like to see Tour Operators coming on-board. In addition each year the yearly Eurobarometer report and the 112 implementation report to facilitate the exchange of best practice between Member States is published. In order to make emergency calls more efficient, the Commission is in discussions with Member States' experts in view of helping to disseminate the best solutions for implementing more stringent caller location criteria. Up-to-date information on 112 initiatives is available on the website http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/112.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-011534/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 Δεκεμβρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Έρευνα σε βάρος της Deutsche Bank από την αμερικανική Επιτροπή Κεφαλαιαγοράς

H Αμερικανική Επιτροπή Κεφαλαιαγοράς (SEC) ερευνά καταγγελίες σε βάρος της Deutsche Bank ότι η γερμανική τράπεζα απέκρυψε ζημιές έως 12 δισ. δολαρίων από παράγωγα στις δραστηριότητες της στις HΠΑ. Συγκεκριμένα, ερευνάται ότι η τράπεζα κατά τη διάρκεια της χρηματοπιστωτικής κρίσης 2007-2009, αποτίμησε «λανθασμένα» την αξία περίπλοκων παραγώγων (leveraged super senior trades), τα οποία αν είχαν αποτιμηθεί σε τρέχουσες αξίες (mark-to-trades), τότε θα είχαν προκύψει λογιστικές ζημιές που ενδεχομένως θα οδηγούσαν τα ίδια κεφάλαια της Deutsche Bank σε επικίνδυνα χαμηλά επίπεδα και στην ανάγκη παρέμβασης για την αντιμετώπιση συστημικού κινδύνου.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι γνωρίζει σχετικά με την ανωτέρω καταγγελία; Ποιο είναι το ευρωπαϊκό νομικό πλαίσιο που υπάρχει; Τι αρμοδιότητες διαθέτουν σήμερα οι θεσμοί της ΕΕ προκειμένου να ερευνήσουν την υπόθεση;

Τα stress tests των ευρωπαϊκών τραπεζών του 2011 ήταν αξιόπιστα; Γιατί δεν ανέδειξαν την γιγαντιαία έκθεση της Deutsche Bank στα ανωτέρω «τοξικά» παράγωγα;

Προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να ερευνήσει την υπόθεση ή θα αφήσει την Αμερικανική Επιτροπή Κεφαλαιαγοράς (SEC) να «βγάλει το φίδι από την τρύπα», όπως κάνει σε όλες τις ανάλογες περιπτώσεις που η SEC ερευνά γερμανικές εταιρείες;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(28 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

1.

Η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να καθορίσει κατά πόσον η έκθεση της Deutsche Bank είναι ακριβής. Το ΔΠΧΑ

1.

Η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να καθορίσει κατά πόσον η έκθεση της Deutsche Bank είναι ακριβής. Το ΔΠΧΑ

 (196) αποτελεί το λογιστικό πλαίσιο που εφαρμόζεται στους ενοποιημένους λογαριασμούς εισηγμένων στο χρηματιστήριο εταιρειών στην Ευρώπη και στις ΗΠΑ. Βάσει του πλαισίου του ΔΠΧΑ, τα παράγωγα θα μπορούσαν να αποτιμηθούν σε εύλογη αξία. Ο εν λόγω λογιστικός κανόνας μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε μεγάλα κέρδη ή ζημίες στα κοινοποιηθέντα αποτελέσματα. Πράγμα που θα επηρεάσει τα υποχρεωτικά κεφάλαια μιας τράπεζας. Όταν δεν διατίθενται τιμές προσφοράς στην αγορά ή δεδομένα αγοράς για την αποτίμηση της εύλογης αξίας των παραγώγων, οι τράπεζες καθορίζουν την εύλογη αξία τους χρησιμοποιώντας μαθηματικά πρότυπα που βασίζονται σε παραδοχές. Οι μετρήσεις αυτές υπόκεινται σε έλεγχο. Το ΣΔΛΠ (197) εξέδωσε πρόσφατα ένα νέο πρότυπο (198) για την αποτίμηση της εύλογης αξίας (ΔΠΧΑ 13) το οποίο βελτιώνει τις προηγούμενες κατευθύνσεις σχετικά με το θέμα αυτό.

2.

Ο στόχος της προσομοίωσης ακραίων καταστάσεων (stress test) του 2011 σε επίπεδο ΕΕ ήταν να αξιολογηθεί η ανθεκτικότητα μεγάλου τμήματος του τραπεζικού συστήματος της ΕΕ. Η προσομοίωση αυτή αποτελούσε σημαντική βελτίωση σε σχέση με προηγούμενες προσομοιώσεις, έχοντας τρεις βαθμίδες διασφάλισης ποιότητας και ενισχυμένη διαφάνεια. Βασίστηκε στα χρηματοοικονομικά στοιχεία των τραπεζών του τέλους του έτους 2010, τα οποία χορηγήθηκαν από τις ίδιες τις τράπεζες, στη συνέχεια αναλύθηκαν από εθνικές εποπτικές αρχές και τέλος, ελέγχθηκε από την ΕΑΤ

2.

Ο στόχος της προσομοίωσης ακραίων καταστάσεων (stress test) του 2011 σε επίπεδο ΕΕ ήταν να αξιολογηθεί η ανθεκτικότητα μεγάλου τμήματος του τραπεζικού συστήματος της ΕΕ. Η προσομοίωση αυτή αποτελούσε σημαντική βελτίωση σε σχέση με προηγούμενες προσομοιώσεις, έχοντας τρεις βαθμίδες διασφάλισης ποιότητας και ενισχυμένη διαφάνεια. Βασίστηκε στα χρηματοοικονομικά στοιχεία των τραπεζών του τέλους του έτους 2010, τα οποία χορηγήθηκαν από τις ίδιες τις τράπεζες, στη συνέχεια αναλύθηκαν από εθνικές εποπτικές αρχές και τέλος, ελέγχθηκε από την ΕΑΤ

 (199) η συνοχή τους με άλλα αποτελέσματα τραπεζών. Στο πλαίσιο της προσομοίωσης δεν απαιτήθηκε η κοινοποίηση πρόσθετων στοιχείων για παράγωγα τραπεζών (εκτός από την περίπτωση των κρατικών ομολόγων).

3.

Στην Ευρώπη, η αξιολόγηση της εφαρμογής ενός λογιστικού προτύπου εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα των ελεγκτών των εταιρειών και των εθνικών ρυθμιστικών αρχών της αγοράς

3.

Στην Ευρώπη, η αξιολόγηση της εφαρμογής ενός λογιστικού προτύπου εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα των ελεγκτών των εταιρειών και των εθνικών ρυθμιστικών αρχών της αγοράς

 (200). Οι εθνικές ρυθμιστικές αρχές της αγοράς συντονίζονται σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο από την ΕΑΚΑΑ (201), σε ένα φόρουμ που ονομάζεται EECS (202). Η ΕΑΚΑΑ δημοσιεύει τακτικά στον δικτυακό της τόπο αποσπάσματα εκτελεστικών αποφάσεων της ΕΟΚΕE σχετικά με το ΔΠΧΑ (203).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011534/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Investigation into Deutsche Bank by the US Securities and Exchange Commission

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating allegations that Deutsche Bank concealed losses of up to US USD 12 billion from its derivative activities in the US. The investigations are focusing on whether, during the 2007-2009 financial crisis, it ‘mistakenly’ valued complex derivatives (leveraged super senior trades), which, if they had been valued at current market rates (mark-to-trades), would have revealed accounting losses that would probably have reduced Deutsche Bank equity to dangerously low levels, necessitating action to address the systemic risk.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What does it know about these allegations? What is the existing European legal framework in this connection? What powers are currently available to EU institutions to investigate this case?

Were the 2011 European bank stress tests reliable? Why did they not reveal Deutsche Bank's enormous exposure to these ‘toxic’ derivatives?

Will it investigate this case or leave it to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to get to the bottom of these allegations, as it invariably does in cases in which the SECinvestigates German companies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

1.

The Commission is not in a position to determine whether Deutsche Bank’s reporting was accurate. IFRS

1.

The Commission is not in a position to determine whether Deutsche Bank’s reporting was accurate. IFRS

 (204) is the accounting framework applicable for the consolidated accounts of companies listed in Europe and for European companies listed in the US. Under the IFRS framework, derivatives should have been measured at fair value. Such an accounting rule can lead to large gains or losses in reported results which will affect the regulatory capital of a bank. When there is no market quotation or market data available to measure the fair value of derivatives, banks determine their fair value using mathematical models based on assumptions. These measurements are subject to audit. The IASB (205) recently issued a new standard (206) on fair value measurement (IFRS 13) which improves the previous guidance on that issue.

2.

The objective of the 2011 EU-wide stress test was to assess the resilience of a large part of the EU banking system. The exercise represented a marked improvement over previous tests, with three layers of quality assurance and enhanced transparency. It was based on banks' financial information at year-end 2010, provided by the banks themselves, then scrutinised by national supervisors and further controlled for consistency with other banks' results by the EBA

2.

The objective of the 2011 EU-wide stress test was to assess the resilience of a large part of the EU banking system. The exercise represented a marked improvement over previous tests, with three layers of quality assurance and enhanced transparency. It was based on banks' financial information at year-end 2010, provided by the banks themselves, then scrutinised by national supervisors and further controlled for consistency with other banks' results by the EBA

 (207). The exercise has not requested additional disclosure on banks' derivative portfolios (except for sovereign exposures).

3.

In Europe, the assessment of the application of an accounting standard is the responsibility of a company’s auditors and the national market regulators

3.

In Europe, the assessment of the application of an accounting standard is the responsibility of a company’s auditors and the national market regulators

 (208). National market regulators are coordinated at European level by ESMA (209), in a forum named EECS (210). ESMA publishes regularly on its website extracts of EECS enforcement decisions made on IFRS (211).

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011535/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(18 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Sistema tal-privattivi unifikata

Peress li l-MPE ivvutaw biex tiġi introdotta sistema tal-privattivi unifikata, xi pajjiżi kienu mħassba dwar id-diskriminazzjoni possibbli b’rabta mal-lingwa. Minħabba li l-applikazzjonijiet u l-approvazzjonijiet se jkollhom jinkitbu bl-Ingliż, bil-Ġermaniż jew bil-Franċiż biss, xi wħud jibżgħu li dan jista' joħloq vantaġġ inġust għall-impriżi li joperaw b'dawn il-lingwi.

X’inhi l-pożizzjoni tal-Kummissjoni fir-rigward ta’ din l-allegazzjoni?

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

(8 ta' Marzu 2013)

Ir-Regolament 1260/2012 bl-ebda mod ma jirfes fuq ir-reġim lingwistiku attwali tal-Uffiċċju Ewropew tal-Privattivi, li skontu l-applikazzjonijiet jistgħu jiġu ppreżentati f’kull lingwa, iżda l-applikanti għandhom jipprovdu traduzzjoni tal-applikazzjoni f’waħda mil-lingwi uffiċjali tal-EPO (l-Ingliż, il-Franċiż jew il-Ġermaniż). Madankollu, skont l-arranġamenti għat-traduzzjoni għall-protezzjoni tal-privattiva unitarja, l-SMEs, il-persuni fiżiċi, l-organizzazzjonijiet mingħajr skop ta’ qligħ, l-universitajiet u l-organizzazzjonijiet pubbliċi tar-riċerka li għandhom ir-residenza tagħhom jew il-post ewlieni tan-negozju tagħhom fi kwalunkwe wieħed mis-27 Stat Membru tal-UE jieħdu kumpens tal-ispejjeż kollha tat-traduzzjoni (sa limitu) jekk l-applikazzjoni tkun ġiet ippreżentata f'lingwa uffiċjali tal-UE minbarra l-Ingliż, il-Franċiż jew il-Ġermaniż. Barra minn hekk, it-tnaqqis fil-miżati stabbilit fl-Artikolu 14 tar-Regoli tal-Konvenzjoni tal-Privattivi Ewropej relatat mal-miżati, se jibqa’ applikabbli.

Barra minn hekk, għall-perjodu tranżitorju ta' massimu ta' 12-il sena, il-privattivi Ewropej b'effett unitarju mogħtija bil-Franċiż jew bil-Ġermaniż iridu jiġu tradotti bl-Ingliż, u dawk mogħtija bl-Ingliż jiġu tradotti f'lingwa uffiċjali oħra tal-UE. Barra minn hekk, it-tagħrif dwar il-privattivi se jkun disponibbli mingħajr ħlas fil-lingwi kollha tal-UE minħabba traduzzjonijiet awtomatiċi ta’ kwalità għolja pprovduti mill-EPO. Illum dan is-servizz ikopri 13-il lingwa; sa tmiem l-2014 huwa mistenni li jkopri 32 lingwa, inklużi l-lingwi kollha tal-UE.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan ta’ hawn fuq il-Kummissjoni ma tqisx li r-reġim tal-lingwa stabbilit għal protezzjoni unitarja joħloq diskriminazzjoni marbuta mal-lingwi, u lanqas ma joħloq vantaġġ inġust għal impriżi li joperaw bl-Ingliż, bil-Franċiż jew bil-Ġermaniż.

Il-Kummissjoni tirreferi wkoll għat-tweġiba tagħha għall-mistoqsija bil-miktub E-1002/2011.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011535/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Unified patent system

As MEPs have voted to introduce a unified patent system, concerns have been raised by some countries over possible language-related discrimination. Given that applications and approvals will have to be drafted in English, German or French only, some fear that this might create an unfair advantage for undertakings that operate in these languages.

What is the position of the Commission with regard to this claim?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

Regulation 1260/2012 leaves untouched the current language regime of the European Patent Office, according to which applications can be filed in any language, but the applicants have to provide a translation of the application in one of the EPO official languages (English, French or German). However, under the translation arrangements for the unitary patent protection, SMEs, natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within any of the 27 EU Member States will get a compensation of all translation costs (up to a ceiling) if the application was filed in an official language of the EU other than English, French or German. Additionally, the fee reduction established under Article 14 of European Patent Convention Rules relating to Fees, will remain applicable.

Moreover, for a transitional period of max. 12 years, European patents with unitary effect granted in French or German will need to be translated into English, and the ones granted in English will be translated to another official language of the EU. Furthermore, the information on patents will be available free of charge in all EU languages due to high-quality machine translations provided by EPO. Today this service covers 13 languages; by the end of 2014 it is expected to cover 32 languages, including all languages of the EU.

In view of the above the Commission does not consider the language regime established for unitary protection to bring language-related discrimination, nor to create an unfair advantage for undertakings that operate in English, French or German.

The Commission also refers to its answer to Written Question E-1002/2011.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011536/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(18 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Delegazzjoni tal-UE fl-Iraq

L-MPE reċentement talbu għal preżenza aktar qawwija tal-UE fl-Iraq, filwaqt li stqarrew li d-delegazzjoni tal-UE fil-pajjiż ma kinitx kompletament kapaċi twettaq monitoraġġ tal-implimentazzjoni tal-inizjattivi ffinanzjati mill-UE minħabba nuqqas ta' sede adegwata u ta’ kopertura tas-sigurtà.

Biex l-inizjattivi tal-UE jkunu effettivi fil-post, l-implimentazzjoni tagħhom teħtieġ monitoraġġ affidabbli. Il-Kummissjoni beħsiebha tieħu miżuri biex issewwi dawn in-nuqqasijiet attwali, u b'liema modi beħsiebha tagħmel id-delegazzjoni tal-UE fl-Iraq aktar b’saħħitha u effettiva?

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

(28 ta' Frar 2013)

Sa mill-ħolqien tagħha, id-Delegazzjoni tal-UE fl-Iraq ġiet kollokata fl-ambaxxata Brittanika f’Bagdad. L-akkomodazzjoni mogħtija lill-persunal hija standard għar-residenti kollha, Brittaniċi jew inkwilini oħra, u hija kompletament adattata għat-theddid u r-riskji lokali għas-sigurtà fiżika (ħitan solidi, protezzjoni minn fuq, twieqi għal kontra l-balal eċċ.). Il-bini tal-uffiċċju huwa kondiviż mal-uffiċjali tar-Renju Unit u inkwilini oħra, iżda d-Delegazzjoni tal-UE għandha l-ispazju għall-uffiċċji separat għaliha.

Il-ħolqien ta' uffiċċji ġodda ddedikati għad-Delegazzjoni se jieħu ż-żmien minħabba li s-sit imqiegħed għad-dispożizzjoni tas-SEAE mill-gvern Iraqin irid jiġi kompletament rinovat. Il-proċeduri ta' akkwist assoċjati u sussegwentement il-bini se jkunu kumplessi, partikolarment minħabba l-isfida tal-ambjent ta’ sigurtà.

It-tisħiħ tal-preżenza tal-Kummissjoni (DEVCO) f'Bagdad huwa l-objettiv primarju tal-Kummissjoni. L-implimentazzjoni ta' dan l-objettiv hija kkundizzjonata mis-sitwazzjoni tas-sigurtà u bħalissa qed tiġi analizzata. Għalissa, il-persunal ta’ DEVCO bbażat f’Amman qed jiżgura l-preżenza regolari f'Bagdad permezz ta' missjonijiet frekwenti biex iħejju u jsegwu l-implimentazzjoni ta' proġetti ffinanzjati mill-UE.

Is-SEAE bħalissa qed jeżamina l-pjani tal-bini l-ġdid tad-Delegazzjoni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011536/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: EU delegation in Iraq

MEPs recently called for a stronger EU presence in Iraq, stating that the EU delegation in the country was not fully able to monitor the implementation of EU-funded initiatives due to a lack of adequate premises and security cover.

For EU initiatives to be effective on the ground, their implementation requires reliable monitoring. Does the Commission intend to take measures to remedy these current shortcomings, and in what ways does the Commission intend to make the EU delegation in Iraq stronger and more effective?

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

(28 February 2013)

Since its creation, the EU Delegation in Iraq has been collocated within the British Embassy in Baghdad. The accommodation provided to the staff is standard for all the residents, British or other tenants, and it is fully adapted to the local physical security threats and risks (solid walls, overhead protection, bulletproof windows etc.). The office premises are shared with UK officials and other tenants, but the EU Delegation has its own dedicated office spaces.

The creation of new premises dedicated to the Delegation will take time as the site put at the disposal of the EEAS by the Iraqi Government has to be completely renovated. The associated procurement procedures and subsequent building will be complex, particularly given the challenging security environement.

Strengthening the Commission (DEVCO) presence in Bagdad is a primary objective of the Commission. The implementation of this objective is conditioned by the security situation and is currently under review. For the time being, DEVCO staff based in Amman ensures a regular presence in Bagdad through frequent missions to prepare and follow-up implementation of EU-funded projects.

The EEAS is currently looking at the plans for the new Delegation premises.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-011537/12

lill-Kummissjoni

David Casa (PPE)

(18 ta' Diċembru 2012)

Suġġett: Azzjoni kontra inganni kummerċjali

Il-Kummissjoni reċentement ippreżentat il-pjanijiet tagħha biex tittratta l-inganni kummerċjali billi ssaħħaħ id-Direttiva eżistenti dwar reklamar qarrieqi u komparattiv (id-Direttiva 2006/114/KE).

Flimkien ma’ leġiżlazzjoni aktar stretta, il-Kummissjoni tqis li jkun ta’ siwi li tniedi kampanja ta' sensibilizzazzjoni għan-negozji, biex is-sidien ta' negozji jiġu infurmati dwar l-eżistenza u l-perikli ta' dawn l-inganni kummerċjali?

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

(1 ta' Marzu 2013)

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea hija konxja li hemm diversi azzjonijiet li jqajmu kuxjenza kontra prattiki ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni qarrieqa bejn in-negozji, partikolarment fil-Pajjiżi il-Baxxi, fid-Danimarka jew fir-Renju Unit. Dawn l-inizjattivi huma tabilħaqq ta’ suċċess u jillimitaw in-numru ta’ kumpaniji li jisfaw vittmi ta’ prattiki ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni qarrieqa.

F’dan il-kuntest, il-Kummissjoni temmen li dawn l-inizjattivi li jqajmu kuxjenza jkunu l-aktar effettivi biex jilħqu intrapriżi żgħar u ġodda meta jkunu organizzati fuq livell lokali jew nazzjonali. Għalhekk, f’dan l-istadju, ma jidhirx li kampanja Ewropea għat-tqajjim ta’ kuxjenza hija l-aktar mod effiċjenti biex nimxu “l quddiem.

Madanakollu l-Kummissjoni ser tassoċja mill-qrib intrapriżi żgħar u ta” daqs medju fil-proċess kontinwu ta’ reviżjoni tad-Direttiva dwar Reklamar Qarrieqi u Komparattiv u se tkompli attivament ixxerred informazzjoni dwar prattiki ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni qarrieqa permezz tan-Netwerk Ewropew għall-Intrapriżi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011537/12

to the Commission

David Casa (PPE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Action against marketing scams

The Commission recently presented its plans to tackle marketing scams by strengthening the existing Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (Directive 2006/114/EC).

In addition to tougher legislation, does the Commission consider it useful to carry out an awareness-raising campaign for businesses, to inform business owners of the existence and dangers of these marketing scams?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

The European Commission is aware of several awareness raising actions against business-to-business misleading marketing practices, in particular in the Netherlands, Denmark or the United Kingdom. Such initiatives are indeed successful and limit the number of companies that fall victim to misleading marketing practices.

In this context, the Commission believes that such awareness raising initiatives are most effective in reaching small and new enterprises when organised at a local or national level. Therefore, a European awareness raising campaign does not, at this stage, seem to be the most efficient way forward.

The Commission will however closely associate small and medium-sized enterprises in the ongoing review process of the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive and will continue to actively disseminate information about the misleading marketing practices through the Enterprise Europe Network.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-011538/12

do Komisji

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Tadeusz Cymański (EFD) oraz Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)

(18 grudnia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Stosunki między służbami Komisji Europejskiej zajmującymi się pomocą publiczną a krajowymi organami regulacyjnymi

Wiele powiedziano już na temat związku między konkurencją (zwłaszcza polityką antymonopolową) i regulacjami krajowymi. Z jednej strony, przepisy dotyczące konkurencji są stosowane ex post, podczas gdy regulacje krajowe stosuje się ex ante i uzupełniają się one nawzajem. Z drugiej strony, brak jest informacji o związku między zasadami udzielania pomocy publicznej i regulacjami krajowymi w sektorach regulowanych, takich jak łączność elektroniczna i energetyka.

W sektorach regulowanych sama Unia Europejska jakiś czas temu nakazała utworzyć niezależne krajowe organy regulacyjne, którym powierzono pieczę nad prawidłowym funkcjonowaniem odpowiednich rynków krajowych na przejrzystych i gwarantujących konkurencję warunkach, tak aby krajowe rynki regulowane mogły się rozwijać w sposób spójny z rynkami krajowymi pozostałych państw członkowskich UE. Jeśli chodzi o spełnianie tej funkcji przez sektory regulowane uprasza się Komisję o udzielenie odpowiedzi na następujące pytania:

Jak postrzega Komisja relacje między jej służbami zajmującymi się pomocą publiczną a niezależnymi krajowymi organami regulacyjnymi państw członkowskich?

Stwierdzono, że służby Komisji zajmujące się pomocą publiczną wykorzystują informacje uzyskane od zainteresowanych stron odnośnie do wystąpienia zakłócenia konkurencji na skutek udzielenia pomocy publicznej. Czy Komisja zgadza się, że krajowe organy regulacyjne są najlepszym źródłem wiarygodnej informacji dla jej służb zajmujących się pomocą publiczną?

Czy Komisja uznaje niezależność krajowych organów regulacyjnych i pozwala im na samodzielne wykonywanie powierzonych im obowiązków?

Czy uczestnicy rynku funkcjonują w obrębie unijnych ram prawnych i regulacyjnych, kiedy ściśle i ponad wszelką wątpliwość stosują się do decyzji niezależnych krajowych organów regulacyjnych?

W jaki sposób zapewnione jest przestrzeganie przez Komisję zasady pewności prawa w stosunku do wszystkich uczestników rynku w odniesieniu do autorytetu i statusu krajowych organów regulacyjnych podczas wykonywania przez nich obowiązków?

Czy służby Komisji zajmujące się pomocą publiczną prowadzą politykę interwencji i kontroli sposobu wykonywania przez krajowe organy regulacyjne przypisanych im funkcji?

Jakie są granice takich interwencji i kontroli, o ile istnieją, w celu zapobiegania podważaniu kompetencji, autorytetu i uprawnień powierzonych krajowym organom regulacyjnym przez samą Unię Europejską?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Joaquina Almunię w imieniu Komisji

(4 marca 2013 r.)

Jak zostało to podkreślone przez szanownych Panów Posłów, krajowe organy regulacyjne odgrywają kluczową rolę w zapewnieniu właściwego funkcjonowania ich odpowiednich rynków. W dziedzinie łączności elektronicznej przegląd ram regulacyjnych dokonany w 2009 r. przyczynił się do dalszego zwiększenia niezależności krajowych organów regulacyjnych, zapewniając bardziej skuteczne stosowanie tych ram i przewidywalność decyzji (212).

Służby Komisji odpowiedzialne za kontrolę pomocy państwa nawiązują kontakty z krajowymi organami regulacyjnymi i w razie potrzeby z nimi współpracują, przy jednoczesnym poszanowaniu kompetencji instytucjo-nalnych Komisji i państw członkowskich w zakresie kontroli pomocy państwa, a także funkcji konstytucyjnych i regulacyjnych, jakie pełnią krajowe organy.

W dziedzinie sieci szerokopasmowych współpraca jest dobrze rozwinięta, a krajowe organy regulacyjne mają w tym obszarze szczególnie istotne zadanie opracowywania prokonkurencyjnego środka pomocy państwa, stanowiącego wsparcie sieci szerokopasmowych. Krajowe organy regulacyjne pozyskały wiedzę techniczną i specjalistyczną, a więc są najlepiej przygotowane do wspierania władz publicznych w odniesieniu do programów pomocy państwa. Wytyczne UE w sprawie stosowania reguł pomocy państwa w odniesieniu do szybkiej budowy/rozbudowy sieci szerokopasmowych zawierają zatem wskazanie, że należy się konsultować z krajowymi organami regulacyjnymi w kwestiach opracowywania środków pomocy państwa. Rola krajowych organów regulacyjnych została szcze-gółowo uszczegółowiona w zmienionych wytycznych, przyjętych w dniu 19 grudnia 2012 r. (213).

W praktyce organ udzielający pomocy musi zwracać się o poradę do krajowych organów regulacyjnych przy-najmniej w następujących sytuacjach: 1) przy wyborze obszarów docelowych; 2) przy określaniu cen za dostęp hurtowy oraz warunków jego zapewniania; (3) przy rozstrzyganiu sporów między podmiotem ubiegającym się o dostęp i operatorami otrzymującymi pomoc. W zależności od podstawy prawnej i możliwości administracyjnych, pomoc krajowych organów regulacyjnych może być przydatna także w odniesieniu do innych aspektów programu pomocy.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011538/12

to the Commission

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Tadeusz Cymański (EFD) and Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Relationship between the European Commission's state aid services and independent nations regulators

Much has been said regarding the relationship between competition (in particular antitrust) and national regulations. On the one hand, the competitions laws apply ex post, whereas national regulation applies ex ante, and the two complement each other. On the other hand, there is no information on the relationship between state aid rules and national regulation in regulated sectors, such as e-communication and energy.

In these regulated sectors, the European Union itself mandated some time ago the creation of independent National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) entrusted with the proper functioning of their respective national markets under open and competitive conditions, ensuring that national regulated markets develop in a cohesive manner with other EU national Member State markets. Regarding the performance of these functions by the regulated sectors, could the Commission answer the following questions:

How does the Commission regard the relationship between its state aid services and the independent NRAs of the Member States?

It is noted that the Commission state aid services rely on information from interested parties as to the existence of distortions of competitions resulting from state aid. Does the Commission agree that the NRAs are best placed to supply the Commission state aid services with reliable information?

Does the Commission acknowledge the independence of the NRAs and allow them to perform their duties independently?

Are market participants within the boundaries of the EU legal and regulatory framework when they strictly and conclusively abide by the decisions of the independent NRAs?

How is the principle of legal certainty for the whole spectrum of market participants ensured by the Commission as to the authority and status of NRAs in the exercise of their duties?

Does the Commission state aid service have a policy of intervening and controlling the way in which the NRAs discharge their constitutional functions?

What are the boundaries of such interventions and controls, if any, with a view to avoiding undermining the independence, authority and powers granted to the NRAs by the European Union itself?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

As highlighted by the Honourable Member, National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) play a crucial role in the proper functioning of their respective markets. In the field of electronic communications, the 2009 review of the Regulatory Framework for electronic communications further strengthened the NRAs independence to ensure a more effective application of the framework and the predictability of decisions (214).

The Commission services in charge of state aid control liaise and cooperate where necessary with NRAs, while respecting the institutional competences of the Commission and the Member States in the field of state aid control, and of the constitutional and regulatory functions of NRAs.

Cooperation is well developed in the area of broadband, where the role of NRAs in designing a pro-competitive state aid measure in support of broadband is particularly important. The NRAs have gained technical knowledge and expertise, and so are best placed to support public authorities with regard to state aid schemes. Thus the EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks provide that NRAs should be consulted concerning the design of the state aid measures. The role of NRAs has been further detailed in the revised guidelines, adopted on 19 December 2012 (215).

In practice, the aid-granting authority must seek advice from the NRA at least (1) in selecting the target areas, (2) in designing wholesale access prices and conditions, (3) for dispute resolution between the access seeker and the subsidised operators, should such a situation emerge. Depending on the legal basis and the administrative capabilities, the NRA's help could be valuable in other aspects of the aid scheme.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011539/12

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(18 december 2012)

Angående: ”Systemuppgifter” i samband med den privata sektorns insatser för barns säkerhet

Bilagan till förklaringen om inrättandet av en global allians mot exploatering av barn på Internet (216), där deltagarnas avsikter presenteras närmare, innehåller följande stycke:

”Uppmuntra den privata sektorn att delta i arbetet med att identifiera och undanröja känt barnpornografiskt material som finns i den berörda staten, inbegripet att i största möjliga mån öka volymen systemuppgifter som undersöks för att hitta barnpornografiska bilder.”

Kan kommissionen förklara vad som specifikt avses med ”systemuppgifter” i detta sammanhang?

Svar från Cecila Malmström på kommissionens vägnar

(4 mars 2013)

Det mål som anges i förklaringen om inrättandet av en global allians mot exploatering av barn på internet syftar till att uppmuntra leverantörer av elektroniska tjänster och internettjänster att frivilligt vidta målinriktade åtgärder för att hitta barnpornografiska bilder i sina system. Tekniken för detta finns och används redan och den består av programvaruverktyg som söker igenom bildinnehållet för att hitta kända barnpornografiska bilder, med hjälp av t.ex. digitala koder (hashvärden). Sådana system söker uteslutande efter bilder som redan identifierats som olagliga. Företagen skulle använda ett helt automatiskt system, specifikt inriktat på att hitta och rapportera endast kända och kontrollerade barnpornografiska bilder och skulle inte granska eller avslöja några andra uppgifter.

Denna typ av teknik är ett användbart verktyg som effektivt kan utnyttjas av den privata sektorn för att minska tillgången till barnpornografi på nätet och förhindra att offren drabbas av en fortsatt användning av bilderna.

Myndigheterna, framför allt justitie‐ och inrikesministrarna, i de länder som går med i den globala alliansen har åtagit sig att uppfylla ett antal mål. Det gäller bland annat insatser för att identifiera och skydda offren, utreda ärenden och åtala förövare. De ska också öka medvetenheten om riskerna för barn på nätet samt minska tillgången till barnpornografi på nätet. De kommer därför att sträva efter att uppnå målen och vidta särskilda åtgärder inom sin jurisdiktion. De särskilda åtgärderna, samt dessa åtgärders omfattning och innehåll, kommer att avgöras av de deltagande länderna, utifrån den egna nationella situationen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011539/12

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: ‘System data’ in the context of private-sector child safety activities

The annex to the Declaration on Launching the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online (217), further setting forth the intent of the participants, contains the following paragraph:

‘Encourage participation by the private sector in identifying and removing known child pornography material located in the relevant State, including increasing as much as possible the volume of system data examined for child pornography images.’

Could the Commission explain what, specifically, is meant by ‘system data’ in this context?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

The objective of the operational goal provided for in the Declaration on the Launch of the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online is to encourage electronic/Internet service providers to voluntarily employ targeted measures to find child sexual abuse images on their systems. Technologies available and already in use for this purpose consist of software tools to search system image content for known child pornography images, using for example digital codes (hash values). Such systems search exclusively for previously identified, illegal images. Companies would use a fully automated system to specifically target, find and report only known or vetted child pornography images, without examining or revealing any other data.

These technologies are a useful tool that can be employed by the private sector effectively to reduce the availability of child pornography online and the re-victimisation of children.

Authorities, mainly Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of countries joining the Global Alliance, have committed to pursuing a number of policy targets. These include efforts to identify and protect child victims, investigate cases and prosecute offenders, increase awareness of risks for children online, and reduce the availability of child pornography online. They will aim to reach operational goals and undertake specific action within their jurisdiction for that purpose. Specific actions, their extent and content, will be decided by participant countries, in accordance with their national situation.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-011540/12

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(18 december 2012)

Angående: Inkonsekvens i kommissionens hållning avseende konventionen om it-brottslighet och den globala alliansen mot sexuell exploatering av barn på internet

Kan kommissionen förklara varför den aktivt stöder både Europarådets konvetion om it-brottslighet – som innehåller ett specifikt undantag som innebär att parterna får avstå från att kriminalisera anskaffande eller innehav av barnpornografiskt material – och den globala alliansen mot sexuell exploatering av barn på Internet, som uttryckligen begär en kriminalisering?

Svar från Cecilia Malmström på kommissionens vägnar

(15 februari 2013)

Såsom påpekats av parlamentsledamoten stöder kommissionen aktivt Europarådets konvention om it-brottslighet eftersom det är det effektivaste internationella rättsliga instrumentet inom det berörda området. Vad gäller kriminaliseringen av anskaffande eller innehav av barnpornografiskt material kunde någon allmän överenskommelse inte nås vid förhandlingarna om konventionen så därför inkluderar den möjligheten för parterna att införa en reservation om denna bestämmelse.

Detta urholkar inte konventionens värde som en solid grund för antagandet av nationell lagstiftning inom området it-brottslighet, och som en effektiv referens för internationellt samarbete. För att överkomma detta särskilda tomrum inkluderades i rådets rambeslut 2004/68/JHA medlemsstaternas skyldighet att göra förvärv eller innehav av barnpornografi till en straffbar gärning. Det beslutet har ersatts av direktiv 2011/92/EU om bekämpande av sexuella övergrepp mot barn, sexuell exploatering av barn och barnpornografi, som ytterligare preciserar betydelsen av ”innehav” av barnpornografi.

Deklarationen som åtföljer den globala alliansen mot sexuell exploatering av barn på internet är därför fullt förenlig med den nuvarande EU-lagstiftningen. Kommissionen anser att principerna i Europarådets konvention, tillsammans med de skyldigheter som fastställs i direktiv 2011/92/EU och det starka politiska engagemang som uttrycks i den globala alliansens deklaration, kommer att göra det möjligt för Europeiska unionen att på ett mera effektivt sätt bekämpa sexualbrott och sexuella övergrepp mot barn på internet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011540/12

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Inconsistency in Commission policy with respect to the Convention of Cybercrime and the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online

Can the Commission explain why it actively supports both the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, which includes a specific derogation whereby parties may not criminalise procurement or possession of child abuse material, and the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online, which specifically demands criminalisation?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

As noted by the Honourable Member, the Commission actively supports the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, as it is the most effective international legal instrument in the field concerned. As regards the criminalisation of procurement or possession of child abuse material, general agreement could not be reached during negotiations on the Convention, and so it includes the possibility for Parties to introduce a reservation on this provision.

This does not undermine the value of the Convention as a solid basis for the adoption of national legislation in the area of cybercrime and as an effective reference for international cooperation. However, to overcome this specific gap, Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA included the obligation for Member States to make acquisition or possession of child pornography a criminal offence. That decision has been replaced by Directive 2011/92/EU on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, which further specifies the meaning of ‘possession’ of child pornography.

The Declaration accompanying the Global Alliance against child sexual abuse online is therefore fully consistent with the current EU legislation. The Commission believes that the principles enshrined in the Council of Europe Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Directive 2011/92/EU and the strong political commitment expressed in the Global Alliance Declaration will enable the European Union to fight more effectively sexual crimes and child sexual abuse online.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011541/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: EASA opinion on flight time limitations for pilots and cabin crew

1.

In 2011 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) commissioned three separate scientific reports, which concluded that flying at night should be limited to a flight duty of 10 hours, since anything above this would create critical levels of fatigue and hence a potential safety risk. This being the case, could the Commission explain why the EASA has proposed that the limit should be 11-12:30 hours of flight duty at night?

2.

In these scientific reports it was concluded that flight duty times of up to 14 hours a day should only be allowed for duties starting within a short time window of 4 hours, namely between 8.00 and 12.00. The EASA proposal would allow a one-hour extension twice a week for duties starting between 6.15 and 19.00, i.e. a time window of 12:45. This window is three times longer than that recommended by scientists. What are the specific criteria for believing that 14-hour flight duties are safe between 6.15 and 19.00?

3.

Could the Commission confirm that the EASA has based its proposed rules on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements (FTL) on scientific and medical evidence in each case?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

The Commission refers the Honorable Member to its answers to written questions E-009003/2012, E-011134/2012 and P-011515/2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011543/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Tax rates on defibrillators

A defibrillator is a life-saving machine that gives the heart an electric shock in cases of cardiac arrest. For every minute that passes without defibrillation, chances of survival decrease by 14%. Research shows that applying a controlled shock within five minutes of collapse provides the best possible chances of survival. Access to defibrillators at local and community level increases the chance of survival.

1.

In this connection, could the Commission outline what supports it has in place to assist community groups in accessing defibrillators?

At present defibrillators, other than implantable defibrillators, are liable to VAT at the standard rate, currently 23%. There is no provision in VAT law that would make it possible to exempt from VAT or apply a zero rate to the supply of such products. Under the EU VAT Directive, Member States may retain the zero rate on goods and services which were in place on 1 January 1991, but cannot extend the zero rate to new goods and services.

2.

Does the Commission intend to review the VAT rate on defibrillators?

3.

Given the life-saving benefits of defibrillators, will the Commission consider applying a zero rate to this item?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐8798/2010 by Ms Lena EK (218). In addition to this answer, the following elements should be mentioned.

VAT is a general consumption tax meant for raising revenue which Member States redistribute according to their budgetary, social, or policy requirements. Zero rates are thus in conflict with the nature of VAT as a general consumption tax levied on all taxable supplies of goods and services. This principle is the view of a large majority of Member States, who can only accept zero rates as strictly limited derogations to the normal rules, with no possibility of their extension.

Furthermore, the use of reduced rates is often not the most suitable instrument for pursuing policy objectives, particularly for ensuring financial redistribution to poor households or encouraging the consumption of socially desirable products. Reduction of VAT rates does not systematically lead to equivalent decrease in prices. Therefore, the review of the current VAT rates structure announced by the communication on the future of VAT (219) will mainly consist of restricting the scope of the VAT reduced rates rather than its extension. In that framework, introducing a zero rate to the VAT rates structure is not envisaged.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that Member States are free to grant financial support to assist community groups or similar organisations, provided that in doing so they comply with EC law, in particular the provisions on state aid.

However, it is in the competence of Member States to establish Automated Defibrillators programmes and national strategies for access to such devices.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011544/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Diaspora centre

Could the Commission provide details of programmes and funding streams, if any, which would be available for a regional area to develop and run a national diaspora centre?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

The notion of ‘diaspora’ is not clearly defined in the EU acquis; it may refer to EU nationals as well as to third-country nationals. With regard to the integration of third-country nationals, there are specific funding possibilities under the European Integration Fund (EIF) and, as from 2014, under the future Asylum & Migration Fund (AMF). Complementary funding may also be available under the European Social Fund (ESF) as part of general EU social inclusion policies.

For more specific information on funding possibilities under the European Integration Fund (EIF), the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the website of the Commission's Directorate-General Home Affairs (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/index_en.htm), which is regularly updated.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011545/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Peer-to-peer checks under Regulation (EC) No 834/2007

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 the agriculture ministers agreed principles and general rules for organic production and the labelling of organic products. This is undoubtedly a sector which requires public confidence in the true provenance of the products.

The rules allow the central authority of a Member State (the competent authority) for the organisation of official controls in the field of organic production to delegate tasks to one or more control bodies. These control bodies can be independent third parties, can be public or private, and must carry out certification in the field of organic production in accordance with European rules.

Article 27(8) provides for a competent authority to undertake audits and inspections on the control bodies it delegates powers to. Notwithstanding these checks, and with due regard to free movement under Article 34, does the legislation provide for peer-to-peer checks of certifications made by one control body on the products of another control body

(1)

resident within the same Member State (where multiple control bodies are registered)?

(2)

which has arrived from another Member State?

Question for written answer E-011546/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008

The United Kingdom Government is currently consulting on its implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, which set out rules on organic productions and certification. The UK appears to have narrowly interpreted Article 34(1) and Article 28(4) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, asserting that, under the principle of mutual recognition, additional checks by a control body in the UK on products with certifications that were undertaken by a control body in another Member State would not be allowed.

1.

Can the Commission confirm whether this assessment is correct?

2.

Do the regulations allow control bodies to conduct random tests on products already certified by other control bodies? If so, can such tests include investigations as to the organic provenance of the products, or are they limited to other factors such as food safety, as suggested by the UK Government?

Joint answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

According to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (220), the nature and frequency of controls shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the risk of occurrence of irregularities and infringements. All operators, with the exception of wholesalers dealing only with pre-packaged goods and operators selling to the final consumer or user, are subject to at least an annual verification of compliance. Each control body, according to the assessment of the risk and subject to the requirement for an annual verification of compliance as described above, will need — on a case-by-case approach — to decide on the nature and frequency of controls of its operators.

Controls may include organic products found with an operator and eventually certified by other control bodies, independently if these bodies are approved in the same or in a different Member State. However, in accordance with Article 34 (221), control bodies may not prohibit or restrict the marketing of organic products controlled by another control body located in another Member State on grounds relating to the method of production, to the labelling or to the presentation of that method in so far as those products meet the requirements of this regulation. In particular no additional controls or financial burdens in addition to those foreseen in Title V of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 may be imposed.

According to Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (222), a Member State must inform the Commission and the Member State concerned of any irregularity or infringement affecting the organic status of organic products coming from another Member State.

A request for information to the UK competent authority on the application of the organic production control system will be sent by the Commission.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011548/12

to the Commission

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Use of full body scanners at EU airports

Many EU airports have introduced full body scanners into their airport security regime.

Does EU legislation provide any guidance or alternatives for travellers who exhibit negative side effects resulting from the use of these scanners, or who because of health or privacy concerns choose not to be subject to a body scan?

Do citizens have the right to demand an alternative search (as was the case with previous trials, for example the backscatter scanners, at Manchester Airport)?

Does the ‘no scan, no fly’ policy used at some airports comply with EC law, and especially with the free movement of persons as enshrined in the Treaties?

Where can a comprehensive list of all body scanners used at EU airports, together with one outlining passengers’ rights, be found?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2013)

To the Commission's knowledge only a few airports in the UK and the Netherlands have introduced security scanners into their daily operations.

EU legislation in respect of security scanners (223) requires that passengers be offered an opt-out from security scanner screening and an alternative control method instead. Safeguards became necessary to compensate for the earlier security scanners' deficiencies, which were X-ray technology and human reviewing of body images.

Today, without exception, security scanners deployed at EU airports have to be based on millimetre wave technology instead of X-ray. Moreover human reviewing is being systematically replaced by Automatic Threat Recognition (ATR). New technology has thus significantly reduced both health and privacy concerns.

The Commission is currently carrying out a legal assessment whether UK measures to deny passengers an opt-out from security scanner screening constitutes a breach of EU legislation. As already committed to at earlier occasions the Commission will inform the European Parliament as soon as it takes an official position on this subject.

The Commission has no comprehensive list of security scanners deployed. EU airport operators are in principle free to choose the control methods that best fit their security operations in accordance with EU aviation security legislation.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011652/12

adresată Comisiei

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(20 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Extinderea UE și relațiile publice — cazul special al Croației

În 2012, Comisia a acordat un contract-cadru de prestare de servicii integrate de informare și comunicare în domeniul extinderii UE (ref. 2011/S 124-204970). Valoarea totală a contractului cu durata de 4 ani se ridică la 20 de milioane de euro. Se pare că obiectivul acestui contract este unul dublu: (i) de a explica și a susține politica de extindere a UE și (ii) de a combate criticile cu privire la aderarea planificată a Croației în 2013.

Comisarul Štefan Füle a declarat, în cadrul unui interviu acordat la 29 octombrie 2012 revistei germane „Der Spiegel”, că „Croația trebuie să-și facă temele în ceea ce privește concurența, sistemul judiciar și drepturile fundamentale”. În ediția din 16 decembrie 2012 a ziarului „The Sunday Times”, s-a menționat că Standard & Poor’s a scăzut ratingul de credit al Croației la categoria „junk”, ceea ce reflectă lipsa de reforme care a dus la deteriorarea economiei acestei țări. În acest ziar, se remarcă în special faptul că investitorii străini sunt descurajați de corupția răspândită la scară largă și de criminalitatea organizată, precum și de un stat de drept fragil de la a investi în Croația.

1.

Cât din cei 20 de milioane de euro se alocă proiectelor de relații publice care se concentrează pe Croația?

2.

Cum intenționează Comisia să îmbine ambiția sa de a combate criticile aduse cu privire la aderarea Croației în 2013 cu faptul că în Croația există în continuare probleme grave legate de reforma sistemului judiciar, de lupta împotriva corupției și de respectarea drepturilor fundamentale?

Răspuns comun dat de dl Füle în numele Comisiei

(19 februarie 2013)

Obiectivele campaniei de informare și de comunicare lansate de Comisie cu ocazia aderării Croației la Uniunea Europeană sunt următoarele: oferirea de informații factuale cu privire la apropiata aderare a Croației la UE, sprijinirea dezbaterilor publice documentate, mărirea gradului de înțelegere, a simțului de implicare și a susținerii aderării Croației și, în general, a politicii de extindere a UE, precum și mărirea gradului de conștientizare prin prezentarea cetățenilor UE a Croației contemporane. Campania se desfășoară în toate cele 27 de state membre, iar cheltuielile aferente acesteia se ridică la 1 498 332 EUR.

Încă de la solicitarea aderării la UE în 2003, Croația a trecut printr-un proces riguros de preaderare prin care s-a pus un accent deosebit pe aspecte legate de statul de drept. Croația a înregistrat progrese majore în ceea ce privește asigurarea independenței judiciare, îmbunătățirea eficienței sistemului judiciar, asigurarea unui istoric consecvent al rezultatelor semnificative în lupta împotriva corupției, asigurarea unui istoric îmbunătățit al măsurilor de prevenire a corupției, precum și în ceea ce privește combaterea conflictelor de interese și criminalitatea organizată. Aceste aspecte au făcut obiectul unor criterii de referință exigente, fiind monitorizate atent de către Comisie.

În raportul global de monitorizare din octombrie 2012, Comisia informează, oferind exemple concrete, cu privire la progresul înregistrat de Croația în aceste domenii și a identificat o serie de aspecte în privința cărora Croația a trebuit să aducă îmbunătățiri suplimentare. În prezent, Comisia pregătește următorul raport care urmează să fie publicat în martie 2013 și în care va fi prezentată, în special, evaluarea progreselor înregistrate de Croația în privința domeniilor prioritare identificate de către Comisie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011549/12

to the Commission

Roger Helmer (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Croatia

Can the Commission confirm media reports that EU funding of EUR 20 million has been allocated for a PR programme aimed at creating a positive view of Croatia as it approaches EU accession (224)?

If so, will this not be seen as a transparent attempt to counter negative views resulting from the fact that Croatia is clearly not a free and democratic country under the rule of law? Is it not therefore misleading propaganda, and is it not wrong and reprehensible for taxpayers’ money to be spent in this way to deceive the taxpayer?

Is the Commission aware of credible reports of the influence of organised crime on government in Croatia, of widespread corruption, of suppression of the media, and of trafficking in drugs, weapons and people via Croatia? Or of the delays in the Croatian justice system which represent a denial of the basic rights of property and enforceable contracts?

Isn’t it time for the Commission to present an honest and factual view of Croatia, rather than spending money on a PR campaign designed to paper over the cracks?

Question for written answer E-011652/12

to the Commission

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(20 December 2012)

Subject: EU enlargement and public relations — the particular case of Croatia

In 2012 the Commission awarded a framework contract for the provision of integrated information and communication services in the area of EU enlargement (ref. 2011/S 124-204970). The total value of the 4-year contract is EUR 20 million. The aim of the contract is reported to be twofold: (i) to explain and support the EU enlargement policy, and (ii) to mitigate the criticism of Croatia’s planned accession in 2013.

In an interview in the German newspaper Der Spiegel of 29 October 2012, Commissioner Štefan Füle stated that ‘Croatia has to do its homework in the areas of competition, the judiciary and fundamental rights.’ In its 16 December 2012 issue, The Sunday Times reported that Croatia had seen its credit rating downgraded by Standard & Poor to ‘junk status’, reflecting the lack of reforms which had led to the deterioration of the country’s economy. The Sunday Times notes in particular that foreign investors are deterred from investing in Croatia by the widespread corruption and organised crime, and the weak rule of law.

1.

Of the EUR 20 million, how much is earmarked for public relations projects focusing on Croatia?

2.

How does the Commission intend to combine its ambition to mitigate the criticism levelled against Croatia’s accession in 2013 with the fact that serious weaknesses remain in Croatia, especially when it comes to the reform of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and respect for fundamental rights?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

The aims of the information and communication campaign undertaken by the Commission in view of Croatia's accession to the Union are to provide citizens in the Member States with factual information about the forthcoming accession of Croatia to the EU, to support an informed public debate; to increase understanding, sense of involvement and support for Croatia's accession and the EU's enlargement policy in general; and to raise awareness by presenting contemporary Croatia to EU citizens. The campaign covers all 27 Member States and will cost EUR 1 498 332.

Since applying for EU membership in 2003, Croatia has gone through a rigorous pre-accession process, where particular emphasis has been put on issues related to the rule of law. Croatia has made important progress with the establishment of an independent judiciary, the improvement of its efficiency, a sustained track record of substantial results in the fight against corruption, an improved track record of prevention measures against corruption, and important steps to combat conflict of interest and organised crime. These issues have been the subject of demanding benchmarks, monitored closely by the Commission.

In its Comprehensive Monitoring Report of October 2012, the Commission reported, factually, the progress made by Croatia in these areas and identified a number of points where Croatia had to make further progress. The Commission is now preparing its next Report, to be published in March 2013, where, in particular, Croatia's progress on the priority areas identified by the Commission will be assessed.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011550/12

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Waste tyre exports

Economic growth and globalisation have seen an increase in the volume of waste being transported across borders. In some cases, this waste can replace trade in natural resources because of the recovery of materials. However, it is important that such an export trade does not allow Member States to negate their responsibility to deal with this waste, and pass the problem on to another part of the world.

The EU has legislated (under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007) to control the shipment of waste. Waste pneumatic tyres (Code B3140) are exported from the UK for burning in power stations in Asia or to act as ballast in cargo vessels. In the latter case the fate of the tyres is not always clear. Directive 2008/98/EC defines both recovery and disposal.

Member States have an obligation to carry out inspections on waste shipments to ensure that they are in line with European Union rules.

1.

Is the Commission satisfied that the UK authorities are complying with the Waste Shipment Regulations and Green List Regulations with regard to the export of tyres to South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Hong Kong?

2.

Is the Commission satisfied that the UK has adequate procedures in place to ensure the end fate of exported tyres exported to Asian markets, in line with EU legislation?

3.

Does the Commission have any concerns about any Member State’s export of tyres outside of the Community?

4.

Has the Commission considered strengthening the current legislative framework on waste exports?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

The Commission has no indication that the UK, or any other Member State, is in breach of EU rules regarding the export for recovery of certain waste (225), such as waste pneumatic tyres, out of the EU. According to EU legislation, a recovery operation for waste, such as the recycling of waste tyres or their co-incineration in power plants, shall take place in a way that does not endanger human health and the environment and in an environmentally sound manner and in accordance with the waste hierarchy established in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). Member States shall prohibit the export of waste to third countries if there is a reason to believe that this is not the case.

The Commission is considering possible legislative measures to reinforce requirements on waste shipment inspections under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011551/12

adresată Comisiei

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Securitatea instalațiilor pentru sporturi de iarnă

Problema securității turiștilor, indiferent de vârsta lor, este esențială în stațiunile cu sporturi de iarnă, mai ales la capitolul instalații pentru transportul acestora — telescaune, teleschi, teleferice etc.

Anual există accidente mai grave sau mai puțin grave datorate acestor instalații, fie pentru că ele sunt depășite tehnic, fie pentru că sunt suprasolicitate în sezonul de iarnă.

Are Comisia în vedere elaborarea unor norme europene de securitate pentru aceste instalații, luând în considerare și implicarea experienței asociațiilor din domeniu și colaborarea lor cu autoritățile locale și regionale?

Răspuns dat de dl Tajani în numele Comisiei

(15 februarie 2013)

Directiva 2000/9/CE privind instalațiile pe cablu care transportă persoane (226) stabilește cerințele de siguranță și cerințele privind protecția mediului și a consumatorului aplicabile instalațiilor pe cablu, subsistemelor și componentelor lor de siguranță. Aceasta este sprijinită de o serie de standarde armonizate care sunt actualizate în mod regulat pentru a ține seama de progresul tehnic, asigurând astfel un nivel înalt de protecție pentru utilizatorii transportului pe cablu.

Întreținerea și supravegherea instalațiilor este responsabilitatea proprietarului și a autorităților naționale de supraveghere. UE oferă cadrul juridic obligatoriu pentru a permite doar funcționarea unor instalații sigure.

Directiva a devenit aplicabilă la 3 mai 2004 și acoperă toate instalațiile pe cablu instalate după acea dată. Siguranța instalațiilor pe cablu existente înaintea acestei date este reglementată de legislația națională.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011551/12

to the Commission

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Safety of winter sports facilities

The safety of tourists, regardless of their age, is a key issue at winter sports stations, especially when it comes to transport facilities for those tourists — chairlifts, draglifts and cable cars, etc.

Every year, minor and major accidents occur owing to those facilities, either because they are technically outmoded or because they are subject to excessive demand in the winter season.

Will the Commission draw up European safety rules for such facilities, taking into account the experience of organisations working in that field and their cooperation with the local and regional authorities?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

Directive 2000/9/EC relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (227) lays down safety requirements, environmental protection and consumer protection requirements applicable to cableway installations, subsystems and their safety components. It is supported by a body of harmonised standards that is regularly updated to technical progress ensuring a high level of protection for users of cableways.

Maintenance and supervision of the facilities is in the responsibility of the owner and national supervisory authorities. The EU provides for the binding legal framework to allow the operation of only safe facilities.

The directive became applicable on 3 May 2004 and covers all cableway installations installed after that date. The safety of cableway installations existing before this date is governed by national legislation.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-011552/12

adresată Comisiei

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 decembrie 2012)

Subiect: Noi porturi pentru ambarcațiuni la nivel european

Numărul de ambarcațiuni de dimensiuni mai mici sau mai mari de la nivel european a crescut constant în ultimele decenii, fapt care a determinat înființarea de noi porturi specializate pentru adăpostirea acestora.

Ca atare, autoritățile locale și regionale se confruntă cu noi provocări pentru a permite dezvoltarea acestor porturi în condiții și la standarde europene, care să respecte legislația din diferite domenii — amenajare teritorială, protecția mediului etc.

Cum intenționează Comisia să sprijine eforturile acestor autorități pentru ca dezvoltarea de noi porturi să corespundă standardelor europene și să nu existe probleme, mai ales în ceea ce privește protecția mediului?

Cum intenționează Comisia să implice aceste autorități în procesul de elaborare de noi reglementări în domeniul protecției mediului în zonele portuare în curs de dezvoltare?

Răspuns dat de dl Kallas în numele Comisiei

(11 februarie 2013)

1.

În noiembrie 2011, Comisia a adoptat o propunere de Orientări pentru dezvoltarea rețelei transeuropene de transport (TEN-T), însoțită de o propunere de instituire a mecanismului Conectarea Europei (MCE). Aceste măsuri vor furniza instrumente de planificare și de finanțare care să sprijine eforturile depuse de autoritățile locale și naționale în direcția adaptării porturilor TEN-T la problemele caracteristice sectorului, ținând cont în special de faptul că porturile TEN-T sunt conectate la rețelele de căi ferate și, în ceea ce privește porturile din rețeaua de bază, care să sprijine dezvoltarea infrastructurii care să permită alimentarea navelor cu carburanți curați. Aceste propuneri sunt analizate în prezent de către Parlamentul European și de către Consiliu

1.

În noiembrie 2011, Comisia a adoptat o propunere de Orientări pentru dezvoltarea rețelei transeuropene de transport (TEN-T), însoțită de o propunere de instituire a mecanismului Conectarea Europei (MCE). Aceste măsuri vor furniza instrumente de planificare și de finanțare care să sprijine eforturile depuse de autoritățile locale și naționale în direcția adaptării porturilor TEN-T la problemele caracteristice sectorului, ținând cont în special de faptul că porturile TEN-T sunt conectate la rețelele de căi ferate și, în ceea ce privește porturile din rețeaua de bază, care să sprijine dezvoltarea infrastructurii care să permită alimentarea navelor cu carburanți curați. Aceste propuneri sunt analizate în prezent de către Parlamentul European și de către Consiliu

 (228). Comisia, în cadrul demersurilor de revizuire a politicii portuare, analizează de asemenea o serie de măsuri prin care să se creeze un cadru mai propice investițiilor în porturi (229).

2.

Comisia a ajutat mult autoritățile locale să asigure o dezvoltare echilibrată a porturilor noi și existente, cu respectarea normelor de protecție a mediului. În legătură cu acest aspect, Comisia a publicat în 2011 o serie de documente de orientare:

2.

Comisia a ajutat mult autoritățile locale să asigure o dezvoltare echilibrată a porturilor noi și existente, cu respectarea normelor de protecție a mediului. În legătură cu acest aspect, Comisia a publicat în 2011 o serie de documente de orientare:

„Orientări privind punerea în aplicare a Directivelor Păsări și Habitate în cazul estuarelor și al zonelor costiere, acordând o atenție deosebită dezvoltării portuare și activităților de dragaj” și un document de lucru al serviciilor Comisiei, intitulat „Integrarea biodiversității și a protecției naturii în dezvoltarea portuară” (230).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011552/12

to the Commission

Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: New harbours for vessels across Europe

The number of large and small vessels has increased steadily across Europe over the last 10 years, which has led to new harbours being constructed for them.

As such, local and regional authorities are faced with new challenges in enabling those harbours to be developed to European standards and in conditions that respect legislation in several fields, including regional planning and environmental protection, etc.

How does the Commission intend to support those authorities in their efforts to develop new harbours which meet European standards and to ensure there are no problems with this, especially as regards protecting the environment?

How will the Commission involve those authorities in the process of drawing up new rules to protect the environment in harbour areas now under development?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

1.

The Commission has adopted in November 2011 a proposal on Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), accompanied by a proposal establishing the Connection Europe Facility (CEF). These measures will provide planning and financial tools to support the local and national authorities in their efforts to adapt the TEN-T ports to the challenges of the sector, notably that TEN-T ports are connected with railways, and as far as the ports of the core network are concerned to develop infrastructure to provide alternative clean fuels to ships. These proposals are currently examined by the European Parliament and the Council.

1.

The Commission has adopted in November 2011 a proposal on Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), accompanied by a proposal establishing the Connection Europe Facility (CEF). These measures will provide planning and financial tools to support the local and national authorities in their efforts to adapt the TEN-T ports to the challenges of the sector, notably that TEN-T ports are connected with railways, and as far as the ports of the core network are concerned to develop infrastructure to provide alternative clean fuels to ships. These proposals are currently examined by the European Parliament and the Council.

 (231) As part of its review of the port policy, the Commission is also examining possible measures to create a framework more conducive to investments in ports. (232)

2.

The Commission has already done ample work to support local authorities in ensuring the balanced development of both new and existing ports in line with environmental protection. To this end, the Commission published in 2011 a series of guidance documents: one on

2.

The Commission has already done ample work to support local authorities in ensuring the balanced development of both new and existing ports in line with environmental protection. To this end, the Commission published in 2011 a series of guidance documents: one on

‘The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, with particular attention to port development and dredging’ and another staff working document on ‘Integrating biodiversity and nature protection into port development’. (233)

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011553/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18. december 2012)

Om: Dobbeltbeskatning af pensioner i forhold til EU-retten

Spørgeren har modtaget en henvendelse fra en dansk pensionist, der i løbet af sit arbejdsliv har arbejdet i Tyskland, og som følge heraf får udbetalt en privat pension fra sit tidligere firma.

Denne pension har borgeren hele tiden betalt dansk skat af, men er nu blevet mødt af et krav fra de tyske skattemyndigheder om ligeledes at betale tysk skat af pensionen med tilbagevirkende kraft.

Vil Kommissionen på denne baggrund vurdere, hvorvidt det er i overensstemmelse med EU-retten således at kræve dobbeltbeskatning af en borger?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Algirdas Šemeta

(18. februar 2013)

Sameksistensen mellem de nationale skattesystemer kan medføre dobbeltbeskatning. Fjernelsen af dobbeltbeskatning bidrager til, at det indre marked fungerer mere gnidningsfrit, men medlemsstaterne er ikke forpligtede til at fjerne dobbeltbeskatning. På EU-rettens nuværende udviklingstrin kræves ikke en fjernelse af dobbeltbeskatning inden for EU, og der er endnu ikke vedtaget ensartede regler eller truffet harmoniseringsforanstaltninger på EU-plan. Heraf følger, at medlemsstaterne har en vis autonomi på dette område, for så vidt de efterlever EU-retten. De er altså ikke forpligtede til at tilpasse deres egne skattesystemer til de andre medlemsstaters skattesystemer for blandt andet at fjerne dobbeltbeskatning, der opstår som følge af medlemsstaternes parallelle udøvelse af deres suverænitet på skatteområdet. Dobbeltbeskatning udgør derfor ikke en restriktion, som er forbudt i henhold til traktaten.

I denne sammenhæng er der udarbejdet dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomster med henblik på at fjerne eller mindske de negative indvirkninger på det indre markeds funktion, som skyldes den ovenfor beskrevne sameksistens mellem nationale skattesystemer. Hvis klageren har skattemæssigt hjemsted i Danmark, gælder artikel 18, stk. 1, i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og Tyskland, hvoraf fremgår at »(…) pensioner og lignende betalinger, der udbetales for tidligere personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold til en person, der er hjemmehørende i en kontraherende stat, kun beskattes i denne stat.« Det betyder, at en privat pension, der udbetales til klageren fra Tyskland af den virksomhed, som klageren tidligere var ansat i, kun skal beskattes i Danmark. Hvis klageren derfor er i en situation, der er dækket af denne bestemmelse, bør han kontakte de tyske myndigheder og forelægge den relevante dokumentation.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011553/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Double taxation of pensions in relation to EC law

The author has received a request from a Danish pensioner, who, during his working life, worked in Germany and as a consequence receives a private pension from his former company.

This citizen has always paid Danish tax on the pension, but has now received a demand from the German tax authorities to also pay German tax on the pension with retroactive effect.

In view of this, could the Commission assess whether such demands for double taxation from a citizen are in accordance with EC law?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

Double taxation may be brought about by the coexistence of national tax systems. The elimination of such double taxation facilitates the smooth functioning of the internal market, but there is no obligation on Member States to do so. EC law, in the current state of its development, does not require the elimination of such double taxation within the EU, and no uniform or harmonisation measure has yet been adopted at EU level. It follows from this, that the Member States enjoy a certain autonomy in this area, provided they comply with EC law. They are not obliged therefore to adapt their own tax systems to the different systems of taxation of the other Member States in order, inter alia, to eliminate the double taxation arising from the exercise in parallel by those States of their fiscal sovereignty. Therefore, such double taxation does not as such constitute a restriction prohibited by the Treaty.

In this regard, double taxation conventions are designed to eliminate or mitigate the negative effects on the functioning of the internal market resulting from the above described coexistence of national tax systems. If the complainant is a tax resident of Denmark, then according to Art. 18(1) of the Double Tax Convention between Denmark and Germany ‘(…) pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a Contracting State in consideration of past employment shall be taxable only in that State.’ This implies that a German-sourced private pension paid to the complainant by his former German company should only be taxed once in Denmark. Accordingly, in case the complainant finds himself in a situation covered by this provision, he should contact the German authorities and present them with corresponding proof.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011554/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18. december 2012)

Om: Brug af kors og helgenglorier i EU

Spørgeren har bemærket, at Kommissionen over for Slovakiet har indskærpet, at kors og helgenglorier ikke må printes på landets euro-mønter. Det er en oprørende beslutning, som understreger Kommissionens anti-europæiske sindelag, herunder den væsentlige betydning som netop kristendommen har haft for vore landes udvikling.

Vil Kommissionen i den forbindelse oplyse, om den planlægger lignende tiltag over for andre medlemslande, herunder også i forbindelse med andet end mønter, eksempelvis på ID-papirer mv.?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Olli Rehn

(11. februar 2013)

I overensstemmelse med traktaterne bidrager Den Europæiske Union og dens institutioner til, at medlemsstaternes kulturer kan udfolde sig. Den Europæiske Union respekterer medlemsstaternes nationale og regionale mangfoldighed, samtidig med at den fremhæver den fælles kulturarv. På denne baggrund kan der ikke sås nogen som helst tvivl om biskop Cyrils og biskop Methodius' historiske betydning.

Når medlemsstaterne designer den nationale side af euromønterne, skal de imidlertid i henhold til Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 566/2012 tage højde for, at mønterne er i omløb i hele euroområdet. Designforslag sendes således på forhånd til de andre medlemsstater, så de har mulighed for at fremsætte relevante kommentarer. Europa-Kommissionen er opmærksom på, at nogle medlemsstater rejste indvendinger mod den foreslåede slovakiske jubilæumsmønt med den begrundelse, at Den Europæiske Union forholder sig neutral over for religiøse overbevisninger.

I mellemtiden har Slovakiet genindsendt designforslaget, og de oprindelige indvendinger er blevet trukket tilbage. Rådet har nu godkendt designet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011554/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Use of crosses and halos in the EU

The author notes that the Commission has advised Slovakia that crosses and halos must not be printed on the country’s euro coins. This is an outrageous decision, which highlights the Commission’s anti-European disposition, including with regard to the extremely important part that Christianity in particular has played in the development of our countries.

In this regard, can the Commission clarify whether it is planning similar measures in respect of other Member States, including in connection with items other than coins, for example identity documents etc.?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

In line with the Treaties, the Union and its institutions contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. Against this background, the historic importance of Bishops Cyril and Methodius is uncontested.

However, under Council Regulation 566/2012, when designing the national side of a euro coin, Member States have to take into account the fact that the coins will circulate throughout the whole Eurozone. In that context, proposed designs are shared in advance with other Member States so that they can provide any comments they consider appropriate. The European Commission is aware of the objection made by some Member States on the proposed Slovakian commemorative euro coin on the grounds that the European Union is neutral with regard to religious beliefs.

Slovakia re-submitted meanwhile the proposed design and the original objections were withdrawn. The design has now been approved by the Council.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011555/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18. december 2012)

Om: Momsudligning ved salg af biler over grænser

Spørgeren anmoder på baggrund af en borgerhenvendelse Kommissionen om at afgive en principiel udtalelse om forståelsen af reglerne for momsligning mellem medlemsstaterne i forbindelse med salg af biler over grænser:

Når en bil sælges fra for eksempel Tyskland til Danmark, og der allerede i Tyskland er betalt fuld moms af bilen, bedes det oplyst, efter hvilke principper det da er tilladt for Danmark at opkræve moms?

Kan man kræve fuld dansk moms?

Kan sælger eller køber efterfølgende få tilbagebetalt den allerede indbetalte tyske moms?

Skal medlemslandenes skattemyndigheder selv udligne momsen?

Skal der kun betales moms af avancen eller på anden vis?

Vil Kommissionen endvidere oplyse, hvad retsvirkningen er af, at en medlemsstat har benyttet muligheden for at momsfritage hyrevogne, således som reglerne i 6. momsdirektiv artikel 28, stk. 3 litra b jf. bilag F, nr. 17 giver mulighed for?

Efter ovennævnte regler er blandt andet danske hyrevogne ikke momsregistreret, og har dermed ikke et EU-registreringsnummer, hvorved momsudligning er umulig. Hvordan skal der i disse tilfælde momsudlignes mellem køber og sælger i forbindelse med et salg?

Endelig bedes Kommissionen oplyse, hvor længe den finder det acceptabelt for en EU-borger at vente på et svar fra denne. Spørgeren er bekendt med en henvendelse fra 1997, som Kommissionen stadig ikke har besvaret. Finder Kommissionen dette rimeligt?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Algirdas Šemeta

(18. februar 2013)

Når en bil efter at være blevet solgt over grænsen til en ikke-momsregistreret person, som udfører personbefordring (234), og bilen anses for at være »ny« i henhold til momsdirektiv 2006/112/EC, eller den er blevet solgt af en momspligtig person til en ikke-momspligtig person, hvis indkøb i andre EU-lande overstiger 10 000 EUR (235), skal momsen betales i bestemmelsesmedlemsstaten (i dette tilfælde Danmark) af hele beløbet. Den særlige ordning for brugte biler, i henhold til hvilken der kun betales moms af fortjenstmarginen, kan ikke anvendes til nye biler (236).

Skattemyndighederne har ikke pligt til at refundere køber nogen form for moms, som uretmæssigt er blevet opkrævet af sælger (som foretager en afgiftsfri levering inden for EU) i oprindelsesmedlemsstaten (i dette tilfælde Tyskland). Dette er et civilretligt anliggende mellem de to parter. For at bevise, at sælger ikke skylder moms, kan køber især støtte sig selv til det bevis for betaling af moms, som udstedes i bestemmelsesmedlemsstaten. Ved hjælp af denne momsangivelse og efter at have berigtiget fakturaen, kan sælger betale den moms, der ikke skulle have været betalt, tilbage.

Når en medlemsstat fortsat undtager personbefordring (237), skal der ikke betales moms af sådanne transporttjenester, men transportselskabets fradragsret er som regel også begrænset (238). Sådanne begrænsninger vedrører også den moms, der udløses af selskabets afgiftspligtige køb af biler inden for EU (se ovenstående).

Kommissionen har tidligere modtaget klager i forbindelse med lignende spørgsmål og har givet hver klager svar. For så vidt angår den klage, som det ærede medlem hævder ikke er blevet besvaret, har Kommissionen brug for yderligere oplysninger (registreringsnummer og klagerens navn) for at kunne give et fyldestgørende svar.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011555/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: VAT compensation in connection with the cross-border sale of cars

Prompted by a request from a citizen, the author would like the Commission to issue a fundamental statement concerning its understanding of the rules for VAT compensation between the Member States in connection with the cross-border sale of cars.

When a car is sold in Germany to someone in Denmark, for example, and full VAT has already been paid on the car in Germany, according to what principles is it permissible for Denmark to charge VAT?

Is it possible to charge Danish VAT in full?

Can sellers or purchasers subsequently receive a refund of the German VAT that has already been paid?

Are the tax authorities of the Member States required to adjust the VAT themselves?

Is VAT only required to be paid on profits or is there a different system for this?

Could the Commission also explain what the legal effect is of a Member State having availed itself of the option of exempting taxis from VAT, as provided for in Article 28(3)(b), cf. Annex F item 17, of the Sixth VAT Directive?

Under the aforementioned rules, Danish taxis in particular are not registered for VAT and therefore do not have an EU registration number, making VAT compensation impossible. In such cases, how is VAT compensation between purchaser and seller to be provided in connection with a sale?

Lastly, could the Commission state what length of time it considers to be acceptable for an EU citizen to wait for its response? The author is aware of a request dating back to 1997 which the Commission has still not responded to. Does the Commission consider this to be reasonable?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

Where, upon a cross-border sale to non-registered persons carrying out passenger transport (239), a car qualifies as ‘new’ in the sense of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC or is sold by a taxable person to a tax-exempt person whose intra-EU acquisitions is above the threshold of at least EUR 10 000 (240), VAT is due in the Member State of destination (here: DK) on the full consideration. The special second-hand scheme under which VAT is only paid on the margin cannot be applied to new cars (241).

Tax authorities do not have to reimburse the acquirer any VAT wrongly charged by the seller (who makes an exempt intra-Community supply) in the Member State of origin (here: DE). This is a civil law matter between the parties. To demonstrate that no VAT is owed by the seller, the acquirer may, in particular, rely on proof of VAT payment in the Member State of destination. Through his VAT return, and after correcting the invoice, the seller can adjust any VAT wrongly paid.

Where a Member State continues to exempt passenger transport (242), no VAT is due on such transport services, but also the right of deduction of the transport company is usually restricted (243). Such restrictions also concern the VAT triggered by a taxable intra-EU acquisition of cars by that company (see above).

The Commission has in the past received complaints on similar issues, and has responded to each complainant. As regards the complaint which the Honourable Member says has remained unanswered, the Commission would need additional details (registration number, complainant's name) to give an adequate answer.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011556/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18. december 2012)

Om: Manglende leverancer af livsfornødenheder til Grækenland

Det er for nyligt kommet frem, at græske cancerpatienter ikke længere kan få livsvigtig medicin, idet den tyske medicinalvirksomhed Merck har indstillet leverancerne af cancermedicinen Erbitux til græske sygehuse. Årsagen er euro-krisen og usikkerhed om den græske betalingsevne. Nedskæringerne rammer således nu de allersvageste og syge.

Vil Kommissionen på denne baggrund tilstille spørgeren en oversigt over leverancer af livsfornødenheder til Grækenland, som selskaber har indstillet som følge af den økonomiske krise, landet befinder sig i?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg

(8. februar 2013)

Under det økonomiske tilpasningsprogram har de græske myndigheder forpligtet sig til at forbedre deres sundhedssystems omkostningseffektivitet, samtidig med at de opretholder den universelle adgang og forbedrer plejeydelsernes kvalitet. Sundhedsreformen har til formål at tackle problemer i forbindelse med organisationen, finansieringen og leveringen af sundhedsplejen i Grækenland. Der er relaterede tiltag, som bl.a. omfatter reduktion af udgifterne til lægemidler via mere udbredt anvendelse af generiske lægemidler, bedre overvågning og patientsikkerhed og bedre risikodeling, ensartede bidragssatser og ensartede ydelser ved at fusionere socialsikringsfondene og oprette EOPYY (244).

Programmet omfatter endvidere bestemmelser om betaling af offentlige organers restancer. En løsning på restanceproblemet kan være med til at sikre, at situationer som dem, det ærede medlem henviser til, ikke opstår.

Kommissionen er ikke i besiddelse af en liste med en detaljeret oversigt over leverancer af livsfornødenheder til Grækenland, som selskaber skulle have indstillet som følge af den økonomiske krise.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011556/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Disruption in the supply of essential items to Greece

It has recently emerged that Greek cancer patients can no longer get life-saving medicine, as the German pharmaceuticals company Merck has stopped deliveries of the cancer medicine Erbitux to Greek hospitals. The reason for this is the euro crisis and uncertainty regarding Greece’s ability to pay. The cuts are therefore now affecting the very weakest and the sick.

In view of this, can the Commission provide an overview of the deliveries of essential items to Greece that companies have stopped as a result of the economic crisis that the country finds itself in?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

Under the Economic Adjustment Programme, Greek Authorities have committed to improving the cost-effectiveness of their health system, while maintaining universal access and improving the quality of care delivery. The healthcare reform aims to address problems in the organisation, financing and delivery of healthcare in Greece. Related measures include, among others, the reduction of pharmaceuticals spending through greater use of generic medicines, improved monitoring and patient safety, and better risk pooling, uniform contribution rates and uniform package of benefits through the merging of social security funds and the creation of EOPYY (245).

The Programme also includes provisions for the payment of arrears in payments by public bodies. Addressing arrears can help ensuring that situations, such as those the Honourable Member reports, do not develop.

The Commission has no detailed list giving an overview of the deliveries of essential items to Greece that companies would have stopped, as a result of the economic crisis.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011557/12

til Kommissionen

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18. december 2012)

Om: EU's regler for offentliggørelse af dokumenter

Spørgeren er blevet gjort bekendt med, at EU-Domstolen netop har afsagt dom om, at to centrale dokumenter, der kunne være med til at afdække, hvordan græsk økonomi kunne komme så tæt på en statsbankerot, som det er tilfældet, ikke må udleveres til offentligheden. Det ene dokument bærer titlen »The Impact on Government Deficit and Debt from off-market swaps: The Greek Case«.

Vil Kommissionen oplyse, efter hvilke regler EU's institutioner kan nægte at udlevere dokumenter til offentligheden?

Vil Kommissionen ligeledes oplyse, hvilke kvalitative krav der kan stilles til begrundelsen for ikke at udlevere dokumenter til en borger?

Vil Kommissionen endelig oplyse, hvordan den forventer, at almindelige borgere skal opretholde tiltroen til de europæiske myndigheder, når de tilbageholder oplysninger af en sådan karakter, som denne sag omhandler?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne Af Manuel Barroso

(7. februar 2013)

Kommissionen formoder, at det ærede medlem hentyder til Rettens dom af 29. november 2012 i sag T-590/10, Gabi Thesing og Bloomberg Finance LP mod Den Europæiske Centralbank.

Der kan gives afslag på aktindsigt i dokumenter af de årsager der er fastsat i artikel 4 i forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter.

Den Europæiske Centralbank, der ikke er omfattet af denne forordning, har vedtaget afgørelse 2004/258 om aktindsigt i Bankens dokumenter, der her meget til fælles med dem i forordning 1049/2001.

EU-institutionernes regler vedrørende aktindsigt i deres dokumenter svarer til dem, der gælder på nationalt plan. I henhold til disse regler gives der aktindsigt i dokumenter, medmindre deres udbredelse vil være til skade for beskyttelsen af offentlighedens interesser som omhandlet i den relevante retsakt. Ethvert afslag på aktindsigt i et dokument skal begrundes. Borgerne har ret til at gøre indsigelse mod afslaget ved at indbringe sagen for Retten eller indgive en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand. EU-institutionerne må ikke tilbageholde dokumenter fra offentligheden på et vilkårligt grundlag.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011557/12

to the Commission

Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: EU rules for the publication of documents

The author has been made aware of the fact that the European Court of Justice has just delivered a judgment to the effect that two key documents that could help to establish how the Greek economy could get as close to bankruptcy as it has done must not be made public. One of the documents is entitled ‘The impact on government deficit and debt from off-market swaps: the Greek case’.

Could the Commission clarify under which rules EU institutions can refuse to disclose documents to the public?

Could the Commission also clarify what qualitative requirements can justify refusal to disclose documents to a citizen?

Lastly, could the Commission explain how it expects ordinary citizens to retain their trust in the European authorities when these authorities are withholding information of this nature?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

The Commission assumes that the Honourable Member is referring to the judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 in case T-590/10, Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank.

The grounds on which access to documents can be refused are laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

The European Central Bank, which is not subject to this regulation, has adopted Decision 2004/258 laying down rules on access to its documents, which are very similar to those of Regulation 1049/2001.

The European institutions apply rules on access to their documents which are equivalent to those in force at national level. Under these rules, documents are to be released unless their disclosure would undermine the protection of one of the public or private interests mentioned in the applicable legal act. Any refusal to disclose a document must be reasoned. Citizens are entitled to challenge a refusal by bringing the case to the General Court or by making a complaint to the European Ombudsman. EU institutions cannot arbitrarily withhold documents from the public.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011558/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Meaning of ‘free trade’

Will the Commission stop misleading people and business alike by using the term ‘free trade agreements’ to describe agreements which include tariffs, however low, and other administrative barriers and are therefore no such thing?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The European Commission applies the definition of ‘free trade’ as stated by the World Trade Organisation and laid down in Article XXIV (b) of the GATT Agreement: ‘A free-trade area shall be understood to mean a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce (…) are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories.’

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011559/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Apostasy and freedom

To what extent does the High Representative Baroness Ashton seek, in her work, to reduce or end laws against apostasy — bearing in mind that they are incompatible with religious freedom and freedom of expression?

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

(20 March 2013)

In line with November 2009 and February 2011 Council conclusions on the issue, the EU strategic framework on human rights and its action plan adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council in June 2013 reaffirm that freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is a priority for the EU in its external policy. This fundamental human right covers the right to have a religion or a belief (or chose not to have any), which includes the right to change one's religion or belief. Such a right is unconditionally protected under international human rights law, as recalled by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Mr Bielefeldt in its August 2012 report focusing on the right of conversion. Under no circumstance can it be derogated from, even in times of public emergency, according to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The EU has been constantly advocating, either bilaterally or in multilateral fora for compliance with such international norms and spared no effort to raise FoRB-related issues whenever deemed necessary, including in individual cases. HRVP Ashton notably raised publicly on numerous occasions the case of Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who was facing death penalty in Iran on apostasy charges, and was ultimately released after wide EU and international mobilisation.

The EU will carry on defending and promoting freedom of religion or belief in all its components, and will further act in this regard by putting together EU guidelines on freedom of religion or belief. These guidelines will help EU staff at all levels to better assess and address violations of freedom of religion or belief, including in cases of apostasy.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011560/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: EU's egregious error

With reference to answer E-010045/2012 re the meaning of the word ‘resignation’, does the Commission understand that the fact that the wording is in a treaty signed by all the Heads of State and Government of the Member States does not make it correct, but rather means that the oxymoronic non-sense that has been drafted is all the more egregious an error?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

It is not for the Commission to change or contest the wording of the Treaty.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011561/12

to the Commission

John Stuart Agnew (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: EU acting ‘ultra vires’

With reference to answer E-010045/2012 re the meaning of the word ‘resignation’, and as the meaning of the word is entirely clear, does the Commission accept that the linguistic error written into the Treaties may mean that Mr Barroso acted ‘ultra vires’ in his treatment of Mr Dalli?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2013)

The Commission should like to recall that Mr Dalli resigned voluntarily as a member of the Commission on 16 October 2012, with immediate effect, after having agreed with the President of the Commission that his position had become politically untenable.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011563/12

to the Commission

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: State aid criteria

Does the Commission have any plans to modify the eligibility requirements under which a struggling industry and/or firm may receive financial support from a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

Currently the rules on state aid to non-financial firms in difficulty are laid down in the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (246). The guidelines were due to expire and be replaced by new rules in October 2012. They were extended by the Commission (247) to allow sufficient time to align their review with the overall process of modernising state aid rules (248).

Therefore, the review is ongoing; a public consultation on a first draft is expected before the summer.

State aid to financial institutions in difficulty is subject to temporary crisis-related rules (249).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011564/12

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: La Commissione europea tuteli le denominazioni d'origine del camembert

Il «camembert di Normandia» è il solo ad aver ottenuto la certificazione DOP (in francese AOP) che protegge l'origine e la qualità del prodotto. Tuttavia attualmente molte catene alimentari europee offrono in vendita «camembert prodotto in Normandia», spesso fabbricato con latte tutt'altro che europeo, ma in gran parte cinese e neozelandese.

La Commissione non ritiene che tale dicitura sia ingannevole e pregiudichi anche la dicitura originale del prodotto DOP?

Quali forme di tutela intende promuovere per i prodotti DOP, spesso vittime di concorrenza sleale tramite diciture ingannevoli da parte di prodotti similari che non garantiscono però la tutela del prodotto e l'origine delle materie?

Risposta di Dacian Ciolos a nome della Commissione

(20 febbraio 2013)

Il «Camembert de Normandie» è registrato come denominazione di origine protetta (250). In virtù dell'articolo 13, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (UE) n. 1151/2012 sui regimi di qualità dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari, detto nome è protetto contro qualsiasi impiego commerciale diretto o indiretto per prodotti comparabili o qualora l'uso di tale nome consenta di sfruttare la notorietà del nome protetto; qualsiasi usurpazione, imitazione o evocazione (251); qualsiasi altra indicazione falsa o ingannevole relativa alla provenienza, all'origine, alla natura o alle qualità essenziali del prodotto; qualsiasi altra pratica che possa indurre in errore il consumatore sulla vera origine del prodotto.

All'interno del mercato UE, l'uso dell'espressione «Camembert prodotto in Normandia» per la commercializzazione di un formaggio non ottenuto conformemente al disciplinare relativo al «Camembert de Normandie», compreso l'uso di latte non proveniente dalla zona in esso indicata, può costituire una violazione di detto articolo 13, paragrafo 1. Spetta principalmente agli Stati membri designare l'autorità competente a far applicare e a verificare il rispetto di tali norme.

In Francia l'autorità competente è la «Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes» (Direzione generale per la concorrenza, il consumo e la repressione delle frodi). In definitiva, spetta alla Corte europea di giustizia pronunciarsi sull'interpretazione e l'applicazione di dette norme.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011564/12

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Call for the Commission to protect designations of origin for camembert

‘Camembert from Normandy’ is the only camembert to have received PDO certification (AOP in French), thereby protecting the origin and quality of the product. However, many European food chains are currently selling ‘Camembert produced in Normandy’, which is often made from milk that is anything but European, being mostly Chinese or from New Zealand.

Does the Commission not agree that such wording is misleading and is also to the detriment of the original wording of the PDO product?

What forms of protection will it promote for PDO products, which are often victims of unfair competition through misleading wording on similar products which, however, provide no guarantee of the protection of the product and the origin of the materials used?

Answer given by Mr Ciolos on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

‘Camembert de Normandie’ is registered as Protected Designation of Origin (252). By virtue of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, this name is protected against any direct or indirect commercial use on comparable products or where using the name exploits the reputation of the protected name; any misuse, imitation and evocation (253); any other false or misleading information as to the provenance, origin, nature and essential qualities of the product; and any other practice liable to mislead the consumer.

On the EU market, the use of the words ‘Camembert produced in Normandy’ for marketing a cheese not produced in line with the product specifications for ‘Camembert de Normandie’, including milk not originating in the area indicated therein, could constitute a violation of said Article 13 (1). It is primarily for Member States to designate the competent authority which implement and control the respect of these rules.

In France, the competent authority is la Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes. It is ultimately for the European Court of Justice to rule on the interpretation and application of these rules.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011565/12

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: La Commissione vigili sugli sperperi del ponte sullo Stretto di Messina

In trent'anni il progetto per collegare la Sicilia alla terraferma è costato circa 300 milioni di euro, senza peraltro pervenire al minimo risultato. Al momento il governo Monti ha approvato un decreto legge che fissa in ulteriori due anni uno studio di fattibilità e, in caso di cancellazione definitiva del progetto, nel 2014 lo Stato dovrà pagare altri 10 milioni di euro, oltre i 6 milioni annui degli stipendi della società che gestisce il progetto.

Nel 2011 la Commissione europea ha deciso di escludere il progetto dalle linee strategiche sui corridoi europei.

La Commissione ha in qualche modo finora finanziato il progetto del ponte sullo Stretto di Messina?

La Commissione ha valutato se i soldi spesi finora siano stati oggetto di illeciti finanziari?

Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione

(20 febbraio 2013)

Conformemente alle informazioni fornite dall'autorità di gestione del programma Sicilia cofinanziato dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) il progetto menzionato dall'onorevole deputato non è mai stato cofinanziato dal FESR, né è stato finanziato dal programma TEN-T. La Commissione non può pertanto pronunciarsi su eventuali illeciti finanziari.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011565/12

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Call for the Commission to monitor the waste involved in the bridge over the Straits of Messina

Over 30 years, the project to connect Sicily to the mainland has cost some EUR 300 million without managing to achieve anything at all. The Monti government has just adopted a decree-law to allow a feasibility study to be carried out over another two years and, if the project is cancelled once and for all, in 2014 the government will have to pay out another

EUR 10 million, in addition to the over 6 million in annual salaries to the company that is managing the project.

In 2011, the Commission decided to exclude the project from its strategic guidelines on European corridors.

Has the Commission financed the project concerning the bridge over the Straits of Messina in any way?

Has the Commission assessed whether the money spent so far has been the subject of any financial impropriety?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

According to the information provided by the managing authority of the programme for Sicilia co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the project mentioned by the Honourable Member has never been co-financed by the ERDF. It has not been financed by the TEN-T programme either. The Commission can therefore not comment on any alleged financial impropriety.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011566/12

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: La Commissione vigili sulle sostanze tossiche rilevate nei tè cinesi

La maggior parte dei tè cinesi, dalle analisi risultanti su campioni vari e differenziati eseguite da Greenpeace China, hanno rivelato tracce di pesticidi e di sostanze quali il metomil, illegali nell'UE. Secondo l'associazione cinese del tè, queste sostanze non sarebbero state polverizzate recentemente ma sarebbero presenti nel suolo. Alcuni tipi di tè, quali il tieguanyin, sono inoltre prodotti attraverso l'uso massiccio di concimi chimici e di pesticidi. Nel 2010, in Cina sono stati proibiti 42 prodotti chimici nella coltivazione del tè.

Quali tipologie di controlli impone la Commissione sui tè importati dalla Cina?

Quali tipologie di certificazioni sanitarie richiede e quali standard vengono applicati?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(11 febbraio 2013)

Il tè originario della Cina rientra nell'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 669/2009 (254), vale a dire nell'elenco dei mangimi e alimenti di origine non animale per i quali è richiesto un livello accresciuto di controlli ufficiali prima della loro introduzione nell'Unione europea.

Di conseguenza, le partite di tè provenienti dalla Cina devono entrare nel territorio dell'Unione europea attraverso punti d'entrata specifici designati dagli Stati membri (i cosiddetti «punti di entrata designati»), previa notifica della data stimata di arrivo fisico. Tali partite sono sottoposte a controlli documentari sistematici (100 %) nonché a controlli di identità e fisici, comprese analisi di laboratorio per individuare un'ampia gamma di residui di pesticidi (255), con una frequenza del 10 %, in un modo atto ad assicurare che non sia possibile prevedere se una determinata partita verrà sottoposta o meno a controllo. Non è richiesto nessun certificato sanitario, ma è possibile immettere in libera pratica le partite soltanto una volta che siano stati effettuati tutti i prescritti controlli e che i controlli fisici siano risultati favorevoli.

L'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 669/2009 è riveduto regolarmente, o almeno con cadenza trimestrale, al fine di tener conto delle nuove informazioni disponibili e/o dei rischi emergenti.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011566/12

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: The Commission should monitor toxic substances found in Chinese teas

According to tests on various different samples carried out by Greenpeace China, most Chinese teas show traces of pesticides and substances, such as methomyl, which are illegal in the EU. According to the China Tea Association, these substances were not ground recently but are present in the soil. Some types of tea such as Tieguanyin, moreover, are produced by the large-scale use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. In 2010, China banned 42 chemicals in the cultivation of tea.

What type of controls is the Commission imposing on tea imported from China?

What kind of health certificates are required and what standards are being applied?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

Tea originating from China is included in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (256) i.e. the list of feed and food of non-animal origin for which an increased level of official controls prior to their introduction into the European Union territory is required.

As a consequence, consignments of tea from China are required to enter the territory of the European Union through specific points of entry designated by the Member States (so-called ‘Designated Points of Entry’), following prior notification of the estimated date of physical arrival. They are subject to systematic (100%) documentary checks as well as to identity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis for a wide range of pesticide residues (257), at a frequency of 10%, in such a way that it is not possible to predict whether any particular consignment will undergo the controls. No health certificate is required but the release for free circulation of the consignments is only possible once all required controls have been carried out and favourable results from physical checks are known.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 is reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, so as to take into account new available information and/or any emerging risks.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-011567/12

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 dicembre 2012)

Oggetto: Costo reale dei conti correnti nell'UE

Lo studio utilizzato dalla Commissione europea per stilare i dati statistici sui costi dei conti correnti nell'UE ha indicato come in Italia tale costo medio annuo si aggirasse intorno ai 250 euro, mentre la realtà indicata dalla Banca d'Italia è che il costo annuo medio dovrebbe essere di 114 euro.

Questa discrepanza sembrerebbe dovuta alla metodologia, che applica criteri non consoni alla realtà economica italiana, e ai servizi utilizzati nei vari Stati membri in modo differente, ma permane il dubbio che vi siano distorsioni del mercato interno nei prezzi offerti agli utenti dagli istituti bancari europei.

La Commissione non ritiene opportuno analizzare i dati tramite parametri più dettagliati e ampi, che non subiscano quindi le peculiarità dei mercati nei risultati?

Dato che l'analisi comparativa dei costi annui dei conti correnti potrebbe rivelare distorsioni di mercato, la Commissione ha considerato di approfondire meglio questa situazione e di provvedere al fine di eliminare tali distorsioni di mercato?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(7 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione riconosce che i risultati dello studio (258) cui fa riferimento l'onorevole deputato sono stati oggetto di critiche, soprattutto da parte del mondo finanziario.

Altri studi, compreso quello condotto dalla Banca d'Italia (259) indicano un'ampia gamma di valori medi per quanto concerne il costo annuale di un conto. Sebbene tali differenze non derivino necessariamente da carenze metodologiche, esse possono essere il risultato di diversi approcci metodologici. Lo studio della Commissione fornisce una fonte unica di informazioni comparabili sui prezzi dei conti correnti nell'UE e continua ad essere un'utile fonte di informazioni per il processo decisionale.

L'Atto per il mercato unico II adottato nell'ottobre 2012 identifica in un'iniziativa legislativa relativa ai conti bancari nell'UE una delle dodici azioni prioritarie. Obiettivo di questa iniziativa è, tra l'altro, assicurare che i costi dei conti bancari siano trasparenti e comparabili. Questa iniziativa dovrebbe portare a una maggiore concorrenza nei e tra i mercati nazionali dei servizi bancari al dettaglio e contribuire pertanto a ridurre le distorsioni del prezzo di tali servizi nell'UE. Le proposte della Commissione in questi ambiti sono previste per il primo trimestre del 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011567/12

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Real cost of current accounts in the EU

The study used by the Commission to compile statistical data on the costs of current accounts in the EU shows that in Italy the average annual cost of such an account is around EUR 250, while according to the Bank of Italy the average annual cost should be EUR 114.

This discrepancy appears to be due to the methodology used, which applies criteria that are not appropriate for the Italian economy, and to the services used in different ways in the various Member States. However, the doubt remains that there may be distortions in the internal market with regard to the prices offered to users of European banks.

Does the Commission not think it should analyse the data using more detailed and broader parameters, so that the results are not affected by the specific characteristics of different markets?

Since the comparative analysis of the annual costs of current accounts could reveal market distortions, has the Commission thought of looking into this matter further and taking action to eliminate such distortions?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2013)

The Commission acknowledges that the results of the study (260) referred to by the Honorable Member have been met with criticism, mainly by the financial industry.

Other studies, including the one carried out by the Bank of Italy (261) report a wide range of average values for the annual cost of holding a payment account. While these differences do not necessarily result from methodological weaknesses, they may be the result of different methodological approaches. The Commission study provides a unique source of comparable information on current account prices across the EU and it continues to be a valuable source of information for policy-making.

The Single Market Act II adopted in October 2012 identified a legislative initiative on bank accounts in the EU as one of 12 priority actions. The aim of this initiative is inter alia to ensure bank account fees are transparent and comparable. This initiative should lead to more competition within and across national retail banking markets and thereby help reduce price distortions of retail financial services in the EU.The Commission's proposals in these areas are expected during the first quarter of 2013.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011568/12

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: VP/HR — dos mujeres se enfrentan a una pena de cárcel en Camboya por defender el derecho a la vivienda

Según la información facilitada por Amnistía Internacional, el próximo 26 de diciembre se juzgará a dos camboyanas defensoras de los derechos humanos. Se enfrentan a penas de entre seis meses y cinco años de prisión. Yorm Bopha y Tim Sakmony son activistas que trabajan por el derecho a la vivienda y provienen de dos zonas de Nom Pen, la capital del país. Son presas de conciencia. Yorm Bopha fue arrestada el 4 de septiembre de 2012 y Tim Sakmony, al día siguiente, sin que existiera relación entre las dos detenciones. Se encuentran detenidas en la prisión Prey Sar (CC2) de Nom Pen y sus juicios están previstos para el 26 de diciembre a las 14.00 horas, en dos salas diferentes del Juzgado Municipal de Nom Pen. A Yorm Bopha se la acusa de «violencia deliberada con circunstancias agravantes», en virtud del artículo 218 del Código Penal camboyano. También su marido, Luos Sakhom, fue arrestado y acusado, pero quedó en libertad bajo fianza y no se ha comunicado aún ninguna fecha para su juicio. Ambos están acusados de agredir, alrededor de un mes antes del arresto, a una persona sospechosa de robar retrovisores exteriores de automóviles, hecho que los dos han negado. A Tim Sakmony, una abuela de sesenta y cinco años, se la acusa de haber «declarado en falso», según lo estipulado en el artículo 633 del Código Penal nacional. El asunto tiene su origen en la solicitud que presentó en nombre de su hijo discapacitado a Phanimex, la empresa encargada de reurbanizar la zona de Borei Kella, en Nom Pen, pidiendo uno de los apartamentos que la empresa había prometido tras el desalojo forzoso de la comunidad en enero de 2012.

El trabajo de ambas mujeres en la protesta contra los desalojos forzosos de sus comunidades ha sido especialmente destacado. Yorm Bopha protestó abiertamente durante la detención de otras trece activistas del lago Boeung Kak, condenadas a penas de hasta dos años y medio de cárcel en mayo de 2012. Tim Sakmony es una de las representantes de las ciento seis familias que se alojan ahora mismo en tiendas de campaña cerca del lugar donde se encontraba la comunidad Borei Kella, ahora demolida. Los cargos presentados por las autoridades contra estas dos mujeres por su destacado papel en la lucha pacífica por el derecho a viviendas adecuadas para sus comunidades parecen carecer de fundamento.

¿Se pondrá en contacto la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante con las autoridades camboyanas para solicitarles que liberen inmediata e incondicionalmente a las presas de conciencia Yorm Bopha y Tim Sakmony? ¿Les pedirá que cesen en el uso de la intimidación, las acciones legales y la violencia contra participantes en protestas pacíficas y defensores de los derechos humanos? Asimismo, ¿instará a las autoridades a que pongan fin a los desalojos forzosos en Camboya?

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

(18 de febrero de 2013)

Las dos activistas contra los desalojos de tierras Tim Sakmony y Yorm Bopha fueron detenidas y acusadas «de manera independiente», pero de forma simultánea, por delitos no relacionados. Un tribunal dictó sentencia los días 27 y 28 de diciembre y, mientras que Sakmony salió libre del tribunal, Bopha fue enviada de nuevo a prisión con una pena de 3 años y una multa de 7 500 USD. Ambas estaban encarceladas desde el pasado mes de septiembre. La Delegación de la UE en Phnom Penh asistió a todo el juicio de Yorm Bopha.

Las cuestiones relativas a los derechos humanos se discutieron al más alto nivel con las autoridades camboyanas cuando el Presidente del Consejo Europeo, el Sr. Van Rompuy, se reunió con el Primer Ministro camboyano Hun Sen durante su visita a Camboya del 2 al 4 de noviembre.

En dichas discusiones, la UE hizo un gran hincapié en la importancia del respeto de los Derechos Humanos y del Estado de Derecho, en concreto en el ámbito de la reforma agraria. Junto con su Delegación en Phnom Penh, la UE está estudiando la mejor manera de llevar a la práctica los resultados de estas discusiones, incluida una gestión diplomática por parte del Jefe de la Delegación de la UE cuando los asuntos mencionados con anterioridad puedan plantearse.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011568/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Women in Cambodia face jail for defending housing rights

According to information from Amnesty International, two female Cambodian human rights defenders are to be tried on 26 December 2012. They may be facing six months to five years in prison. Yorm Bopha and Tim Sakmony are housing-rights activists from two areas in the capital Phnom Penh. They are prisoners of conscience. Yorm Bopha was arrested on 4 September 2012 and Tim Sakmony the next day, in two separate cases. They are being detained in Prey Sar (CC2) prison in Phnom Penh. Their trials are scheduled for 2 p.m. on 26 December 2012 in different rooms of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court. Yorm Bopha is charged with ‘intentional violence with aggravating circumstances’ under Article 218 of Cambodia’s Penal Code. Her husband, Luos Sakhorn, was also arrested and charged, but was released on bail. No date has been set for his trial. They are accused of assaulting a person suspected of stealing car wing mirrors, around a month before their arrest, which they have denied. Tim Sakmony, a 65-year-old grandmother, is charged with making a ‘false declaration’ under Article 633 of the Penal Code. This stems from a request she made on behalf of her disabled son to Phanimex, the company redeveloping the Borei Keila area in Phnom Penh, for one of the apartments it had promised after the community was forcibly evicted in January 2012.

Both women have been prominent in protesting against the forced evictions of their communities. Yorm Bopha was outspoken during the detention of 13 other Boeung Kak Lake female activists who were sentenced for up to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in May 2012. Tim Sakmony is one of the representatives of the 106 families now living in tents next to the demolished site of the Borei Keila community. The authorities appear to have levelled baseless charges against the two women because of their leading roles in peacefully advocating for the right to adequate housing for their communities.

Will the VP/HR contact the Cambodian authorities to call for the immediate and unconditional release of prisoners of conscience Yorm Bopha and Tim Sakmony? Will she request the authorities to stop using intimidation, legal action and violence against peaceful protesters and human rights defenders? Furthermore, will the VP/HR ask the authorities to end forced evictions in Cambodia?

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

(18 February 2013)

The two land evictions activists Tim Sakmony and Yorm Bopha were arrested and charged ‘independently’, but at the same time on non-related criminal offenses. A court passed judgment on 27th and 28th December. While Sakmony left the tribunal free, Bopha was sent back to jail with a sentence of 3 years and a fine of USD 7500. Both had been detained since last September. The EU Delegation in Phnom Penh attended the whole of Yorm Bopha’s trial.

Human rights concerns have been discussed at the highest level with the Cambodian authorities, when the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy met Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen during his visit to Cambodia on 2-4 November.

In those discussions, the EU strongly underlined the importance of respect for Human Rights and the rule of law, in particular in the context of land reform. Together with its Delegation in Phnom Penh, the EU is looking at the best way to follow-up on these discussions, including through a demarche by the EU Head of Delegation where these abovementioned cases may be raised.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011569/12

à la Commission

Françoise Castex (S&D)

(18 décembre 2012)

Objet: Abus des règles de distribution sélective

Un récent avis de l'Autorité française de la concurrence sur le fonctionnement du commerce électronique constate que les nouveaux acteurs tels que les places de marchés en ligne stimulent la concurrence en réduisant les barrières à l'entrée et en facilitant la comparaison des prix (262). Récemment, cette même autorité a sanctionné Bang & Olufsen pour des restrictions imposées à leurs distributeurs autorisés (263), après avoir alerté sur la tendance à l'utilisation abusive des règles de distribution sélective par les fabricants. La Commission aura également vu des rapports dans la presse allemande au sujet de certaines marques d'articles de sport interdisant à leurs distributeurs à travers l'Europe d'utiliser certaines places de marché en ligne. Ces pratiques sont, qui plus est, répandues sur de nombreux produits de grande consommation au sein du marché intérieur.

Quelles mesures la Commission envisage-t-elle de prendre afin que ces pratiques abusives, injustifiées et discriminatoires, mises en œuvre par des accords de distribution et restreignant gravement le développement du commerce électronique et mobile dans l'Union, soient sanctionnées?

Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission

(15 février 2013)

En 2010, la Commission a adopté le règlement 330/2010 et les lignes directrices sur les restrictions verticales qui l'accompagnent. Ces nouvelles règles permettent de faciliter et de sécuriser les ventes sur internet. Les lignes directrices précisent que «tout distributeur doit être autorisé à utiliser internet pour vendre ses produits».

Certes, ces nouvelles règles facilitent l'utilisation d'internet pour des distributeurs sélectionnés, mais cela ne signifie pas que tout distributeur doit être autorisé à vendre les produits de n'importe quel fabricant. Un fabricant peut avoir de bonnes raisons, bénéfiques pour les consommateurs, de restreindre son système de distribution.

Le règlement prévoit une zone de sécurité pour de tels accords de distribution uniquement si la part de marché du fournisseur et de l'acheteur ne dépasse pas 30 % ce qui rend peu probable l'apparition d'effets négatifs nets pour les consommateurs. En dehors de cette zone de sécurité, la Commission, les autorités nationales de concurrence et les juridictions nationales ont la possibilité d'appliquer directement l'article 101 du TFUE et d'interdire les accords restrictifs. En outre, la Commission et les autorités nationales de concurrence peuvent retirer le bénéfice de la zone de sécurité si l'accord a des effets négatifs nets pour les consommateurs. Par conséquent, les lignes directrices sur les restrictions verticales et le règlement offrent des possibilités appropriées et suffisantes pour intervenir si la concurrence ou les consommateurs sont susceptibles d'être lésés par des accords de distribution restrictifs. L'affaire française concernant Bang & Olufsen, mentionnée dans la question de l'Honorable Parlementaire est un bon exemple de la mise en application de ces règles.

La Commission surveille en permanence l'effet et l'application des règles de l'UE en matière de concurrence, dans le cadre des affaires qu'elle traite, de ses discussions avec les autorités nationales de concurrence au sein du Réseau européen de la concurrence et de discussions avec les parties prenantes de manière générale.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011569/12

to the Commission

Françoise Castex (S&D)

(18 December 2012)

Subject: Abuse of selective distribution rules

A recent opinion by the French competition authority on the functioning of electronic trade notes that new players such as online marketplaces spur on competition by reducing barriers to entry and making it easier to compare prices (264). This authority recently sanctioned Bang & Olufsen for imposing restrictions on their authorised distributors (265), after flagging up the trend towards abuse of selective distribution rules by the manufacturers. The Commission will also have seen reports in the German press on certain brands of sports goods which forbid their distributors throughout Europe to use some online marketplaces. These practices are common in respect of many staple products in the internal market.

What steps is the Commission considering taking to sanction these abusive, unjustified and discriminatory practices, which are implemented by means of distribution agreements and which seriously curtail the development of electronic and mobile trade in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2013)

In 2010 the Commission adopted Regulation 330/2010 (266) and the accompanying Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (267). The new rules facilitate and protect Internet sales. The Guidelines make it clear that ‘every distributor must be allowed to use the Internet to sell products’ (268).

While the new rules facilitate selected distributors to use the Internet, this does not mean that every distributor must be allowed to sell a manufacturer's products. A manufacturer may have good reasons, benefiting consumers, for restricting its distribution system.

The regulation provides a safe harbour for such distribution agreements only if both the supplier's and the buyer's market share do not exceed 30%, making it unlikely that net negative effects will result for consumers. Outside this safe harbour the Commission, the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the national courts can directly apply Article 101 TFEU and prohibit restrictive agreements. In addition, both the Commission and the NCAs can withdraw the safe harbour benefit if a particular agreement does have net negative effects for consumers. The regulation and Guidelines thus provide appropriate and sufficient possibilities to intervene if competition and consumers are likely to be harmed by restrictive distribution agreements. The French case concerning Bang & Olufsen, mentioned in the Honourable Member's question, is a good example of the application of these rules (269).

The Commission continuously monitors the effect and application of the EU competition rules, through its cases, through discussions with NCAs within the European Competition Network, and through discussions with stakeholders generally.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-011571/12

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(19 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Explotación de los recursos naturales en el Sáhara Occidental

Ningún Estado del mundo ha reconocido la anexión ilegal del Sáhara Occidental por parte de Marruecos. Sin embargo, la UE está planteándose pagar cada año, a partir de 2013, millones de euros al Gobierno de Marruecos para permitir que los buques de la UE pesquen en las aguas costeras de ese territorio. Marruecos sigue negándose a cooperar en el proceso de descolonización del Sáhara Occidental, desafiando así más de cien resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas que insisten en el derecho a la autodeterminación del pueblo saharaui. Al mismo tiempo, las autoridades marroquíes están violando los derechos humanos de los saharauis que expresan sus opiniones políticas.

El enviado especial de las Naciones Unidas para el Sáhara Occidental ha puesto específicamente sobre la mesa de negociación el asunto de la gestión de los recursos naturales, a fin de encontrar una solución pacífica al conflicto. En este contexto, el hecho de cooperar con Marruecos en la explotación de los recursos naturales del Sáhara Occidental socava los esfuerzos de las Naciones Unidas en favor de la paz.

Según el Derecho internacional, los recursos naturales del Sáhara Occidental solo pueden explotarse de acuerdo con los deseos e intereses del pueblo de dicho territorio.

A pesar de ello, la UE tiene previsto ahora transferir el dinero de los contribuyentes europeos al Gobierno de Marruecos para poder acceder a las aguas del Sáhara Occidental, sin consultar aparentemente para ello al pueblo saharaui. Fue esta situación preocupante la que hizo que el Parlamento Europeo pusiera fin a la pesca de la UE en el Sáhara Occidental en 2011. El pueblo saharaui tiene derecho a ser escuchado. No debe llevarse a cabo ninguna actividad pesquera de la UE en el Sáhara Occidental hasta que se encuentre una solución pacífica al conflicto.

1.

Por consiguiente, ¿cómo justifica la Comisión el que se siga adelante con los planes de renovación del acuerdo pesquero de la UE con Marruecos en aguas del Sáhara Occidental?

2.

¿No opina la Comisión que la UE debería trabajar dentro del marco de la paz internacional y apoyar los esfuerzos de las Naciones Unidas para negociar una solución al conflicto?

3.

¿Ha consultado la Comisión al pueblo saharaui y ha dado este su consentimiento para que se pesque en las aguas del Sáhara Occidental?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(6 de febrero de 2013)

La Comisión Europea está negociando un nuevo protocolo del Acuerdo de colaboración en el sector pesquero con Marruecos conforme a las directrices del Consejo de febrero de 2012 (270) y teniendo presente la resolución del Parlamento Europeo sobre un futuro protocolo de dicho Acuerdo (271).

La Comisión Europea apoya completamente los esfuerzos que el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas está llevando a cabo para encontrar una solución mutuamente aceptable conforme a los principios enunciados en las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de esa organización: «lograr una solución política justa, duradera y mutuamente aceptable, que prevea la libre determinación del pueblo del Sáhara Occidental». En este contexto, la Comisión Europea ha mantenido contactos, en los foros y en los niveles apropiados, con todos los grupos que expresan su preocupación en relación con el citado acuerdo de pesca.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011571/12

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Exploiting natural resources in Western Sahara

No state in the world has recognised the illegal Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara. However, the EU is considering, from 2013, paying millions of euros annually to the Government of Morocco to allow EU vessels to fish in the territory’s offshore waters. Morocco continues to refuse to cooperate with the decolonisation process in Western Sahara, in defiance of more than one hundred (100) UN resolutions that insist on the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination. Simultaneously, the Moroccan authorities are committing human rights violations against Sahrawis who voice their political views.

The UN special envoy to Western Sahara has specifically placed the management of natural resources on the negotiating table in order to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. In this context, cooperating with Morocco in exploiting Western Sahara’s natural resources is undermining the UN’s peace efforts.

According to international law, the natural resources in Western Sahara can only be exploited in accordance with the wishes and interests of the people of the territory.

Despite this, the EU is now planning to transfer European taxpayers’ money to the Government of Morocco for access to Western Saharan waters, apparently without consulting the Saharawi people. It was because of these concerns that the European Parliament stopped EU fisheries in Western Sahara in 2011. The Saharawi people have the right to be heard. No further EU fisheries operations should take place in Western Sahara until a peaceful solution to the conflict has been found.

1.

How, therefore, does the Commission justify going ahead with plans for renewing the EU fisheries agreement with Morocco for Western Saharan waters?

2.

Does the Commission not think that the EU should work within the framework of international peace and should support the UN’s efforts to negotiate a solution to the conflict?

3.

Has the Commission consulted the Saharawi people and have they consented to fisheries in Western Saharan waters?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2013)

The European Commission is negotiating a new Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) with Morocco following the directives of the Council from February 2012 (272) and taking into account the European Parliament's resolution on a future Protocol to the FPA with Morocco (273).

The European Commission entirely supports the efforts of the UN Secretary General to find a mutually acceptable solution according to the principles indicated by the UN Security Council’s Resolutions: ‘achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara’. In this context it has had contacts, in the appropriate fora and at appropriate levels, with all the groups that voice concern in the context of the FPA.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-011572/12

to the Commission

Julie Girling (ECR)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Possible emergency measures to maintain technical conservation prohibition

The final plenary vote on the Gallagher report on the Technical Conservation Regulation ((EC) No 850/98) is yet to take place, and as a result there appears to be a gap whereby highly vulnerable deepwater sharks are potentially exposed to significant impact as bycatch within the deepwater gillnet fisheries.

The report contains a number of important closures in line with the EU’s international commitments. Specifically from an elasmobranch perspective, it would make permanent the prohibitions on deepwater gill-netting (specifically to the west of Scotland and Ireland); this was prohibited under a transitional measure in 2005, but which is due to expire at the end of 2012.

Are there any possible routes to maintaining the prohibition until this matter is resolved?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2013)

The Commission is aware of the potential threat to the conservation of sensitive stocks and vulnerable habitats caused by the delay in adopting the proposal (274) to amend the technical measures Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (275)) referred to by the Honourable Member.

Under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (276) the Commission, at the substantiated request of a Member State or on its own initiative, may take emergency measures where there is the presence of a serious threat to conservation. It is important to note that these measures can only be adopted where there is documented evidence of an immediate threat existing and that this threat is caused by fishing activities. Emergency measures are time-limited to 6 months and can be extended by an additional 6 months.

The Commission is monitoring the situation closely, and urges the co-legislators to act quickly to remedy this legal vacuum and ensure the continuation of all measures included in the proposed amendment.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-011573/12

à la Commission

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE)

(19 décembre 2012)

Objet: Réforme du marché de l'électricité au Royaume-Uni — aide d'État pour le nucléaire

Le 29 novembre 2012, le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a soumis à la Chambre des communes le projet d'une nouvelle loi sur l'énergie. Il a notamment l'intention d'introduire une nouvelle forme statutaire de «Contrat de différence» (CfD) pour la «production d'électricité à faible émission de carbone», y compris d'électricité produite à l'aide de centrales nucléaires.

1.

La Commission permettra-t-elle que l'on définisse l'énergie nucléaire comme étant une technologie émergente?

2.

Juge-t-elle que les dispositions envisagées par le Royaume-Uni concernant le CfD doivent être soumises à un contrôle en vertu des règles de l'Union européenne régissant les aides d'État?

3.

La Commission évaluera-t-elle le nouveau mécanisme du CfD concernant le nucléaire à l'aune des lignes directrices de l'Union relatives aux aides d'État dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement?

4.

Dans l'affirmative, comment la Commission explique-t-elle que ces lignes directrices soient applicables à l'énergie nucléaire compte tenu du règlement du Conseil (CE) n

o

 994/98 et du règlement de la Commission (CE) n

o

 1998/2006 et du risque de dépassement des pouvoirs délégués?

5.

Quels motifs, s'il y en a, seraient susceptibles de justifier les dispositions prévues par le Royaume-Uni concernant le CfD, notamment au regard des lignes directrices de l'Union relatives aux aides d'État dans le domaine de la protection de l'environnement?

6.

Quels critères la Commission appliquera-t-elle pour évaluer la nature d'aide d'État et la question des autorisations au regard, également, des règles du marché intérieur de l'énergie, de la concurrence d'autres technologies, en particulier des sources d'énergie renouvelables et du gaz dans ce domaine, et de la nécessité impérieuse d'internaliser entièrement les externalités comme éléments de l'évaluation des coûts de l'aide publique accordée au nucléaire dans le cadre du CfD?

Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission

(2 mars 2013)

Tout projet du gouvernement du Royaume-Uni visant à établir un cadre pour soutenir la production d'énergie nucléaire qui comporterait une aide d'État devrait être compatible avec les règles de l'Union européenne régissant les aides d'État et le marché intérieur. Le Royaume‐Uni n'a pas encore adopté un point de vue définitif sur plusieurs caractéristiques essentielles du cadre. Les services de la Commission examinent actuellement ce dossier en collaboration avec les autorités britanniques.

Plus spécifiquement, la Commission n'a pas encore discuté ou pris position afin de définir le nucléaire comme une technologie arrivée à maturité ou autre. À ce stade, la Commission n'a reçu aucune notification et ignore si le Royaume-Uni a accordé une aide. En conséquence, elle n'a adopté aucune position définitive sur l'existence d'une aide ou sur le degré de conformité d'une telle aide au regard des règles régissant les aides d'État et/ou le marché intérieur. Les critères utilisés pour l'évaluation sont consacrés par la législation relative aux aides d'État, la jurisprudence et la pratique constante.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011573/12

to the Commission

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: UK electricity market reform (EMR), state aid for nuclear

On 29 November 2012 the UK Government presented to the House of Commons the draft of a new Energy Bill. In particular, the UK Government intends to introduce a new statutory form of ‘Contract for Difference’ (CfD) for ‘low carbon electricity generation’, including electricity produced by nuclear power plants.

1.

Will the Commission allow nuclear to be defined as an infant technology?

2.

Does the Commission consider the planned UK provisions on CfD to be subject to scrutiny under EU state aid rules?

3.

Will the Commission evaluate the new CfD mechanism in terms of nuclear under the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection?

4.

If so, how does the Commission explain the applicability of these guidelines to nuclear in view of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 and the risk of excess of delegated power?

5.

On what grounds, if any, are the envisaged UK provisions on CfD justifiable, in particular in the light of the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection?

6.

What will be the criteria for the Commission’s evaluation of state aid status and the issue of authorisations, in view also of the internal energy market rules, competition with other technologies in this field, especially renewables and gas, and the strict need for complete internalisation of externalities as part of the evaluation of the cost of public support for nuclear under the CfD?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2013)

Any plan by the UK Government to devise a framework in support of nuclear energy generation which involved state aid would need to be compatible with EU State aid rules and internal market rules. The UK does not yet have a definitive point of view on several key characteristics of framework. The Commission services are currently in discussion with the UK authorities on this file.

More specifically, no position has been discussed or taken on defining nuclear technology as mature or otherwise. The Commission has not received any notification at this stage and is not aware of the UK having granting aid, hence no definitive view has been reached on the existence of aid or the extent to which such aid might be justified under state aid and/or internal market rules. The criteria used for the assessment are enshrined in state aid law, jurisprudence and case practice.

(българска версия)

Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-011575/12

до Комисията

Mariya Gabriel (PPE)

(19 декември 2012 г.)

Относно: Методика на изчисляване на ставките за заплащане на участниците по програма „Учене през целия живот“ и „Хоризонт 2020“

Европейската комисия обедини своите образователни и обучителни инициативи в рамките на програмата „Учене през целия живот“ (www.ec.europa.eu/llp). Тази програма дава възможност на хора в различни етапи от своя житейски път да получат стимулиращи възможности за обучение в цяла Европа.

Заплащането на участниците по програма „Учене през целия живот“ става чрез фиксирани европейски ставки за труд. По данни на българското Министерство на образованието и науката максималното допустимо заплащане в евро по програма „Леонардо“ за 2013 г. за един изследовател в България е увеличено от 26 на 60 евро на ден, докато същата категория участници в Белгия получават 360 евро на ден.

Според българските учени подобни регулации влияят пряко върху конкурентоспособността на българските фирми, задълбочават последствията от икономическата криза и водят до постоянен дефицит на качествени експерти, учени и бизнесмени. Това от своя страна води до неизпълнение на поетите ангажименти, неусвояване на кохезионните фондове, корупция, санкции и т.н.

В този смисъл:

Има ли възможност за промяна в методиката на изчисляване на подобни ставки както по текущите, така и по бъдещите програми с цел по-справедливо разпределение на средствата за заплащане по програмата между участниците от различните страни членки?

Какви мерки ще предприеме Комисията, за да осигури това по-справедливо разпределение на средствата за заплащане по програмата между участниците от различните страни членки?

В частност, ще бъде ли по-равностойно и недискриминиращо заплащането на български организации и индивидуални експерти по програмата „Хоризонт 2020“?

Приемлива ли е практиката, при която три години след подписване на грантово споразумение с Европейската комисия се иска от проекти по Седма рамкова програма да връщат суми поради надвишаване на допустимите разходи за труд? Какво е взето предвид от Комисията за гарантиране на законосъобразността на направените разходи и какви са мотивите за прилагане на методика за определяне на допълнителните разходи за труд, въведена впоследствие и недостъпна за участниците в проектите?

Какви мерки ще предприема Комисията за осигуряване на максимална прозрачност на финансовите правила в бъдещите програми?

Отговор, даден от г-жа Vassiliouon от името на Комисията

(22 февруари 2013 г.)

„Максималният размер на дневната ставка за персонал“ за 2012 г. и 2013 г. във връзка с програмата „Учене през целия живот“ е определен въз основа на резултатите от статистическо проучване, проведено през 2011 г. Събирането на данните и методологията се основаваха на най-актуалните статистически данни на Евростат и данни, свързани с трудовия пазар.

Резултатите бяха приложени за първи път през 2012 г. За 2013 г. бе въведен нов механизъм за стабилизиране на разходите за персонала, който има за цел намаляване на колебанията в ставките и по-добро планиране от страна на участниците. С механизма за стабилизиране се ограничават разликите между годините до 20 %, като 2011 г. се използва за референтната стойност. Благодарение на него максималният допустим размер на дневната ставка за персонал за българските изследователи е нараснал от 26 EUR през 2012 г. на 60 EUR през 2013 г.

За бъдещата програма „Еразъм за всички“ Комисията разработва нови ставки съгласно разпоредбите на Финансовия регламент и Правилата за прилагането му.

В регулаторната рамка на „Хоризонт 2020“, която понастоящем е в процес на обсъждане (277), се предвижда възстановяване на реалните преки разходи. Също така Съветът предлага да могат да се добавят допълнителни плащания (бонуси) — до максимум 8000 EUR годишно на човек. Съгласно максималните ставки за възстановяване на разходи заплатата и бонусите, платени на изследователя, както е записано в счетоводните отчети, са допустими за финансиране.

Не е ясно дали споменатото връщане на суми е вследствие на одит. По време на одитната процедура на участниците се предоставя достатъчна възможност да представят аргументи и да обосноват факта, че разходите са допустими.

Що се отнася до програма „Хоризонт 2020“, финансова информация ще бъде разпространена чрез специализирани уебстраници, на редовните срещи с юридическите и финансовите лица за контакт на национално равнище, чрез информационната служба за изследвания, както и чрез обяснителните финансови насоки.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011575/12

to the Commission

Mariya Gabriel (PPE)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Method for calculating the rates of payment for participants in the Lifelong Learning Programme and Horizon 2020

The Commission has merged its education and training initiatives in the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme (www.ec.europa.eu/llp). That programme offers people stimulating educational opportunities all over Europe at various stages in their lives.

The payments for participants in the Lifelong Learning Programme are based on fixed European labour rates. According to statistics from the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, the maximum payment in euros that can be received under the Leonardo Programme for 2013 by a researcher in Bulgaria is between EUR 26 and EUR 60 per day while, in Belgium, the same category of participants receive EUR 360 per day.

According to the Bulgarian researchers, those rules are directly affecting the competitiveness of Bulgarian firms, exacerbating the effects of the economic crisis and are responsible for a permanent shortage of top‐level experts, scientists and businessmen. This in turn results in non‐fulfilment of commitments entered into, non‐utilisation of cohesion funding, corruption and penalties, etc.

Can the Commission therefore state:

Whether the method used to calculate those rates under both current and future programmes can be adjusted with a view to a fairer distribution of payment resources under a programme between participants from the various Member States;

What measures it will take to ensure that fairer distribution of payment resources under a programme between participants from the various Member States;

Whether, in particular, payments to Bulgarian organisations and experts under the Horizon 2020 Programme will be more equitable and non-discriminatory in future;

Whether it considers acceptable the practice of requiring, three years after the signature of a grant agreement with the Commission, the repayment of amounts owing to eligible salary costs being exceeded in projects under the Seventh Framework Programme, what factors it takes into account to ensure the legality of the expenditure outlaid and what the reasons are for applying the method for determining excess salary costs, which is introduced subsequently and without project participant involvement?

What steps it will take to ensure maximum transparency in respect of the financing rules in future programmes?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

For the Lifelong Learning Programme, the ‘Maximum eligible daily rates for staff costs’ for 2012 and 2013 are based on the results of a statistical study conducted in 2011. The data collection and methodology were based on the most recent Eurostat statistics and data related to the labour market.

The results were first applied in 2012. For 2013 a new stabilisation mechanism for staff costs has been introduced, in order to reduce fluctuations and improve predictability for participants. The stabilisation mechanism limits the fluctuations between years to 20% using 2011 as the base figure. Thanks to this mechanism the maximum eligible daily rates for staff costs for Bulgarian Researchers increased from EUR 26 in 2012 to EUR 60 in 2013.

For the future programme ‘Erasmus for All’, the Commission is developing new rates, according to the provisions of the Financial Regulation and its Rules of Application.

The Horizon 2020 regulatory framework which is currently under discussion (278) foresees that actual direct costs will be reimbursed. Moreover, the Council proposes that additional payments (bonuses) can be added up to a cap of 8000 EUR per year, per person. Whatever is paid to the researcher in terms of salary and bonuses, as recorded in the accounts, is eligible for funding according to the maximum reimbursement rates.

It is not clear whether the repayment mentioned was the result of an audit. In the audit procedure, participants are given ample opportunity to advance arguments and to substantiate the fact that the expenditure is eligible.

For Horizon 2020, financial information will be available via dedicated websites, regular meetings with the legal and financial national contact points, the research inquiry service, and explanatory financial guidelines.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011576/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Fracking o fractura hidráulica

En una Orden del 19 de mayo de 2010 del Departamento de Industria, Comercio y Turismo del Gobierno de Aragón se otorga el permiso de investigación de hidrocarburos denominado «Turbón» n° H22018, situado en la provincia de Huesca (279).

Para llevar a cabo esta investigación se utiliza la técnica del fracking o fractura hidráulica, prohibida en países como Francia, Canadá o Irlanda, que consiste en inyectar a la roca agua con sustancias químicas con el fin de conseguir que salgan a la superficie los hidrocarburos que existen y con la posibilidad de causar «afecciones como terremotos, contaminación de las aguas subterráneas, contaminación en las zonas de almacenamiento de residuos y en el trayecto seguido por los vehículos que accederían a las plantas de extracción, aumento de la incidencia del cáncer» según informan diferentes estudios y colectivos.

En Aragón, las zonas donde se conceden estos permisos se ubican en el Pirineo, un territorio frágil tanto desde el punto de vista demográfico como medioambiental con una gran riqueza tal como lo reflejan las numerosas zonas de especial protección para las aves (ZEPA) y lugares de importancia comunitaria (LIC) de la red Natura 2000. En la comarca de la Ribagorza existen dos permisos: el «Turbón» n° H22018, ya comentado anteriormente, y el denominado como «Graus». Ambos permisos afectan a la protección de aves como cernícalo primilla (Falco naumanni) y el quebrantahuesos (Gypaetus barbatus) y las zonas de nidificación del águila-azor perdicera (Hieraaetus fasciatus), el milano real (Milvus milvus) y el alimoche (Neophron percnopterus); también afectan a las ZEPA ES0000281 y Sierra de Sis, a los LIC ES2410059 LIC 40 ES2410069 Sierra de Esdolomada y Morrones de Güel (280) , ES2410008 LIC Garganta de Obarra ES2410070 LIC Sierra del Castillo de Laguarres, ES2410055 LIC Sierra de Arro, y ES2410054 LIC Sierra Ferrera.

A la luz de lo anterior,

1.

¿Cree la Comisión que estas prácticas afectan o pueden afectar a la salud de sus ciudadanos y a la calidad de las aguas de estos territorios pirenaicos?

2.

¿Cree la Comisión que estas prácticas afectan o pueden afectar peligrosamente a la conservación de las especies en zonas protegidas por la red Natura 2000?

3.

¿Cuáles son los motivos de que en unos territorios se prohíban y en otros se realicen estas prácticas?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(22 de febrero de 2013)

La Comisión no sigue en detalle los proyectos de investigación de hidrocarburos en regiones concretas. Recientemente se ha llevado a cabo, en nombre de la Comisión, un estudio sobre los riesgos ambientales de las operaciones con hidrocarburos no convencionales que impliquen el uso de un volumen elevado de fracturación hidráulica, como es el caso del gas de esquisto. Ese estudio identifica los riesgos específicos asociados a dichas operaciones, como los riesgos de agotamiento y contaminación de los recursos hídricos y de perturbación de la biodiversidad. En el contexto de una iniciativa (281) prevista en el programa de trabajo de la Comisión de 2013 se estudiarán medidas para prevenir, reducir y gestionar esos riesgos.

Corresponde a los Estados miembros decidir si permiten la prospección, la exploración o la producción de hidrocarburos en su territorio. No obstante, deben garantizar que cualquier proyecto de esas características, en particular los que impliquen fracturación hidráulica, cumpla el actual ordenamiento jurídico de la UE y, en particular, sus disposiciones sobre la protección de la salud y el medio ambiente (282).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011576/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Fracking or hydraulic fracturing

In a Decree of 19 May 2010, the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism of the Government of Aragón granted permission for a hydrocarbon prospecting project entitled ‘Turbón’ No. H22018, in the province of Huesca (283).

The process used to carry out this prospecting exercise is fracking or hydraulic fracturing, a process which is banned in countries such as France, Canada or Ireland. It involves injecting water and chemicals into the rock to bring any hydrocarbons to the surface. However, the process may cause other ‘effects such as earthquakes, pollution of the groundwater, pollution of areas for storing waste or of the routes used for vehicles accessing the extraction units, or an increase in cancer rates’ according to information from various groups and Studies.

In Aragón, the areas in which these permits have been granted are located in the Pyrenees, a vulnerable region in both demographic and environmental terms with a high risk level which is reflected in the numerous Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs) and Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) set up as part of the Natura 2000 network. There are two permits for the Ribagorza district: the aforementioned ‘Turbón’ No. H22018, and another referred to as ‘Graus’. Both permits impact on the protection of birds such as the lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni) and the bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) and the nesting areas for Bonelli's eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), the red kite (Milvus milvus) and the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus); they also impact on the ES0000281 and Sierra de Sis SPAs, and on the following SCIs: ES2410059, 40 ES2410069 — Sierra de Esdolomada y Morrones de Güel (284) , ES2410008 — Garganta de Obarra, ES2410070 — Sierra del Castillo de Laguarres, ES2410055 — Sierra de Arro and ES2410054 — Sierra Ferrera.

In the light of the above,

1.

Does the Commission think that these practices are affecting or may affect the health of its citizens and the water quality in these areas of the Pyrenees?

2.

Does the Commission think that these practices are having or may have a dangerous impact on the conservation of species in the areas protected by the Natura 2000 network?

3.

Why are these practices banned in some areas but not in others?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

The Commission does not follow in detail hydrocarbons prospecting projects in specific regions. A study on the environmental risks of unconventional hydrocarbons operations involving the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing (e.g shale gas) was recently carried out on behalf of the Commission. This study identifies specific risks associated with these operations, such as risks of water resource depletion and contamination, as well as disturbance to biodiversity. Measures to prevent, reduce and manage these risks will be examined in the context of an initiative (285) foreseen in the 2013 Commission Work Programme.

It falls to Member States to decide whether they will allow prospection, exploration and/or production of hydrocarbons on their territory. However, they have to ensure that any such project, including those involving hydraulic fracturing, complies with the existing EU legal framework, and notably its provisions on the protection of health and the environment (286).

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-011578/12

til Kommissionen

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(19. december 2012)

Om: Norske toldændringers konsekvenser for Norge og EU's eksport

I henhold til Kommissionens besvarelse af forespørgsel E-009410/2012 vedr. den norske regerings forslag om en omlægning fra specifik told til værditold på udvalgte landbrugsprodukter vil Kommissionen overveje alle muligheder for sanktioner eller gengældelsesforanstaltninger, såfremt ændringerne vedtages. Kommissionen henviser til, at ændringerne strider mod ånden i artikel 19 i EØS-aftalen.

Ændringerne blev vedtaget i det norske Storting den 12. december 2012. Dermed rammes europæiske producenter af hvide oste (med få undtagelser), oksekød og lammekød af en værditold på hhv. 277, 344 og 429 % pr. 1. januar 2013.

Kan Kommissionen sige noget mere konkret om, hvilke mulige sanktioner eller gengældelsesforanstaltninger der kan tages i brug? Kan ændringerne få konsekvenser for fremtidige forhandlinger om kvoter på landbrugs‐ og fiskeprodukter mellem Norge og EU?

Kan Kommissionen fremlægge konkrete beregninger på, hvad dette vil betyde for eksporten af hvid ost, oksekød og lammekød til Norge fra EU?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Dacian Cioloş

(26. februar 2013)

Kort tid efter, at Norge havde vedtaget den omlægning fra specifik told til værditold på bestemte oste, oksekød og lammekød, som det ærede medlem henviser til, indledte Kommissionens tjenestegrene en undersøgelse af, hvilke responsmuligheder der var adgang til. Dette arbejde pågår fortsat, så Kommissionen kan endnu ikke sige noget om resultatet.

Ifølge tallene fra Eurostat udgjorde eksporten af lammekød fra EU til Norge under de af omlægningen berørte toldpositioner 481 ton og 2,7 mio. EUR i 2011, mens eksporten af oksekød udgjorde 288 ton og 2,7 mio. EUR. Der findes ingen detaljerede tal for ost. Med hensyn til de handelsmæsige konsekvenser baseret på de foreliggende data og de mange forudsætninger, som virkningen af denne omlægning skal vurderes ud fra, er Kommissionen ikke i stand til forsyne det ærede medlem med specifikke og troværdige beregninger.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011578/12

to the Commission

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: The consequences of changes in Norwegian duties for Norway and for EU exports

According to the Commission’s answer to Question E-009410/2012 concerning the Norwegian Government’s proposal to change from specific duties to ad valorem duties for selected agricultural products, the Commission will consider all available options for sanctions or retaliatory measures should the changes be adopted. The Commission refers to the fact that the changes are contrary to the spirit of Article 19 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement.

The changes were adopted in the Norwegian national assembly on 12 December 2012. As a result, European producers of white cheese (with a few exceptions), beef and lamb meat will face an ad valorem duty of 277%, 344% and 429%, respectively, from 1 January 2013.

Can the Commission comment in more detail on what potential sanctions or retaliatory measures could be used? Could the changes have consequences for future negotiations between Norway and the EU on quotas for agricultural and fishery products?

Can the Commission provide specific calculations in respect of what this will mean for exports of white cheese, beef and lamb meat to Norway from the EU?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

Shortly after the adoption by Norway of the change from specific to ad valorem duties for some cheese, beef and lamb meat that the Honourable Member is referring to, the Commission services launched an analysis of the legally available courses of response. This analysis is ongoing and the Commission is not at this stage of the procedure in a position to prejudge its outcome.

According to the Eurostat figures, exports in 2011 from the EU to Norway of lamb meat under the tariff lines concerned by the change amounted to 481 tons and EUR 2.7 million while exports of beef meat to 288 tons and EUR 2.7 million. Detailed data for cheese are not available. As regards the impact on trade, based on the available data and the numerous assumptions that would have to be made in order to estimate the impact of the above changes, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with specific and reliable calculations.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011579/12

an die Kommission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(19. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: Sicherheitsbewertung kosmetischer Produkte — Interessen von Verbrauchern und KMU

In der GD SANCO Referat B-2 wurde der Entwurf einer Leitlinie zur Sicherheitsbewertung kosmetischer Produkte (Anhang-1-Leitlinie) vorgestellt; das Ziel besteht darin, den Verbraucherschutz zu verbessern. Tatsächlich gibt es aber Kritik aus betroffenen Kreisen, wonach Verbraucherinteressen verletzt und den KMU durch den Entwurf die Existenzgrundlage entzogen würde. Insbesondere wird eine gewisse Realitätsferne angeprangert, da die technischen Realitäten in den Mitgliedstaaten (GLP, NOAEL, Analysenzugänglichkeit, PAO-Irreführung, Vermeidbarkeitsdokumentation, schlicht fehlende Daten, Konsequenz aus MoS-Fehlen, TTC-Konzept …) weitgehend ignoriert würden. Zusätzliche Sicherheitsdokumente seien nicht der probate Weg zu einem tatsächlichen Mehr an Sicherheit. Zielführender seien Investitionen in hochwertige Rohstoffe und die Produktherstellung und nicht in neue bürokratische Formalitäten. Dabei könne es durch formalistische Hürden zum Verlust kleiner Unternehmen kommen. Außerdem befürchtet man das Ende purer Naturkosmetik aus Milch, Honig und Premium-Olivenöl vom Bauern, weil diese als Lebensmittel in Kosmetik eingearbeitet gelten und nach der Leitlinie der Kommission bei Hautkontakt als unsicher (keine Unterlagen = keine Sicherheit) eingestuft werden. Daraus resultiere der Verlust zahlreicher natürlicher Rohstoffe in Kosmetika, die von vielen Verbrauchern bevorzugt werden; stattdessen drohe ein Ersatz durch synthetische Petrochemikalien.

1.

Wie steht die Kommission zu den Vorwürfen, wonach der durch die GD SANCO erarbeitete Vorschlag zur Sicherheitsbewertung kosmetischer Produkte zu einem massiven bürokratischen und kostenintensiven Mehraufwand für KMU führen würde?

2.

Sieht der Entwurf der Kommission neben zusätzlichen bürokratischen Formalitäten auch Investitionen in hochwertige Rohstoffe und die qualitätsorientierte Produktherstellung vor? Wenn ja, in welcher Form?

3.

Wurden bei der Erarbeitung des gegenständlichen Entwurfs Interessenvertreter von KMU aus der Kosmetikbranche mit einbezogen? Wenn ja, mit welchem Ergebnis?

4.

Wie steht die Kommission zu der Befürchtung, dass der Vorschlag von DG SANCO das Aus für Naturkosmetik bedeuten könnte?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(11. Februar 2013)

Gemäß der Verordnung über kosmetische Mittel (287) muss die Sicherheit der in Verkehr gebrachten kosmetischen Mittel gewährleistet sein. Dies wird durch eine gestärkte Verantwortung der Hersteller und eine verbesserte Marktüberwachung erzielt.

In der Verordnung sind Mindestanforderungen für die Sicherheitsbewertung kosmetischer Mittel festgelegt (288). Da die zuvor geltende Richtlinie bereits eine Bewertung vorsah, sind nur denjenigen Unternehmen Kosten entstanden, die noch keine angemessene Sicherheitsbewertung ihrer Erzeugnisse eingerichtet hatten. Einige Kosten, wie zum Beispiel Verwaltungskosten für die Notifizierung, sind gesunken.

Im Leitfaden zu Anhang I wird Herstellern empfohlen, die von Lieferanten erteilten Auskünfte über höherwertige Rohstoffe heranzuziehen, zu deren Kauf sie aufgefordert werden. Grundsätzlich sollte die gute Herstellungspraxis eingehalten werden.

Die KMU wurden durch UEAPME (289) in einer Expertengruppe vertreten, die der Kommission bei der Erstellung der Leitlinien zur Seite stand. Ihre Anregungen wurde berücksichtigt, insbesondere was die für sie erforderlichen Erläuterungen anbelangt. Außerdem flossen die Bedenken nationaler KMU-Zusammenschlüsse in die Erörterungen der Mitgliedstaaten ein. Da hinsichtlich der Sicherheit kosmetischer Mittel keine Kompromisse eingegangen werden können, sind KMU gezwungen, die Anforderungen in Anhang I zu erfüllen. Der Leitfaden wird den KMU ein nützliches Hilfsmittel sein, um von ihren Lieferanten die erforderlichen Informationen einzufordern und ihre Auftragnehmer, einschließlich des Sicherheitsbewerters, anzuleiten.

Naturkosmetika müssen den Anforderungen der Verordnung über kosmetische Mittel entsprechen. Der Leitfaden zu Anhang I verhindert das Inverkehrbringen sicherer Erzeugnisse nicht, sondern schreibt eine angemessene Sicherheitsbewertung durch einen qualifizierten Sicherheitsbewerter vor.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011579/12

to the Commission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Assessment of product safety for cosmetics — Consumers' and SMEs' interests

In Unit B-2 of DG SANCO, draft guidelines have been submitted on the assessment of product safety for cosmetics (Guideline Annex-I); the aim is to improve consumer protection. There has however been criticism from the quarters concerned that the draft might be damaging to consumer interests and remove some SMEs' livelihood. In particular, there are complaints about the approach being somewhat unrealistic, since the technological realities in Member States (GLP, NOAEL, analysis accessibility, misleading PAO labelling, preventability documentation, completely missing data, consequences of MOS failures, TTC concept) have to a great extent been ignored. It has also been said that additional safety documents are not the tried and tested way to secure greater safety. It would be more useful to invest in higher-quality raw materials and product manufacturing, not in new bureaucratic formalities. Such bureaucratic hurdles can lead to the disappearance of small businesses. Moreover, there are fears that this will mean the end for pure natural cosmetics made from milk, honey and premium olive oil from farms, because these are deemed to be foodstuffs used in cosmetics and, under the Commission's guidelines, are classed as unsafe when brought into contact with skin (no documentary evidence = no safety). This would mean the disappearance of numerous natural raw materials from cosmetics, preferred by many consumers. There is a threat that synthetic petrochemicals might used in their place.

1.

What is the Commission's response to the accusation that DG SANCO is drafting a proposal on safety assessment for cosmetic products which would generate a massive additional bureaucratic and cost-intensive burden for SMEs?

2.

Does the Commission draft, alongside the additional bureaucratic formalities, also provide for investments in high-quality raw materials and quality-oriented product manufacturing methods? If so, in what form?

3.

While this draft was being prepared, were parties representing the interests of SMEs in the cosmetics industry involved? If so, what has been the outcome of such involvement?

4.

What is the Commission's stance on the concern that DG SANCO's proposal could mean the end for natural cosmetics?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2013)

The Cosmetics Regulation (290) requires that cosmetic products placed on the market are safe. This is achieved by a strengthened manufacturer's responsibility and improved market surveillance.

The regulation sets out minimum requirements for the cosmetics product safety assessment (291) (PSA). Given that the previous Directive required an assessment, costs have been encountered only for those companies which did not have an acceptable PSA previously. Some costs such as administrative costs for notification have been reduced.

The Guidelines on Annex I suggest that manufacturers use information provided by suppliers, inviting them to buy better quality raw materials for which the information is provided. As a general rule, good manufacturing practices should be respected.

SMEs were represented by UEAPME (292) in an expert group that assisted the Commission in preparing the Guidelines. Attention was paid to their suggestions, particularly as concerns explanations for SMEs. The concerns of national SME associations were channelled into the discussion by Member States. As no compromise can be made regarding the safety of cosmetic products, SMEs must follow the requirements of Annex I. The Guidelines will be a useful tool for SMEs to expect the necessary information from their suppliers and to instruct their contractors, including the safety assessor.

Natural cosmetics must comply with the Cosmetics Regulation. The Guidelines on Annex I do not prevent any safe product from being placed on the market, but require that an accurate safety assessment is carried out by a qualified safety assessor.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011580/12

to the Commission

Julie Girling (ECR)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: Gibraltar on EU maps

Given that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory, why is it that, on the country maps that the general public can view on the European Union website, which is the responsibility of DG Communication, Gibraltar is absent from the United Kingdom map while the overseas territories of France, Spain and Portugal are all clearly marked?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The map of the European Union published by the Commission on its website is for general information purposes. Gibraltar is shown in its geographical location. However, contrary to the outermost regions (referred to in Article 349 TFEU) which form part of respectively France, Spain and Portugal, Gibraltar does not form part of the United Kingdom; the EU treaties apply to Gibraltar, subject to the provisions of Article 28 of the 1972 Act of Accession, by virtue of Article 355(3) TFEU, as it is a European territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-011581/12

an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)

Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)

(19. Dezember 2012)

Betrifft: VP/HR — Verhaftung vietnamesischer Bürger und Gewerkschaftsaktivisten

Seit Februar 2010 werden die vietnamesischen Staatsangehörigen und Gewerkschaftsaktivisten Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang, und Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung aufgrund ihrer Aktivitäten bei der Mobilisierung von Arbeitern zu einer nicht dem Staat zugehörigen Gewerkschaft in einer Schuhfabrik in Vietnam willkürlich durch den vietnamesischen Staat in Haft gehalten. Beschäftigte der Schuhfabrik waren im Januar 2010 in den Streik getreten.

1.

Sind die Vertreter der EU über die Festnahme, Verfolgung, Misshandlung und andauernde Inhaftierung von Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang, und Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung im Bilde? Welche Schlussfolgerungen sind hinsichtlich der Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Haft gezogen worden?

2.

Haben Vertreter der EU die drei Arbeitsrechtler im Gefängnis besucht? Welche Haftbedingungen herrschen derzeit? Ist ihnen ein regelmäßiger Umgang mit der Familie gestattet?

3.

Haben die Vertreter der EU untersucht, ob in der Schuhfabrik My Phong zum Zeitpunkt des Streiks Erzeugnisse für den europäischen Markt hergestellt worden sind?

4.

Wird die Hohe Vertreterin die Schuldigsprechung und Inhaftierung von Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang und Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung öffentlich missbilligen und Druck auf die vietnamesische Regierung ausüben, damit diese die drei Aktivisten freilässt und den Missbrauch von unklaren Gesetzen über staatliche Sicherheit beendet, in dessen Folge rechtmäßige Versammlungen und Meinungsäußerungen völkerrechtswidrig unter Strafe gestellt werden?

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

(8. März 2013)

Die EU verfolgt diese Fälle über ihre Delegation in Hanoi. Sie wurden in die EU-Liste besonders gefährdeter Menschen (Persons of Concern — POC) aufgenommen. Das neue Partnerschafts‐ und Kooperationsabkommen (PKA) zwischen der EU und Vietnam enthält wichtige Menschenrechtsklauseln, die eine Intensivierung des Dialogs und der Zusammenarbeit zur Förderung der Menschenrechte ermöglichen. Der im Rahmen des PKA aufgenommene verstärkte Menschenrechtsdialog bietet die Möglichkeit, alle in der POC-Liste aufgeführten Fälle zu erörtern.

Vertreter der EU waren bei der Gerichtsverhandlung nicht anwesend. Wiederholte Anträge der EU-Delegation, in der POC-Liste aufgeführte Personen besuchen zu können, wurden meist abgelehnt oder erst gar nicht beantwortet. Üblicherweise können Inhaftierte einmal im Monat Besuch von ihren Familien bekommen. Die EU hat immer wieder ihre Besorgnis über die Lage der Verfechter von Demokratie und Menschenrechten zum Ausdruck gebracht und Vietnam auf seine internationalen Verpflichtungen hingewiesen.

Die EU wird über ihre Delegation in Hanoi prüfen lassen, ob die Fabrik in die EU exportiert. Was die Arbeitnehmerrechte betrifft, so finanziert die EU entsprechende Projekte im Rahmen des Europäischen Instruments für Demokratie und Menschenrechte.

Die EU äußert ihre Besorgnis auch auf bilateralen Treffen wie vor kurzem bei den Gesprächen des Generalsekretärs der Kommunistischen Partei mit den Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates und der Kommission am 17. Januar 2013.

Vor dem Hintergrund dieser laufenden Tätigkeiten im Bereich der Menschenrechte wird eine öffentliche Verurteilung dieses spezifischen Falles zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt nicht in Betracht gezogen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011581/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)

(19 December 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Arrest of Vietnamese citizens and labour activists

Since February 2010 Vietnamese citizens and labour activists Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang, and Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung have been arbitrarily detained by the Vietnamese Government as a result of their activities in organising workers for a non-government-affiliated union at a shoe factory in Vietnam. Employees at the shoe factory went on strike in January 2010.

1.

Have EU representatives monitored the arrest, prosecution, mistreatment, and continued imprisonment of Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang, and Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung? What conclusions have been reached regarding the legality of their detention?

2.

Have EU representatives visited the three labour organisers in prison? What are the current conditions of their detention and are they allowed regular access to family?

3.

Have EU representatives inquired as to whether the My Phong shoe factory was producing products for the European market at the time of the strike?

4.

Will the High Representative publicly condemn the conviction and imprisonment of Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hang, and Nguyen Doan Quoc Hung and press the Vietnamese Government to release the three activists and end its misuse of vague national security laws to punish legitimate associative and expressive activities in violation of international law?

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

(8 March 2013)

The EU is monitoring these cases through its Delegation in Hanoi. They are included in the EU list of Persons of Concern (POC). The new EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) includes significant clauses on human rights, allowing intensifying dialogue and cooperation aimed at promoting human rights. The enhanced Dialogue on Human Rights established under the PCA provides the opportunity to discuss all cases included on the POC list.

The EU did not attend the trial. Recurrent requests by the EU Delegation to visit persons on the POC list have mostly been declined or left unanswered. Standard access by family for people in detention is one visit per month. The EU has repeatedly expressed its concerns as regards the situation of pro-democracy and human rights activists, reminding Vietnam of its international obligations.

The EU will inquire through its Delegation in Hanoi whether the factory exports to the EU. On the issue of labour rights the EU is funding relevant projects under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.

The EU also raises its concerns in bilateral meetings, most recently during the meetings with the General-Secretary of the Communist Party and the Presidents of the European Council and of the Commission on 17 January 2013.

Against the background of these ongoing activities in the field of human rights, a public condemnation of this specific case is not envisaged at this stage.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-011582/12

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(19 de diciembre de 2012)

Asunto: Excavación y nivelación de tierras en Parco dei Monti Simbruini (Parque del Monte Simbruini) en la región del Lazio, Italia

En 2004 se iniciaron los trabajos de excavación y movimiento de tierras, causando daños en los árboles, con vistas a construir una pista de esquí de fondo en el Parque del Monte Simbruini en la región del Lazio (creado por la ley regional n° 8 de 29 de enero de 1983) en la SPA IT60500008 «Simbruini y Ernici». Posteriormente, los ciudadanos y las asociaciones informaron de los trabajos en curso a las autoridades competentes. En noviembre de 2004 la Administración Forestal Nacional de Subiaco procedió a un embargo preventivo de conformidad con el artículo 321 del Código de Procedimiento Penal por:

no haber informado a la Superintendencia del Patrimonio Natural del parecer pro veritate sobre las variantes de los trabajos realizados elaborado por el Parque Natural Regional del Monte Simbruini mediante nota n° 4721 de 14 de octubre de 2004, de conformidad con el artículo 146 del Decreto Legislativo n° 42 de 22 de enero de 2004;

no haber solicitado una evaluación de impacto de conformidad con el artículo 5 del Decreto del Presidente de la República n° 357, de 8 de septiembre de 1997