ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2014.081.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 81E

European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 57
20 March 2014


Notice No

Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

European Parliament

 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

2014/C 081E/01

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

1

Notice to reader

This publication contains written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution.

For each question and answer, the original language version is presented before a possible translation.

In some cases, it is possible that the answer is given in a language other than the question. This depends on the working language of the committee requested to provide the answer.

These questions and answers are published in accordance with Rules 117 and 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

All questions and answers can be accessed via the website of the European Parliament (Europarl) under the heading Parliamentary questions:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR POLITICAL GROUPS

PPE

Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)

S&D

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

ALDE

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Verts/ALE

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance

ECR

European Conservatives and Reformists Group

GUE/NGL

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left

EFD

Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group

NI

Non-attached Members

EN

 


IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

20.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 81/1


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

(2014/C 81 E/01)

Contents

E-007015/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Electronic recycling

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007016/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Child malnutrition

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007017/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Child mortality

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007019/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Childhood obesity

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007020/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Multiple sclerosis — new treatment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007022/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Microporous material containing zinc ions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007024/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: François Hollande rejects EU orders I

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007025/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: François Hollande rejects EU orders II

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007026/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Alcohol and drug use among young people

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007028/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Bullet tuna fishing in the Gibraltar dry dock

Versión española

English version

E-007029/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Validation services as category A or category B services under the procurement directives

Svensk version

English version

E-007030/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: definition of waste as a by-product

Versione italiana

English version

E-007031/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: definition of normal industrial practice

Versione italiana

English version

E-007032/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for ‘excavated earth and rocks’: monitoring procedures

Versione italiana

English version

E-007033/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: unwarranted extension of exclusions under the directive on Waste

Versione italiana

English version

E-007034/13 by Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for ‘excavated earth and rocks’: infiltration by organised crime and the Mafia

Versione italiana

English version

E-007035/13 by Ryszard Antoni Legutko to the Commission

Subject: Withholding of EU funds for the financing of local roads in the 2014-2020 period

Wersja polska

English version

E-007037/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: The economy of the euro area

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007038/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Efforts to stir up anti-Romanian and anti-Bulgarian sentiment in the United Kingdom

Versiunea în limba română

English version

P-007039/13 by Véronique De Keyser to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the ACAA with Israel

Version française

English version

P-007040/13 by Fabrizio Bertot to the Commission

Subject: Preserving the monument to the victims of the Heysel tragedy

Versione italiana

English version

E-007041/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: EU funding of the work on the Port of Grandadilla

Versión española

English version

E-007192/13 by Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón to the Commission

Subject: Construction of the port of Granadilla, Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain)

Versión española

English version

E-007042/13 by María Irigoyen Pérez to the Commission

Subject: Reform of the pension system

Versión española

English version

E-007044/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Medical devices and translation: further question following incomplete answer

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007045/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Legal action taken by uninsured depositors in Cyprus

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007046/13 by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu and Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Spread of MDR-TB in Europe

Dansk udgave

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-007047/13 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Promotion of entrepreneurship through education

Versione italiana

English version

E-007048/13 by Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: Charges for mobile phone calls

English version

E-007049/13 by Martina Anderson to the Commission

Subject: Wave defences and coastal erosion

English version

E-007050/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Different definitions of rare diseases

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007051/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Vaccine against tuberculosis

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007052/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Different wording in different language versions of a directive

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007053/13 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Aid targets and corporate tax avoidance in the developing world

English version

E-007054/13 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Profit disclosure and tax avoidance proposals at Fermanagh

English version

E-007055/13 by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission

Subject: European wine exports to China

Version française

English version

E-007056/13 by Frédéric Daerden to the Commission

Subject: Social dumping within the EU at the expense of workers

Version française

English version

E-007057/13 by Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Tomasz Piotr Poręba to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of anti-flood investment projects in Poland

Wersja polska

English version

E-007058/13 by Willy Meyer to the Council

Subject: Revelations of UK spying at G20 summit

Versión española

English version

E-007059/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Protecting Edward Snowden

Versión española

English version

E-007060/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: The EIB and improving energy efficiency

Versión española

English version

E-007061/13 by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission

Subject: Human trafficking in the Thai fishing industry

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007062/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: The Prism scandal

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007063/13 by Mike Nattrass to the Commission

Subject: Corvera Airport not opening — EU funds expended

English version

E-007064/13 by Mike Nattrass to the Commission

Subject: www.mepranking.eu site and abuse of the MEP questions system

English version

E-007065/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels by the al-Assad regime

Version française

English version

E-007066/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Growth of Salafism in Europe

Version française

English version

E-007067/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Sectarian violence in Egypt

Version française

English version

E-007068/13 by Gaston Franco and Tokia Saïfi to the Commission

Subject: Music in free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States

Version française

English version

E-007069/13 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Geology and at-risk areas in Europe

Versione italiana

English version

E-007902/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Impact assessment of Croatia's accession to the European Union

Versione italiana

English version

E-007070/13 by Daniël van der Stoep to the Commission

Subject: Accession of Croatia to the European Union

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-007071/13 by Zuzana Roithová to the Commission

Subject: Student loan guarantee conditions for the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme

České znění

English version

E-007072/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Revelations of UK spying at the G20 summit

Versión española

English version

E-007073/13 by Gabriel Mato Adrover to the Commission

Subject: Fishing Protocol with Mauritania

Versión española

English version

E-007074/13 by Gabriel Mato Adrover to the Commission

Subject: Compensatory payment to Mauritania

Versión española

English version

E-007075/13 by Gabriel Mato Adrover to the Commission

Subject: Joint committee — EU-Mauritania fisheries agreement

Versión española

English version

E-007076/13 by Gabriel Mato Adrover to the Commission

Subject: Overfishing of cephalopods

Versión española

English version

E-007077/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Conviction of a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia: the case of Wajeeha al-Huwaider

Versione italiana

English version

E-007078/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Situation of Christians in Bangladesh and in the Indian region of Maharashtra

Versione italiana

English version

E-007079/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Repeated instances of summary executions in Syria

Versione italiana

English version

E-007080/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Pupils banned from attending Catholic schools in Indonesia

Versione italiana

English version

E-007081/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Child exploitation in Bangladesh

Versione italiana

English version

E-007082/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Financial transaction tax

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007083/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Request concerning the legal status of salvia divinorum

Version française

English version

E-007084/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Freedom of the press in Mali

Version française

English version

E-007085/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Trafficking of the body parts of tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses between Nepal and China

Versione italiana

English version

E-007086/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Executions without trial in Syria; the case of Aleppo

Versione italiana

English version

E-007087/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Harsher repression of the media in Iran

Versione italiana

English version

E-007088/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR Extremist raid disrupts the peace conference between Muslims and Christians in Surabaya

Versione italiana

English version

E-007089/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — ‘Anti-terror raid’ in Uzbekistan against a 76-year-old Christian woman in poor health

Versione italiana

English version

E-007090/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Forced sterilisations in India — The case of New Delhi

Versione italiana

English version

E-007091/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Violation of religious freedoms in China

Versione italiana

English version

E-007092/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Access to vaccines in developing countries

Versione italiana

English version

E-007097/13 by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati to the Commission

Subject: Transfer of resources intended for the Genoa-Milan ‘Third Crossing’ project

Versione italiana

English version

E-007918/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Financial support to Egypt

Version française

English version

E-007098/13 by Lucas Hartong and Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up questions concerning subsidies granted to Egypt (2)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007109/13 by Peter van Dalen to the Commission

Subject: European Court of Auditors' damning assessment of EU aid to Egypt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007124/13 by Thijs Berman to the Commission

Subject: EU cooperation with Egypt in the field of governance

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007261/13 by Philip Claeys to the Commission

Subject: Lack of information about the use made of EU funding in Egypt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007646/13 by James Nicholson to the Commission

Subject: EU aid to Egypt

English version

P-008768/13 by Bastiaan Belder to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Report by the Court of Auditors on the use made of EU financial assistance to Egypt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007099/13 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: Situation facing gypsum producers in the EU

Wersja polska

English version

E-007100/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Horses at the Fiesta del Rocío in Andalusia

Versión española

English version

E-007101/13 by Martin Ehrenhauser to the Commission

Subject: PRISM expert group

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007102/13 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Public funds being poured into laying batteries in Turkey, Ukraine and China

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007103/13 by Norbert Neuser and Udo Bullmann to the Commission

Subject: Protecting the public from intolerable rail traffic noise

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007104/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Return of asylum-seekers to Malta since 2010

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007105/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Eliminating administrative burdens for SMEs

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007107/13 by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Forced labour camps in China

Wersja polska

English version

E-007108/13 by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Poor workplace safety in China

Wersja polska

English version

P-007110/13 by Olga Sehnalová to the Commission

Subject: Sales events and the use of unfair and aggressive trade practices

České znění

English version

E-007111/13 by Paul Rübig to the Commission

Subject: Communication of frame formulations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007112/13 by Evelyn Regner and Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission

Subject: Data collection in duty-free zones of airports

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007113/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: OLAF investigation into the Corinth-Tripoli-Kalamata freeway & the Leuktro-Sparta branch expressway

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007114/13 by Julie Girling to the Commission

Subject: Invasive alien species

English version

E-007115/13 by Marta Andreasen to the Commission

Subject: TransEuropa Ferries BV

English version

E-007116/13 by Philip Claeys to the Commission

Subject: Economic sanctions in Turkey against entrepreneurs perceived as critical

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007132/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Turkish repression and EU candidacy

Versione italiana

English version

E-007117/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkish police raid media outlets and look into introducing restrictions on social media

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-007118/13 by Takis Hadjigeorgiou to the Commission

Subject: Banning purse-seine fishing

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-007119/13 by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission

Subject: Assessment of the ‘Gdańsk airport — construction of a second passenger terminal and infrastructure, and development and modernisation of airport and port infrastructure’ project

Wersja polska

English version

P-007885/13 by Jan Kozłowski to the Commission

Subject: Deadline for completion of the assessment of project No 2010PL161PR022 on the construction of a second passenger terminal at Gdańsk Airport

Wersja polska

English version

P-007120/13 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: Court of Auditors report on EU cooperation with Egypt

English version

E-007121/13 by Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto to the Commission

Subject: Single contract model

Versión española

English version

E-007122/13 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Retroactive changes to energy market regulations in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-007123/13 by Franziska Keller, Paul Murphy and David Martin to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up to Written Question E-001132/2013

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007125/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Social housing: definition, framework and socioeconomic indicators

Version française

English version

E-007126/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Evictions

Version française

English version

E-007127/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Cost of inadequate housing

Version française

English version

E-007128/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Effectiveness of social impact investment models in the social housing sector

Version française

English version

E-007129/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Penalising gender pay gaps

Version française

English version

E-007130/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Legal aid in Europe

Version française

English version

E-007131/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Deep economic and monetary union

Version française

English version

E-007134/13 by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission

Subject: Reasons for the loss in body weight of Baltic Sea cod

Wersja polska

English version

E-007135/13 by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission

Subject: Testing of tobacco products on animals

Wersja polska

English version

E-007136/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2009/18/EC on the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007137/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The methodology for preparing the white, grey and black list of flag states for the inspection of ships by port states

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007138/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Shipping accidents and pollution of the seas and coasts

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007139/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Extending the obligatory use of AIS (Automatic Identification Systems)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007140/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Shipboard living and working conditions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007141/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007142/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Systems for collecting and disseminating maritime safety information

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007143/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2010/68/EU — marine equipment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007144/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2009/17/EC — EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007145/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2009/16/EC on port state control

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007146/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Accommodating ships in need of assistance

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007147/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Reducing the number of ships that do not comply with international standards

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007148/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2010/36/EU — safety rules and standards for passenger ships

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007149/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Responsibilities of flag and port states

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007150/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: SafeSeaNet, the European platform for maritime data exchange

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007151/13 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Plan to install a waste treatment and incineration plant in Forallac (Girona)

Versión española

English version

E-007152/13 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: Differences in rail ticket prices for the same journey

English version

E-007153/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Education in the financial sector

Version française

English version

E-007154/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Difference in the quality of the same product in different countries

Version française

English version

E-007155/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Digital environment

Version française

English version

E-007157/13 by Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission

Subject: Maritime and port activities — Attack on Tirrenia

Versione italiana

English version

E-007158/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Health risks associated with the dangerous practice of underwater concealment of illegally fished bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

Versione italiana

English version

P-007159/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Call for tenders for OPAP's technology provider

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-007160/13 by László Surján to the Commission

Subject: Vice-President Reding's plans to influence the 2014 parliamentary elections in Hungary

Magyar változat

English version

P-007161/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Situation of workers at Elcograf SpA

Versione italiana

English version

P-007162/13 by Franco Bonanini to the Commission

Subject: Consistency of the integrated territorial project for La Spezia — ‘City Centre’ — with the Regional Operational Programme objectives for 2007-2013, priority axis 3

Versione italiana

English version

P-007163/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: Mass redundancies at CMC Poland in Zawiercie

Wersja polska

English version

E-007164/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: TAIPED calls for tenders

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007165/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: The Commission and TAIPED (Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund)

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007166/13 by Mairead McGuinness to the Commission

Subject: Construction of wind farms in Member States

English version

E-007167/13 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: The Public, Sandwell: ERDF funding

English version

E-007168/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: The biggest blow ever dealt to privacy and data protection

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007169/13 by Roger Helmer to the Commission

Subject: Funding for Northern Ireland — ‘Peace Funding’

English version

E-007170/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Distortion of competition

Version française

English version

E-007172/13 by Cristiana Muscardini and Sonia Alfano to the Commission

Subject: Impact of ecomafias in the EU

Versione italiana

English version

E-007173/13 by Claudio Morganti to the Commission

Subject: Production, import and export of raw hides — EU data

Versione italiana

English version

E-007174/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Public-sector worker dismissals funded by the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007175/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Measures proposed by the Commission in the SES 2+ (Single European Sky) package

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007176/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Single European Sky SES 2+ package

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007177/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Single European Sky SES 2+ package

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007178/13 by João Ferreira to the Council

Subject: Low prices paid to wine producers

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007179/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Low prices paid to wine producers

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007180/13 by João Ferreira to the Council

Subject: Reallocating a beet production quota to Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007181/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Reallocating a beet production quota to Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007182/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Lack of funds for modernising and training companies in the agricultural sector

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007183/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Comparison of prices charged by major European retail chains in different EU countries

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007184/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Water sector advisory groups to the Commission

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007185/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Current state of negotiations on the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007186/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Abandonment and concentration of agricultural production and the agri-food deficit

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007187/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Rising food prices, hunger and food sovereignty

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007188/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: The effects of the EU-IMF programme on agriculture and rural areas

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007189/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: The Royal College of Spain

Versión española

English version

E-007190/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Pollution in the Bay of Algeciras — new question

Versión española

English version

P-007191/13 by Guido Milana to the Commission

Subject: Derogations from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006

Versione italiana

English version

E-007193/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Mining funds audit

Versión española

English version

E-007194/13 by Gabriel Mato Adrover to the Commission

Subject: Provisional application of the EU-Mauritania Fisheries Protocol

Versión española

English version

E-007195/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council

Subject: Accession of Iceland to the European Union

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007196/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Monitoring of Internet and telephone communications by Canada

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007197/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Espionage activities by Canada and effects on the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007198/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Tax avoidance by companies

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007199/13 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Blacklist of tax havens

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007200/13 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Animal welfare in EBRD investment areas

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007202/13 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Safety standards for active substances imported from outside the EU

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007203/13 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Appropriate medicines for children

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007204/13 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission

Subject: Bilderberg conference

English version

E-007205/13 by Marietje Schaake to the Commission

Subject: Redress mechanisms aimed at the blocking or degradation of online services

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007206/13 by Claude Moraes to the Commission

Subject: EU funding in the area of human trafficking and child sexual exploitation

English version

E-007209/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Scorched earth tactics in Sudan

Version française

English version

E-007211/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Human rights in Ukraine — first follow-up question

Version française

English version

E-007212/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Human rights in Ukraine — second follow-up question

Version française

English version

E-007213/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Sports agents — follow-up

Version française

English version

E-007214/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Security of energy supplies

Version française

English version

E-007215/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Revelations by Apple regarding requests for user information made by the US authorities

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007216/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: ‘Cultural exemption’ — controversy surrounding utterances by the Commission President

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007217/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Election of Hassan Rohani as Iranian President

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007218/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — US Internet monitoring programme

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007219/13 by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission

Subject: Testing of chemical substances on animals

Wersja polska

English version

E-007220/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2012/5/EU — vaccination against bluetongue

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007221/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Implementing Directive 2012/8/EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007222/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Implementing Directive 2011/68/EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007223/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2011/15/EC — Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007224/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2010/60/EU — derogations for marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007225/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2011/100/EU — in-vitro diagnostic medical devices

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007226/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Directive 2010/65/EU — reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007227/13 by Hermann Winkler to the Commission

Subject: The European Commission's assessment of the results of the Pew study ‘The New Sick Man of Europe: the European Union’

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007228/13 by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission

Subject: Failure of Greek Government to comply with court judgment on immediate resumption of broadcasting by ERT

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007229/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Austrian UN peacekeepers pull out from Golan Heights

Versione italiana

English version

E-007230/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Council

Subject: Alleged Hezbollah activity in Germany

Versione italiana

English version

E-007232/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Car bomb in the Libyan capital Tripoli

Versione italiana

English version

E-007233/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Caste-based discrimination in South Asia

Versione italiana

English version

E-007234/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Tragic case of an Egyptian girl who died while being circumcised

Versione italiana

English version

E-007235/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Council

Subject: Radicalisation of young jihadists in Europe

Versione italiana

English version

E-007236/13 by Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Angelika Niebler and Alajos Mészáros to the Commission

Subject: Floods in Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary

Deutsche Fassung

Magyar változat

English version

E-007237/13 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission

Subject: Craiova dog shelter in Romania

English version

E-007239/13 by Marielle de Sarnez to the Commission

Subject: Negotiation of a plurilateral agreement on services and possible changes to the list of EU commitments and exemptions under WTO rules

Version française

English version

E-007240/13 by Marielle de Sarnez to the Commission

Subject: Harmonisation of motor fuel taxation in the European Union

Version française

English version

P-007242/13 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission

Subject: Publication of the call for proposals under the Daphne III programme

Versione italiana

English version

P-007243/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Closure of the Tsuzuki factory in Mindelo, Vila do Conde, Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007244/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Imports of cephalopods into the EU

Versión española

English version

E-007245/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up question on Apple's abuse of a monopoly position in connection with an app

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007246/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Leaked e-mail on special measures for Commission employees visiting Athens

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007248/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Abuse by Microsoft of its dominant market position

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007249/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Regulation of salmon fishing in the Baltic Sea

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007250/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Security policy elements in the Treaty of Lisbon and NATO

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007251/13 by Paul Murphy to the Commission

Subject: ACAA (Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of industrial products) between the EU and Israel

English version

E-007252/13 by Cătălin Sorin Ivan to the Commission

Subject: The study of classics in the European Union

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-007253/13 by Tarja Cronberg and Barbara Lochbihler to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Waiver of the arms embargo against Syria

Deutsche Fassung

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-007254/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Council

Subject: Italian jihadist dies in Syria

Versione italiana

English version

E-007255/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Children inadvertently left in cars by parents or caregivers

Versione italiana

English version

E-007256/13 by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission

Subject: Passenger rights in the event of cancellation or delay of flights

Dansk udgave

English version

E-007258/13 by Anne Delvaux to the Commission

Subject: Allowances for international volunteering

Version française

English version

E-007262/13 by Philip Claeys to the Commission

Subject: Conservation and restoration of the cultural heritage in Northern Cyprus — work on mosques

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007263/13 by Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: African swine fever in Smolensk

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-007266/13 by Jacek Włosowicz to the Commission

Subject: Difficulties facing workers at Valdi Ceramika

Wersja polska

English version

E-007267/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Adoption in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007269/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Mass redundancies at Schnellecke in Palmela, Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007270/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Invasion of Iraq

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007271/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Electrification of the Minho rail line

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007272/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Review of the EU data protection system

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007273/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Data storage by the US

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007275/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Fines for banks: Money laundering

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007276/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU-Brazil relations: state of play

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007277/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Combating counterfeiting

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007278/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The EU's energy dependency

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007279/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Consumers' lack of protection in respect of airlines

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007280/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007281/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Union Solidarity Fund — assessment and prospects

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007283/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Citizens' Initiative

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007284/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Promoting entrepreneurship

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007285/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Current situation of the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007286/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Airline staff see red over European sky

Version française

English version

E-007287/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Confidentiality clauses applicable to financing in connection with human rights within the context of the press and the media

Version française

English version

E-007288/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Strategy for the freedom of the press

Version française

English version

E-007289/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Meat alert

Version française

English version

E-007290/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Meat testing

Version française

English version

E-007291/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Complaint by Belgian breweries

Version française

English version

E-007295/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Hungary: families in danger

Version française

English version

E-007297/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Hungary: lack of freedom of the press

Version française

English version

E-007299/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Hungary without justice

Version française

English version

E-007300/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Organ donation — Best practices

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007301/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Euro-Mediterranean partnership: state of play

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007302/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: EU joint resettlement programming

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007303/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007304/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Worsening environmental conditions recorded in the Mediterranean

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007305/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European public sphere

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007306/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Managing bio-waste in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007307/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Better legislation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007308/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The role of macroregions in future cohesion policy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007309/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Asylum Support Office

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007310/13 by Elisabeth Köstinger to the Commission

Subject: Child labour in the cocoa industry

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-007311/13 by Takis Hadjigeorgiou to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of our cultural heritage

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-007314/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The Rohingya people — the world's most persecuted minority

Version française

English version

E-007315/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Council

Subject: Reprimanding the Hungarian Government

Version française

English version

E-007316/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Reprimanding the Hungarian Government

Version française

English version

E-007317/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Carcinogenic effects of diabetes drugs

Version française

English version

E-007318/13 by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission

Subject: Extreme weather events in France

Version française

English version

E-007319/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Alarming environmental and health issues related to the obsolete Trieste ironworks in crisis

Versione italiana

English version

E-007320/13 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission

Subject: Unicef estimate of 150 million children engaged in child labour worldwide

Versione italiana

English version

E-007321/13 by Alfredo Antoniozzi to the Commission

Subject: Chinese duties on European wine exports

Versione italiana

English version

E-007322/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Christian missionaries in Africa

Versione italiana

English version

E-007323/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Torture of civilians by the police — the case of Irfan Masih in Pakistan

Versione italiana

English version

E-007324/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Hamas government to close Catholic schools

Versione italiana

English version

E-007325/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Killing of an Italian citizen recruited to fight in the war in Syria

Versione italiana

English version

E-007326/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Appointment of Islamic extremist ads governor of Luxor

Versione italiana

English version

E-007327/13 by Rolandas Paksas to the Commission

Subject: Application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in the new Member States

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-007328/13 by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission

Subject: Regulation introducing quota limits on aid programmes for disabled persons

Wersja polska

English version

E-007343/13 by Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska to the Commission

Subject: Draft proposal for a new General Block Exemption Regulation

Wersja polska

English version

E-007329/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Promotion of democracy and human rights around the world in coordination with the United States

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007330/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — material and human resources

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007331/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Support for particularly dependent third countries

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007333/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Personal data protection

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-007334/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — European External Action Service — material and human resources

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-007335/13 by Pavel Poc to the Commission

Subject: Chevron Poland's violations of the law and of the property rights and civic rights of owners of farm land in the village of Żurawlów

České znění

English version

P-007336/13 by Maria Badia i Cutchet to the Commission

Subject: Investigation into Red Eléctrica Española's plans to build a high-voltage power line in Santa Coloma de Gramenet (Barcelona)

Versión española

English version

P-007337/13 by Philippe De Backer to the Commission

Subject: Tendering procedure for infrastructural projects

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-007338/13 by Tarja Cronberg to the Commission

Subject: Acute need of funding to combat youth unemployment

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-007339/13 by Paweł Robert Kowal to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Official status of Transnistria

Wersja polska

English version

E-007340/13 by Rachida Dati to the Commission

Subject: Future of relations between the European Union, Ukraine and the Eurasian Customs Union

Version française

English version

E-007341/13 by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Capital flight from Italy: a flood of undeclared money heading out to China

Versione italiana

English version

E-007342/13 by Lorenzo Fontana and Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Measures to increase competitiveness and improve the traceability of raw materials in the leather industry

Versione italiana

English version

E-007344/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Pro-family policy

Wersja polska

English version

E-007345/13 by Tarja Cronberg to the Council

Subject: Acute need of funding to combat youth unemployment

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

P-007346/13 by Andrea Cozzolino to the Commission

Subject: ERDF take-up rate in Campania

Versione italiana

English version

E-007347/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and state aid

Versión española

English version

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007015/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Reciclagem eletrónica

Considerando o seguinte:

A inovação acelerada torna os produtos eletrónicos obsoletos em pouco tempo;

Em 1995, a média de vida de um computador era de sete anos, agora é de dois;

Apenas 20 % dos computadores europeus são reciclados e, de acordo com as estimativas, cada pessoa produz 25 quilos de lixo eletrónico por ano;

Construir um novo PC requer 240 kg de energia fóssil, 1 500 litros de água e um coquetel de 22 kg de produtos químicos diferentes;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Quais as medidas escritas na agenda da Comissão relativamente a esta matéria?

Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão

(20 de agosto de 2013)

Os computadores e outros produtos eletrónicos são abrangidos pelo âmbito de aplicação da Diretiva REEE (1), que estabelece objetivos globais vinculativos para a recolha, a valorização e a reciclagem de resíduos de equipamentos elétricos e eletrónicos (REEE). Estes objetivos foram tornados mais rigorosos na reformulação da Diretiva (2). Por outro lado, foi introduzida uma nova obrigação de retoma de REEE de pequenas dimensões (por exemplo, telemóveis), o que se prevê faça aumentar significativamente a recolha. A diretiva inclui também requisitos de conceção dos produtos, nomeadamente tendo em vista facilitar a reutilização, a desmontagem e a recuperação dos REEE, seus componentes e materiais.

Os Estados-Membros devem transpor a Diretiva REEE reformulada para a sua legislação nacional até 14 de fevereiro de 2014. A Comissão acompanhará a transposição e a correta aplicação da diretiva.

Para alcançar um crescimento sustentável assente num consumo sustentável, a Comissão estudará a possibilidade de tomar medidas para que os bens de consumo sejam mais duradouros, inclusive mediante apoio a serviços de reparação e de manutenção (3).

.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007015/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Electronic recycling

— Rapid innovation means that electronic products become obsolete within a very short space of time.

— In 1995, a computer’s average lifespan was seven years; now it is two.

— Only 20% of European computers are recycled and an estimated 25 kg of electronic waste is produced per person per year.

— Building a new PC requires 240 kg of fossil energy, 1500 litres of water and a 22 kg cocktail of different chemicals.

What action does the Commission plan to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2013)

Computers and other electronic products fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive (4) which contains binding overall targets for the collection, recovery and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). These targets have been raised in the WEEE recast Directive (5). Moreover, a new take-back obligation for very small WEEE (e.g. mobile phones), has been introduced and this is expected to increase collection significantly. The directive also includes product design requirements, notably in view of facilitating re-use, dismantling and recovery of WEEE, its components and materials.

Member states shall transpose the WEEE recast Directive into their national legislation by 14 February 2014. The Commission will monitor the transposition and the right implementation of the directive.

In order to achieve sustainable growth underpinned by sustainable consumption, the Commission will consider taking measures to make consumer goods more durable, including support for repair and maintenance services (6).

.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007016/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Má nutrição infantil

Considerando o seguinte:

Tanto a subnutrição como a obesidade e o excesso de peso são formas de malnutrição e têm causas e consequências intimamente ligadas às falhas dos sistemas de alimentação;

De acordo com a Organização Mundial de Saúde, um sistema alimentar que não fornece uma quantidade suficiente de alimentos de qualidade pode levar tanto a um fraco crescimento como a um excesso de peso, e uma criança que cresceu pouco nos seus primeiros anos de vida pode tornar-se um adolescente pequeno mas com excesso de peso e, mais tarde, desenvolver doenças crónicas em adulto;

De acordo com a OMS, mais de 100 milhões de crianças com menos de cinco anos têm baixo peso e 165 milhões têm baixa estatura para a idade, um indicador melhor para a subnutrição crónica;

A organização estima que 35 % de todas as mortes de crianças com menos de cinco anos estão associadas à subnutrição, ao mesmo tempo que 43 milhões de crianças da mesma idade sofrem de excesso de peso ou obesidade;

Pergunto à Comissão:

De que forma interpreta os números da OMS?

Que medidas prevê tomar para fazer face a este grave problema?

Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão

(8 de agosto de 2013)

A Comissão reconhece que a subnutrição constitui uma das mais graves e evitáveis tragédias do nosso tempo. Os dados da OMS permitem a avaliação mais fiável da possível prevalência de nanismo e baseiam-se em medidas relativamente estáveis inseridas em cuidados de saúde de rotina a todos os níveis e em todos os domínios, incluindo para os mais vulneráveis. Os estudos recentes incluídos na série Lancet de 2013 confirmam a magnitude do problema, com 165 milhões de crianças que sofrem de nanismo e 3,1 milhões de crianças que morrem de subnutrição, um número impressionante de 45 % do total de casos de mortalidade infantil em 2011.

Embora a Comissão partilhe o ponto de vista da OMS de que os sistemas alimentares que não fornecem uma quantidade suficiente de alimentos de qualidade podem levar tanto a um fraco crescimento como a um excesso de peso, a Comissão considera que estas crianças são vítimas de um círculo vicioso em que a concentração de pobreza, dieta inadequada e doenças lhes dá o pior princípio de vida possível, comprometendo o seu desenvolvimento cognitivo e as capacidades físicas, armadilhando, assim, as pessoas e as sociedades em situação de pobreza.

A UE apoia uma abordagem multissetorial, incluindo intervenções em sistemas alimentares. Este ponto de vista é parte integrante da política da UE relativa à nutrição, que visa especificamente a nutrição materna e infantil e a janela de oportunidade de 1 000 dias desde a gravidez até aos dois anos. Isto aplica-se tanto ao trabalho da Comissão em situações de emergência como à redução da pobreza e ao desenvolvimento sustentável. Estas prioridades traduziram-se na assunção de compromissos em termos de mobilização política, objetivos e financiamento, descritos na comunicação da Comissão sobre nutrição materna e infantil (7). A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para as respostas dadas às perguntas escritas E‐007017/2013, E-006591/2013 e E-003171/2013 (8).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007016/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Child malnutrition

— Undernutrition, obesity and overweight are forms of malnutrition, the causes and consequences of which are closely linked to food system failings.

— According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), food systems that do not provide enough quality food can lead to both poor growth and overweight; children who grow little during their early years can become small, overweight teenagers and subsequently develop chronic illnesses as adults.

— The WHO says that more than 100 million children under the age of five are underweight and that 165 million suffer from stunting, which is the one of the best indicators of chronic undernutrition.

— The organisation estimates that 35% of all deaths amongst children under five are linked to undernutrition, while 43 million children of the same age are overweight or obese.

How does the Commission interpret the WHO’s figures?

What action will it take to tackle this serious problem?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

The Commission acknowledges that undernutrition represents one of the most serious and preventable tragedies of our time. The WHO’s figures provide the most accurate evaluation possible of the prevalence of stunting and are based on relatively robust measures that are embedded in routine healthcare practices at all levels and in all areas, including for the most vulnerable. Recent studies reported in the 2013 Lancet series confirm the magnitude of the problem, with 165 million children suffering stunting and 3.1 million children dying from undernutrition, a staggering 45% of total child deaths in 2011.

While the Commission shares the WHO’s view that food systems that do not provide enough quality food can lead to both poor growth and overweight, the Commission estimates that these children are victims of a vicious circle in which the combination of poverty, inadequate diet and disease give them the worst possible start in life, compromising their cognitive development and physical capabilities, thus trapping individuals and societies in poverty.

The EU supports a multisectoral approach including interventions on food systems. This vision is an integral part of the EU's nutrition policy framework that specifically targets Maternal and Child Nutrition and the 1 000 day window of opportunity from pregnancy to the age of two. This applies to both the Commission’s work in emergency situations and on poverty reduction and sustainable development. This has been translated into commitments in terms of policy mobilisation, targets and financing as described in the Commission Communication on Maternal and Child nutrition (9). The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-007017/2013, E-006591/2013 and E-003171/2013 (10).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007017/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Mortalidade infantil

Considerando o seguinte:

De acordo com um estudo recentemente publicado na revista The Lancet, a má nutrição é responsável pela morte de 3,1 milhões de crianças por ano e os problemas nutricionais estão na origem de 45 % de toda a mortalidade infantil;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento desta situação? Como a avalia?

Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão

(8 de agosto de 2013)

A revista «The Lancet» faculta a avaliação mais exata disponível do nível dramático do impacto que a desnutrição crónica tem atualmente na vida das crianças. A publicação recorda que o período mais importante para combater a subnutrição são os 1 000 dias que decorrem desde o início da gravidez até aos dois anos de idade.

Esta visão constitui parte integrante do quadro estratégico da UE sobre nutrição materna e infantil (11), que foi adotado recentemente e visa ajudar a reduzir a desnutrição crónica e aguda. Esta Comunicação fixa o objetivo ambicioso de reduzir, até 2025, em pelo menos 7 milhões o número de crianças de menos de cinco anos que sofrem de desnutrição crónica e define claramente os princípios orientadores, os objetivos e as prioridades das ações da União Europeia. Tal aplica-se ao nosso trabalho em situações de emergência e ao que tem por objetivo reduzir a pobreza e promover o desenvolvimento sustentável.

A Comissão reforçou também o diálogo político a nível nacional e internacional. Procurou assegurar que a nutrição seja considerada uma prioridade nacional em países onde as taxas de desnutrição crónica são elevadas e tentou promover a integração de atividades no período crucial dos 1 000 dias. A Comissão mantém uma colaboração estreita com o Movimento Scaling‐up Nutrition (SUN), os países parceiros e os doadores para que a nutrição seja prioritária na agenda do desenvolvimento e da ajuda humanitária.

Além disso, a UE comprometeu-se, aquando do evento «Nutrição para o crescimento» organizado pelo Reino Unido em junho de 2013 durante a sua Presidência do G8, a destinar o montante de 3,5 mil milhões de EUR a intervenções específicas e sensíveis ligadas à nutrição no próximo período de programação (2014-2020).

A Comissão remete também o Senhor Deputado para as respostas dadas às perguntas escritas anteriores E-006591/2013 e E-003171/2013 (12).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007017/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Child mortality

— According to a study recently published in The Lancet journal, malnutrition is responsible for the death of 3.1 million children each year, with nutritional problems accounting for 45% of all deaths among children.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? What is its assessment of it?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

The Lancet series provide the most accurate available evaluation of the dramatic level of the current impact of stunting on children’s lives. The publication recalls that the crucial window of opportunity to tackle undernutrition is the 1 000 days from pregnancy to the age of two.

This vision is an integral part of the EU's nutrition policy framework on maternal and child nutrition (13) that was adopted recently and aims to help reduce both stunting and wasting. It sets the ambitious target of reducing the number of stunted children under five by at least 7 million by 2025, and defines clear guiding principles, objectives and priorities for EU actions. This applies to both our work in emergency situations and our work on poverty reduction and sustainable development.

The Commission has also reinforced political dialogue at national and international level. It has tried to ensure that nutrition is considered a national priority in countries where stunting rates are high, and tried to promote the mainstreaming of activities in the 1 000 day window of opportunity. The Commission is working closely with the Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, partner countries and donors on keeping nutrition at the top of the development and humanitarian agenda.

The EU has furthermore committed itself, during the Nutrition for Growth event organised by the United Kingdom in June 2013 during their G8 Presidency, to spending EUR 3.5 billion on nutrition sensitive and nutrition specific interventions during the forthcoming programming period (2014-2020).

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the answers to previous written questions E-006591/2013 and E-003171/2013 (14).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007019/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Obesidade infantil

Considerando que:

De acordo com a agência da ONU para a saúde, 43 milhões de crianças da mesma idade sofrem de excesso de peso ou obesidade;

Segundo a Organização Mundial de Saúde, mais de 75 % das crianças com excesso de peso vivem nos países em desenvolvimento, que têm políticas para reduzir a subnutrição, mas negligenciam o peso das doenças associadas à obesidade.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento dos números avançados pela ONU?

Que medidas implementou ou tenciona implementar na U.E para o combate à obesidade infantil?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(31 de julho de 2013)

A Comissão tem conhecimento dos dados comunicados pela OMS e, uma vez que as taxas de obesidade continuam a aumentar, a Comissão, juntamente com os Estados‐Membros e as partes interessadas da UE, está a coordenar uma série de iniciativas para combater a obesidade infantil.

A estratégia para a Europa em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição, ao excesso de peso e à obesidade (15), identifica as crianças como um grupo vulnerável de ação prioritária. Um exemplo é o regime de distribuição de fruta nas escolas (16), um programa da UE que visa incentivar os bons hábitos alimentares entre as crianças, através da distribuição de fruta e de legumes nas escolas. Além disso, a Comissão lançou projetos‐piloto destinados a promover regimes alimentares saudáveis e a aumentar o consumo de fruta e legumes frescos entre os grupos sociais vulneráveis, incluindo as crianças.

Recentemente, o Grupo de Alto Nível sobre questões de Nutrição e Atividade Física iniciou o desenvolvimento de um plano de ação comum para combater a obesidade infantil, que deverá abranger o período de 2014‐2020.

Além disso, a Comissão tenciona apresentar uma iniciativa política para a promoção da saúde através da atividade física em múltiplos setores, dirigida a todos os grupos etários, incluindo as crianças, e que se destina, entre outros objetivos, a combater o excesso de peso e a obesidade e a prevenir as doenças relacionadas com estes problemas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007019/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Childhood obesity

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 43 million children of the same age are overweight or obese.

According to the WHO, over 75% of overweight children live in developing countries, which have policies in place to reduce malnutrition but overlook the seriousness of obesity-related diseases.

Is the Commission aware of the figures reported by the WHO?

What steps has it taken or does it plan to take in the EU to combat childhood obesity?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

The Commission is aware of the figures reported by the WHO and since the obesity rates continue to increase, the Commission, together with Member States and EU Stakeholders, is coordinating a range of initiatives to combat childhood obesity.

Within the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related Health Issues (17), children have been identified as a vulnerable group and have been prioritised as a group for action. One example is the School Fruit Scheme (18), which is an EU programme that aims to encourage good eating habits in children by providing them with fruit and vegetables at school. Additionally, the Commission has launched pilot projects aimed at promoting healthy diets and increasing consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in vulnerable societal groups, including children.

Recently, the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity started the development of a common Action Plan to tackle childhood obesity, which should cover the period 2014-2020.

In addition, the Commission intends to table a policy initiative to promote health-enhancing physical activity across sectors targeting all age groups, including children, which inter alia aims at combating overweight and obesity and preventing related conditions.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007020/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Esclerose múltipla — novo tratamento

Considerando que:

De acordo com a Organização Mundial de Saúde, a esclerose múltipla afeta 2,5 milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo, e caracteriza-se pela destruição progressiva da bainha de mielina, que protege os nervos do cérebro e da espinal medula e desempenha um papel fundamental na condução de impulsos nervosos, e que impede os impulsos elétricos de circularem eficazmente, causando sintomas que podem chegar à paralisia ou à cegueira;

Um estudo, publicado na revista Science Translational Medicine, anunciou uma nova terapia que permite reprogramar o sistema imunitário dos doentes para reduzir a sua reatividade à mielina;

Segundo os investigadores, esta terapia, ao contrário das terapias atuais que desativam o sistema imunitário, tornando os doentes mais sensíveis às infeções e fazendo aumentar o risco de cancro, «deixa intacto o funcionamento do sistema imunitário».

Pergunto à Comissão:

Como avalia esta importante descoberta?

Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão

(29 de julho de 2013)

A Comissão está ao corrente dos recentes resultados da equipa de professor Roland Martin e dos seus colaboradores (19) num novo tratamento para a esclerose múltipla. Os investigadores demonstraram que o tratamento reinicializa (restabelece) o sistema imunitário do doente sem afetar a sua capacidade de defesa contra infeções.

O teste envolveu nove pacientes do hospital universitário de Zurique e do centro médico universitário de Hamburg-Eppendorf. Embora os investigadores tenham demonstrado que o tratamento é seguro e bem tolerado, o reduzido número de doentes em causa não permite tirar conclusões sobre a eficácia do novo tratamento para travar a progressão da esclerose múltipla. Assim, será necessária investigação adicional para avaliar a eficácia do novo tratamento.

Embora este estudo não tenha contado com o apoio do Sétimo Programa-Quadro da Comunidade Europeia de atividades em matéria de investigação, desenvolvimento tecnológico e demonstração (2007 a 2013) (7.° PQ), o 7.° PQ investiu, desde 2007, mais de 67 milhões de EUR em investigação sobre doenças neuroinflamatórias. Este montante inclui 20 projetos internacionais que realizam atividades de investigação no domínio da esclerose múltipla e, em especial, dos processos de autoimunidade relacionados com a esclerose múltipla (por exemplo, o projeto Sybilla (20)), num total de mais de 20 milhões de EUR.

Horizonte 2020, o programa-quadro de investigação e inovação da UE (21) (2014-2020), pode proporcionar novas oportunidades de apoio à investigação em Esclerose Múltipla.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007020/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Multiple sclerosis — new treatment

— According to the World Health Organisation, multiple sclerosis affects 2.5 million people worldwide. It is characterised by the progressive destruction of the myelin sheath, which protects the nerves in the brain and spinal cord and plays a vital role in conducting nerve impulses, preventing electrical impulses from circulating effectively and causing symptoms up to and including paralysis and blindness.

— A study published in the Science Translational Medicine journal has announced a new therapy which resets patients’ immune systems to reduce their reactivity to myelin.

— According to researchers, this therapy, unlike current treatments that deactivate the immune system, making patients more susceptible to infections and increasing the risk of cancer, ‘leaves the function of the normal immune system intact’.

How does the Commission view this important discovery?

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

(29 July 2013)

The Commission is aware of the recent findings by the team of Professor Roland Martin and his collaborators (22) on a new treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). The researchers were able to show that the treatment resets the patient's immune system without affecting its ability to defend against infections.

The trial involved nine patients from the University Hospital Zurich and the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf. While the researchers were able to show that the treatment is safe and well tolerated, the low number of patients involved does not allow for drawing conclusions on how effective the new treatment is in stopping MS progression. Further research will thus be needed to assess the effectiveness of the new treatment.

Although this study was not supported by the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013), FP7 has since 2007 invested over EUR 67 million in research on neuroinflammatory diseases. This includes 20 international projects performing research on MS, and in particular the autoimmunity processes related to MS (e.g. the SYBILLA project (23)), for a total of more than EUR 20 million.

Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (24) (2014‐2020), may provide further opportunities to support research on MS.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007022/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Material microporoso com iões de zinco

Considerando que:

Uma equipa internacional liderada por um investigador da Universidade do Minho criou um material microporoso com iões de zinco que suprime seletivamente certos tipos de cancro, sem efeitos negativos para as células saudáveis.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento deste estudo?

Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão

(26 de julho de 2013)

A Comissão tem conhecimento da publicação referida pelo Senhor Deputado, da autoria de instituições em Portugal e na Bulgária, e que descreve as propriedades de inibição do crescimento de um titanossilicato microporoso contendo zinco em culturas de células cancerígenas HeLa humanas (25), (26). É todavia necessário um maior trabalho de investigação para avaliar o seu potencial terapêutico para os doentes com cancro.

A proposta da Comissão relativa ao Horizonte 2020 — Programa-Quadro de Investigação e Inovação (2014-2020) (27) — irá provavelmente proporcionar oportunidades de investigação de abordagens terapêuticas do cancro no âmbito do desafio societal «Saúde, alterações demográficas e bem-estar» e do objetivo «Liderança em Tecnologias Facilitadoras e Industriais» da prioridade «Liderança Industrial».

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007022/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Microporous material containing zinc ions

An international team led by a researcher from the University of Minho has developed a microporous material containing zinc ions that selectively suppresses certain types of cancer, without damaging healthy cells.

Is the Commission aware of this study?

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

(26 July 2013)

The Commission is aware of the publication mentioned by the Honourable Member, authored by institutions in Portugal and Bulgaria and describing the growth-inhibiting properties of a zinc-containing, microporous titanosilicate in human HeLa cancer cell cultures (28)  (29). Further research is required to assess its therapeutic potential for cancer patients.

Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (30), will likely offer opportunities to address cancer therapeutic approaches through the ‘Health, demographic change and well-being’ societal challenge and the ‘Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies’ objective of the priority ‘Industrial leadership’.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007024/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: François Hollande rejeita ordens da UE I

Considerando que:

Recentemente, o Presidente francês François Hollande, afirmou que «os procedimentos e políticas são da responsabilidade do Governo e do Estado», face à exigência de reformas feita pela União Europeia; Bruxelas pediu a França para baixar reformas e custos laborais, algo que Hollande considerou uma interferência inaceitável;

Pergunta-se:

Como avalia esta posição face às exigências de Bruxelas?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(13 de agosto de 2013)

Ao abrigo do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia e do direito derivado da UE, os Estados-Membros acordaram em coordenar as suas políticas económicas e orçamentais. A crise mostrou à saciedade que o impacto das políticas de um Estado-Membro estende-se para além das suas fronteiras nacionais.

No quadro do Semestre Europeu (31), o Conselho, por recomendação da Comissão, adota recomendações específicas a cada país, com base nos artigos 121.° e 148.° do TFUE. Essas recomendações têm por finalidade prestar aconselhamento político específico a cada país sobre como enfrentar os principais desafios em matéria económica, social e de emprego, após uma análise aprofundada dos programas nacionais de reforma dos Estados-Membros.

As recomendações dirigidas ao Governo francês refletem, portanto, o papel confiado ao Conselho e à Comissão ao abrigo do quadro legislativo em vigor para a coordenação da política económica.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007024/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: François Hollande rejects EU orders I

French President François Hollande recently responded to EU demands for reform by saying that ‘the details, procedures and way of going about this are the responsibility of the Government and the State’. Brussels had called on France to implement reforms and reduce labour costs, which Hollande regarded as unacceptable interference.

How does the Commission view this response to demands from Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2013)

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and EU secondary legislation, the Member States have agreed to coordinate their economic and fiscal policies. The crisis has made it abundantly clear that the impact of a Member State’s policies extends beyond its national borders.

Within the framework of the European Semester (32), the Council, upon a recommendation of the Commission, adopts country-specific recommendations on the basis of Articles 121 and 148 of the TFEU Treaty. Their purpose is to provide country-specific policy advice on addressing the major economic employment and social challenges after a detailed analysis of the Member States’ national reform programmes.

The recommendations addressed to the French Government therefore reflect the role entrusted to the Council and the Commission under the current legislative framework for economic policy coordination.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007025/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: François Hollande rejeita ordens da UE II

Recentemente, o presidente francês, François Hollande, afirmou que «os procedimentos e políticas são da responsabilidade do Governo e do Estado», face à exigência de reformas feita pela UE.

Bruxelas pediu a França para baixar reformas e custos laborais, algo que Hollande considerou uma interferência inaceitável.

Considerando que:

François Hollande afirmou na semana passada que a crise na zona euro está ultrapassada;

Há países da zona euro intervencionados, que passam por enormes dificuldades devido às fortes medidas de austeridade aplicadas;

O desemprego é uma realidade que não para de aumentar em muitos países da UE;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Considera a Comissão que a crise na zona euro está ultrapassada?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(23 de julho de 2013)

A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a previsão da primavera de 2013, que pode ser consultada no sítio:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_spring_forecast_pt.htm

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007025/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: François Hollande rejects EU orders II

French President François Hollande recently responded to EU demands for reform by saying that ‘the details, procedures and way of going about this are the responsibility of the Government and the State’.

Brussels had called on France to implement reforms and reduce labour costs, which Hollande regarded as unacceptable interference.

— Last week, François Hollande said that the euro area crisis is over.

— Some bailed-out euro area countries are experiencing major difficulties due to the tough austerity measures in place.

— Unemployment continues to rise in many EU countries.

Does the Commission believe that the euro area crisis is over?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the spring 2013 forecast at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_spring_forecast_en.htm

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007026/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Consumo de álcool e drogas entre os jovens

Considerando que:

O consumo de álcool e drogas, incluindo as chamadas «smartdrugs» e outras substâncias psicoativas, como antidepressivos e ansiolíticos, continua a aumentar em Portugal.

Os jovens devem ser cada vez mais alertados para os danos para a saúde, que são muitas vezes irreversíveis e, também, para os perigos das interações das misturas que muitas vezes fazem.

No caso do álcool, a interação com medicamentos pode causar varias falhas terapêuticas — desde a ineficácia de antibióticos ao efeito cumulativo de depressão do sistema nervoso. É de particular importância a combinação com o paracetamol, que pode aumentar a toxicidade.

Pergunto à Comissão:

No que respeita à sensibilização para os danos irreversíveis dos perigos das interações das misturas de drogas e álcool, em que sentido tem agido a Comissão?

Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão

(26 de julho de 2013)

A nova Estratégia Europeia de luta contra a droga de 2013-2020 (33) identifica como prioridade a necessidade de abordar a tendência crescente que se verifica no uso de múltiplas substâncias, incluindo uma combinação de álcool, medicação receitada e substâncias ilícitas, bem como o aparecimento e a propagação de novas substâncias psicoativas. Salienta também a necessidade de aumentar a sensibilização sobre os riscos associados ao consumo de drogas e à utilização combinada de substâncias, bem como de aumentar a qualidade, a cobertura e a diversificação de serviços para a redução da procura de droga.

A Comissão apoia e complementa a ação dos Estados-Membros pela promoção do desenvolvimento de abordagens inovadoras e o intercâmbio de melhores práticas, e pelo financiamento da investigação através de programas de financiamento da UE. No âmbito do Programa de Informação e Prevenção em matéria de droga (34) existem dois projetos orientados para a prevenção e tratamento em relação ao uso de várias drogas (álcool e drogas) (35).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007026/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Alcohol and drug use among young people

More and more people in Portugal are using alcohol and drugs, including ‘smart drugs’ and other psychoactive substances, such as antidepressants and anxiolytics.

Young people need to be increasingly aware of the often irreversible harm to health and the dangerous interactions that can be caused by mixing drugs and alcohol, as they often do.

When it comes to alcohol, drug interactions can cause a range of treatment failures, from negating the efficacy of antibiotics to the cumulative effect of central nervous system depression. Particularly serious is mixing alcohol with paracetamol, which can increase toxicity.

— What action has the Commission taken to raise awareness of the irreversible harm caused by dangerous interactions produced by mixing drugs and alcohol?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2013)

The new European Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 (36) identifies as a priority the need to address the increase trend towards poly-substance use, including combination of alcohol and prescribed medication and illicit substances as well as the emergence and spread of new psychoactive substances. It also emphasises the need to improve awareness about the risks linked to drug use and to the combined used of substances, as well as to increase the quality, coverage and diversification of drug-demand reduction services.

The Commission supports and complements Member States’ action by promoting the development of innovative approaches and the sharing of best practices, and by funding research, through EU financial programmes. Under the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (37) two projects targeted prevention and treatment of poly-drug (alcohol and drug) use (38).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007028/13

a la Comisión

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(17 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Pesca de melva en el puerto seco de Gibraltar

El desarrollo sostenible y la conservación del medio ambiente son principios básicos de la actividad de la Unión Europea. La política pesquera común (PPC) ha sido desde hace años una prioridad para la conservación de los caladeros europeos, como puede observarse en el Reglamento (CE n° 199/2008 sobre la recopilación, gestión y uso de los datos del sector pesquero, el Reglamento (CE) n° 1005/2008 sobre la pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada y el Reglamento (CE) n° 2371/2002 sobre la conservación y la explotación sostenible de los recursos pesqueros. Asimismo, debe señalarse la línea de actuación marcada por la Comisión (39) para reducir las capturas accesorias y eliminar los descartes en las pesquerías europeas y el reciente acuerdo alcanzado entre el Consejo y el Parlamento en el marco de la reforma de la PCC.

Diversos medios de comunicación (40) han denunciado recientemente unos hechos en el puerto seco de los astilleros de Gibraltar que podrían vulnerar parte —si no la totalidad— de la normativa comunitaria anteriormente citada. Las imágenes publicadas muestran cómo al parecer se ha utilizado dicho puerto seco para capturar varias toneladas de melva, un pez que, en cumplimiento de la normativa comunitaria, no se puede capturar en esta época en la zona del Estrecho de Gibraltar. Dichos peces fueron presuntamente sacrificados, desconociéndose el destino final de los mismos e ignorándose si se ha declarado dicha captura y si se ha producido su incorporación a los sistemas de recopilación de datos oportunos o verificado el cumplimiento de las condiciones exigibles para su comercialización. Cabe señalar además que las prácticas contrarias a la normativa de conservación medioambiental no son un hecho aislado en Gibraltar, donde se practican, de forma frecuente, rellenos de tierra ganando terreno al mar en zonas de especial protección comunitaria que prohíben estrictamente estas prácticas (LIC ES6120032 «Estrecho Oriental» de la Red Natura 2000).

Teniendo presente lo anterior, cabe formular las siguientes preguntas:

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de los hechos denunciados y de si se ha comercializado parte de dichas capturas?

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de la práctica de Gibraltar de realizar rellenos de tierra ganando terreno al mar?

¿Considera compatible la Comisión las actuaciones denunciadas con la normativa de conservación medioambiental europea?

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión adoptar, tras las investigaciones pertinentes, las medidas oportunas que garanticen la eficacia directa de la que gozan los reglamentos comunitarios y la reparación de los actos que los hayan contravenido?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(25 de septiembre de 2013)

De conformidad con el Acta de Adhesión de 1972, la normativa de la UE en el ámbito de la política pesquera común no se aplica en Gibraltar. No obstante, si el pescado desembarcado en Gibraltar se vende posteriormente en el mercado de la UE, su entrada está sujeta al régimen de certificación de capturas en virtud del Reglamento INDNR (Reglamento (CE) n° 1005/2008).

Por lo que se refiere a las actividades para ganar terreno al mar que se realizan en Gibraltar, en septiembre de 2011 la Comisión solicitó información al Reino Unido en relación con las obras de construcción del proyecto Sovereign Bay en Gibraltar. Las autoridades del Reino Unido indicaron que se había evaluado el impacto potencial del proyecto y que se había llegado a la conclusión de que no produciría ningún impacto significativo en los lugares de la red Natura 2000 designados en sus proximidades. Sobre la base de la información facilitada, la Comisión no ha observado la existencia de ninguna infracción de la legislación medioambiental de la UE en este caso.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007028/13

to the Commission

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Bullet tuna fishing in the Gibraltar dry dock

Sustainable development and the preservation of the environment are fundamental principles of the work of the European Union. For years, the common fisheries policy (CFP) has been giving priority to the preservation of fishing grounds, as demonstrated by Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 on the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector, Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. The strategy taken by the Commission (41) to reduce bycatch and eliminate discards in European fisheries and the recent agreement reached between the Council and Parliament on the CFP reform also deserve to be highlighted.

Various media reports (42) have recently condemned incidents taking place in the dry dock of the Gibraltar shipyards which may have violated some — if not all — of the regulations mentioned above. The pictures which were published show how the dry dock was seemingly used to catch many tonnes of bullet tuna which, in accordance with Union legislation, may not be caught in the Strait of Gibraltar in the current season. According to the reports, the fish appear to have been killed deliberately, but it was not known where the fish would end up, whether the catches had been declared and the relevant information entered into the data collection system, or whether the conditions for placing on the market had been met. Such infringements of environmental protection legislation are not the only violations committed in Gibraltar, where land is regularly reclaimed from the sea in Special Protection Areas where this kind of activity is strictly prohibited (SCI ES6120032 ‘Estrecho Oriental’, Natura 2000).

1.

Is the Commission aware of the incidents mentioned above? Has part or all of the catch been placed on the market?

2.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that Gibraltar is conducting land reclamation?

3.

Does the Commission believe that the acts reported in the media are in compliance with European legislation in the area of environmental protection?

4.

Does the Commission intend to conduct relevant investigations and take steps to ensure that Union legislation has direct effect, and that action is taken to seek redress for the breaches committed?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2013)

According to the 1972 Act of Accession, the EU rules regarding the common fisheries policy do not apply to Gibraltar. However, if fish landed in Gibraltar is subsequently sold into the EU market, this entry is subject to the catch certification scheme under the IUU regulation (Regulation No 1005/2008).

As regards land reclamation activities in Gibraltar, the Commission requested in September 2011 information from the United Kingdom concerning the works to build the development of Sovereign Bay project in Gibraltar. The United Kingdom authorities indicated that the potential impact of the development had been assessed and that it concluded that there would be no significant impact on any of the Natura 2000 sites designated in the vicinity of the project. From the information provided, the Commission was unable to identify a breach of EU environmental law in this case.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-007029/13

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(17 juni 2013)

Angående: Valideringstjänster som kategori A-tjänster eller kategori B-tjänster inom ramen för upphandlingsdirektiven

I det nyligen utarbetade förslaget om en nationell federation för validering av e-identifiering som används för offentliga förvaltningstjänster fastställer den svenska regeringen att den måste upprätta en tjänstekoncessionsmodell med beaktande av EU:s upphandlingslagstiftning, så att federationen kan tillämpa den särskilda standarden för e-identifiering och e‐autentisering, SAML 2.0 (43). Konkurrensverket invände i april 2011 mot att den svenska regeringen inte hade varit tydlig när det gällde statusen för valideringstjänsterna som A‐ eller B-tjänster (44). Regeringen ansåg att den beviljade tjänsten skulle anses vara en B-tjänst enligt upphandlingslagstiftningen, jämförbar med en elektronisk signatur, även om regeringen medger att detta inte är fastställt (45). Men att normalisera en teknisk standard till ett specifikt ändamål inom den offentliga sektorn och låta vem som helst som uppfyller den standarden tillhandahålla valideringstjänster som är kompatibla med tjänsten utgör en datortjänst eller en teknisk tjänst, och är således en kategori A-tjänst (46).

Kan kommissionen tydliggöra om den anser att valideringstjänster för e-autentisering av privatpersoner för e-förvaltningstjänster är en tjänst inom kategori A eller kategori B? Är den svenska regeringens federation för sådana valideringstjänster i så fall förenlig med EU:s upphandlingsregler?

Svar från Michel Barnier på kommissionens vägnar

(5 augusti 2013)

I bilaga  IIA till det nuvarande direktivet om offentlig upphandling anges 16 tjänstekategorier som omfattas av direktivets detaljerade bestämmelser. Tjänster som ingår i bilaga  IIB omfattas endast av bestämmelserna om tekniska definitioner och skyldigheten att informera om ingångna avtal. Denna uppdelning är dock endast relevant om en offentlig myndighet har för avsikt att ingå ett avtal om allmännyttiga tjänster.

På grundval av de uppgifter som föreligger kan frågan huruvida valideringstjänster för e-autentisering av privatpersoner för e-förvaltningstjänster är en tjänst inom kategori A eller kategori B inte besvaras slutgiltigt. Det krävs ytterligare uppgifter om tjänsternas omfattning och art för att kunna göra den indelningen.

När en offentlig myndighet förbereder tilldelningen av en koncession avseende allmännyttiga tjänster, so mi det fall som ledamoten skildrar, är den emellertid inte bunden av direktivet om offentlig upphandling. Därför är en indelning av tjänsterna i kategori A eller B inte nödvändig. Den upphandlande myndigheten kommer under alla omständigheter att behöva respektera principerna om öppenhet och insyn, lika behandling och icke-diskriminering enligt EU-fördragen. Dessa skyldigheter gäller tilldelning av koncessioner oberoende av huruvida tjänsten omfattas av bilaga  IIA eller IIB.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007029/13

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Validation services as category A or category B services under the procurement directives

In its recently established proposal for a national federation for validation of electronic identification used in public government services, the Swedish Government concludes that it has to establish a service concession model under the EU procurement framework in order for the federation to apply a specific electronic identification and authentication standard called SAML2 (47). The competition authority intervened in April 2011 to object that the Swedish Government had not been clear about the status of the validation services as A-services or B‐services (48). It was the government’s belief that the service conceded should be considered a B-service under the procurement framework, analogous to an electronic signature, although it acknowledges that this is not established (49). However, arguably normalising a technical standard for a particular task in the public sector and allowing for anyone compliant with that standard to provide validation services who is compliant with that service constitutes a computer service or a technical service and thus a category A service (50).

Could the Commission clarify whether it considers validation services for electronic authentication of private persons to eGovernment services to be a category A or a category B service? Is the Swedish Government federation for such validation services in this case compliant with EU procurement rules?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2013)

Annex IIA to the current public procurement directive lists 16 categories of services which are subject to the detailed provisions of the directive. Services falling under Annex IIB are only subject to the provisions on technical definitions and on the obligation to inform about concluded contracts. This division is however relevant only when a public authority intends to award a public service contract.

On the basis of the available information it is not possible to give a definitive answer to the question whether ‘validation services for electronic authentication of private persons to eGovernment services’ are category A or a category B services. To do so, more information on the exact content and nature of these services would be needed.

However, when a public authority is preparing the award of a public service concession, as is the case in relation to the Honourable Member’s question, it is not bound by the public procurement directive. Therefore the classification of services to category A or category B is not necessary. The contracting authority will in any case need to abide to the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination deriving from the EU Treaties. These obligations apply to the award of the concession regardless of the service falling under the scope of Annex IIA or Annex IIB.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007030/13

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: definizione di rifiuti come sottoprodotto

La DG Ambiente, il 4 marzo 2013, ha archiviato la denuncia dell'Associazione Idra con riferimento alla presunta violazione della normativa europea da parte del decreto ministeriale 10 agosto 2012, n. 161 «Regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo», ritenendolo formalmente conforme alla direttiva sui rifiuti. La DG dichiara che esiste una corrispondenza tra l'articolo 5 della direttiva 2008/98/CE e l'articolo 4 del decreto 161/2012. In realtà notevoli sono le differenze tra i due testi. La direttiva fa riferimento ai «processi di produzione» mentre il regolamento italiano fa riferimento alle «opere» (vale a dire «il risultato di un insieme di lavori di costruzione, demolizione, recupero, ristrutturazione, restauro, manutenzione»). Gli ambiti di riferimento sono estremamente diversi. A livello di utilizzo la direttiva pone la seguente condizione: «la sostanza o l'oggetto soddisfa, per l'utilizzo specifico, tutti i requisiti pertinenti riguardanti i prodotti e la protezione della salute e dell'ambiente e non porterà a impatti complessivi negativi sull'ambiente o la salute umana». Per il regolamento è sufficiente che «il materiale da scavo, per le modalità di utilizzo specifico di cui alla precedente lettera b), soddisfa i requisiti di qualità ambientale di cui all'Allegato 4». Appare estremamente grave che nell'articolato non si faccia un accenno all'esigenza fondamentale di verificare, caso per caso, in concreto, l'assenza di impatti complessivi negativi sull'ambiente e sulla salute. Ciò appare in palese violazione della normativa europea. Lo stesso legislatore italiano si limita al riferimento a meri «requisiti di qualità ambientale» (in contrapposizione con le specifiche condizioni poste dall'articolo 5 della direttiva 2008/98/CE). Dal punto di vista tecnico è evidente la differenza tra quanto previsto dalla normativa europea e quanto contenuto nel decreto, che fa riferimento esclusivamente all'ambiente e non alla salute. L'allegato 4 fa riferimento alle procedure di caratterizzazione chimico-fisiche dei materiali da qualificare come sottoprodotti. Queste non garantiscono che l'impiego di un materiale residuale di scavo in sostituzione di terra o di materiale di cava non determini impatti complessivi negativi sull'ambiente o la salute umana, e che l'utilizzo dei sottoprodotti garantisca ai prodotti da questi ottenuti i medesimi requisiti dei prodotti ottenuti a partire dalle materie prime (in relazione alla salute e all'ambiente).

Ritiene la Commissione che questi elementi forniscano spunti per una valutazione approfondita del caso? In caso di risposta negativa può fornire una spiegazione puntuale e giuridica da contrapporre a tali argomentazioni?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007031/13

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: definizione di «normale pratica industriale»

La DG Ambiente, il 4 marzo 2013, ha archiviato la denuncia dell'Associazione Idra con riferimento alla presunta violazione della normativa europea da parte del decreto ministeriale 10 agosto 2012, n. 161 «Regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo», ritenendolo formalmente conforme alla direttiva sui rifiuti. La DG dichiara che esiste una corrispondenza tra l'articolo 5 della direttiva 2008/98/CE e l'articolo 4 del regolamento italiano 161/2012. In realtà notevoli sono le differenze tra i due testi. Un'analisi a parte merita la questione delle «normali pratiche industriali». Secondo la direttiva 2008/98/CE la qualifica di sottoprodotto è assegnabile qualora il materiale non sia soggetto ad alcun trattamento diverso dalla normale pratica industriale. Apparentemente il regolamento riprende integralmente la stessa norma, stipulando però un elenco (allegato 3) delle operazioni che possono essere considerate «normale pratica industriale». L'elenco riporta una serie di attività che possono ritenersi ben lontane dall'ordinarietà del processo produttivo e che possono trasformare radicalmente la natura del materiale trattato. Attività quali «la riduzione della presenza nel materiale da scavo degli elementi/materiali antropici (ivi inclusi, a titolo esemplificativo, frammenti di vetroresina, cementiti, bentoniti), eseguita sia a mano che con mezzi meccanici» sono peraltro maggiormente riconducibili al trattamento dei rifiuti piuttosto che alla normale pratica industriale. Trattamenti come «la stabilizzazione a calce o a cemento» sono un intervento che altera fortemente la natura del materiale (vedi in questo caso la presenza di ph fortemente alcalini che potrebbero rendere il nuovo materiale inadatto ad utilizzi «a suolo»). Ciò è in conflitto con la ratio della norma (e non con la forma della stessa, che invece pare rispettata), secondo la quale il «sottoprodotto», per essere tale, deve essere sostanzialmente equiparabile, sotto il profilo dell'impatto ambientale e sanitario, al bene che sostituisce. In sostanza, non devono essere necessarie speciali operazioni dirette a «innocuizzare» la sostanza perché questa possa essere «normalmente» impiegata nella pratica industriale. Questo concetto è tratto in primo luogo dalla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea e, a seguire, dalla giurisprudenza italiana, formatasi sulla base della normativa quadro europea.

Pertanto non ritiene forse la Commissione che queste considerazioni meritino un approfondimento da parte dei servizi competenti? In ogni caso, può fornire una risposta dettagliata, specifica e argomentata sui profili evidenziati nella presente interrogazione?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007032/13

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: sistema di controlli

La DG Ambiente, il 4 marzo 2013, ha archiviato la denuncia dell'Ass. Idra con riferimento alla presunta violazione della normativa europea da parte del regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo, ritenendolo formalmente conforme alla direttiva sui rifiuti. Con riferimento alle osservazioni dell'Associazione sul livello inadeguato di controlli la DG Ambiente afferma che «varie disposizioni del decreto fanno riferimento a controlli e ispezioni da parte delle autorità». S'invita la Commissione a dedicare un'ulteriore valutazione sul fatto che le norme sui controlli all'interno del decreto non sembrano in grado di garantire quel livello adeguato di tutela ambientale e sanitaria imposta dalla normativa europea. In primis il decreto individua una sorta di meccanismo di «silenzio-assenso» grazie al quale l'operatore proponente, una volta presentato il piano per la gestione dei materiali e trascorsi 90 giorni, può avviare le sue attività, con il forte rischio che si agisca a danno di enormi interessi ambientali e sanitari. Dubbi importanti emergono anche rispetto alla possibilità di fare la caratterizzazione dei materiali di scavo nel luogo di destinazione piuttosto che in quello di produzione. Un pericoloso vulnus del decreto, visti gli interessi in gioco, è rappresentato dal fatto che la caratterizzazione venga fatta dal proponente, con il rischio, già manifestatosi in concreto come dimostrano recenti atti giudiziari, che questa possa essere elaborata ad hoc nell'interesse privato e non in quello sovraordinato della tutela dell'ambiente e della salute dei cittadini. Il decreto, inoltre, fa riferimento al fatto che la caratterizzazione preliminare è funzionale solo a verificare l'esistenza di «rischio per la contaminazione dell'ambiente», tralasciando completamente gli aspetti legati alla salute dei cittadini che, al contrario, sono espressamente citati tra le condizioni inserite nella direttiva sui rifiuti. Un altro aspetto determinante riguarda il fatto che la caratterizzazione delle terre di scavo è prevista in via ordinaria solo precedentemente ai lavori, attraverso forme di campionatura che possono fornire solo un'indicazione ma non la certezza della tutela degli interessi pubblici in gioco. La mancanza di un monitoraggio costante e indipendente dei materiali escavati destinati al riutilizzo rende del tutto inconsistente il sistema dei controlli posto in essere.

Pertanto, non ritiene forse la Commissione che queste considerazioni meritino un approfondimento? In ogni caso, può fornire una risposta dettagliata, specifica e argomentata che dimostri l'efficacia del sistema di controlli posti in essere dal regolamento e la loro sostanziale corrispondenza alla normativa europea?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007033/13

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: indebito allargamento del campo di esclusione della direttiva sui rifiuti

La DG Ambiente, il 4 marzo 2013, ha archiviato la denuncia dell'Associazione Idra sulla presunta violazione della normativa europea da parte del regolamento recante la disciplina dell'utilizzazione delle terre e rocce da scavo, ritenendolo formalmente conforme alla direttiva «rifiuti». Si segnala alla Commissione la sostanziale differenza tra l'articolo 2, paragrafo 1, lettera c), della direttiva 2008/98, che esclude dall'ambito della stessa «suolo non contaminato e altro materiale allo stato naturale escavato nel corso di attività di costruzione, ove sia certo che il materiale sarà utilizzato a fini di costruzione allo stato naturale nello stesso sito in cui è stato escavato», e l'articolo 3 del d.l. 2/2012 e successivamente il D.M. 10 agosto 2012, n. 161 (sopra citato), tramite i quali il legislatore italiano ha fornito un'interpretazione autentica dell'articolo 185 del D.lgs. 152/2006 (che da attuazione alla direttiva 2008/98). Nella nozione di suolo vengono incluse le «matrici materiali di riporto» vale a dire «i materiali eterogenei non assimilabili per caratteristiche geologiche e stratigrafiche al terreno in situ, all'interno dei quali possono trovarsi materiali estranei», come disciplinati dal D.M. 161/2012 ed in particolare all'allegato 9 che definisce i riporti come «una miscela eterogenea di terreno naturale e di materiali di origine antropica, anche di derivazione edilizio-urbanistica pregressa». Con tali modifiche si estende l'esclusione dalla disciplina sui rifiuti oltre al suolo non contaminato e altro materiale naturale (così come previsto dalla normativa europea), anche ai materiali di origine antropica cioè il suolo contaminato da quei materiali non naturali («estranei») che il legislatore europeo ha chiaramente escluso dall'ambito dell'esclusione e che, nella pratica, altro non sono che rifiuti, sostanze ed oggetti non naturali (materiali estranei al suolo) di cui il detentore si è disfatto e che sono frammisti al terreno naturale. Da sottolineare che il legislatore italiano, per motivare l'esclusione dall'ambito della direttiva sui rifiuti, non cita mai la nozione di «sottoprodotto» in quanto le lettere b) e c) dell'articolo 185 del D. Lgs. 152/06 così come modificato e interpretato, fanno riferimento ad esclusioni tout court e non al rispetto di ulteriori condizioni. Appare evidente che il campo di esclusione della direttiva sui rifiuti sia indebitamente esteso nell'attuale legislazione italiana, come già avvenuto nel 2007 con condanna della Corte di giustizia europea.

Ritiene la Commissione che questi elementi forniscano spunti per una valutazione approfondita del caso? In caso di risposta negativa, può fornire una spiegazione puntuale e giuridica da contrapporre a tali argomentazioni?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007034/13

alla Commissione

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Grandi opere e procedure di smaltimento delle «terre e rocce da scavo»: infiltrazioni della criminalità organizzata e mafiosa

Nella risposta all'interrogazione P-001908/2013 la Commissione afferma «Quanto al rischio che il decreto italiano sia impropriamente applicato, favorendo così la criminalità organizzata, i denunzianti non hanno fornito alcun elemento atto a dimostrare un caso concreto di applicazione scorretta».

Si ritiene di dover informare la Commissione dell'indagine attualmente in corso da parte della Procura di Firenze (che ha portato anche al sequestro dei cantieri) con accuse di associazione a delinquere, truffa, corruzione e smaltimento abusivo dei rifiuti. Secondo l'accusa «una ditta che si occupava di smaltire fanghi e rifiuti (terre di scavo) dai cantieri per la Tav fiorentina, sarebbe legata alla camorra e in particolare al clan dei Casalesi». L'inchiesta è partita proprio da un accertamento sullo smaltimento dei fanghi nei cantieri della Tav fiorentina. Gli investigatori hanno scoperto che le «ditte smaltitrici si dividevano in pieno accordo i quantitativi di fanghi e acque e si occupavano anche della loro raccolta, trasporto e smaltimento in discarica».

Le indagini colpiscono anche funzionari pubblici che, proprio con riferimento allo smaltimento dei rifiuti, «si mettevano a disposizione per stilare pareri compiacenti e declassificare per esempio i fanghi di perforazione in terra non inquinata». Questa inchiesta appare agli occhi della scrivente emblematica di quali siano gli interessi in gioco, di come la criminalità organizzata e i sistemi criminali riescano a infiltrarsi in questo genere di attività e avvalorano la tesi secondo la quale il regolamento del 2012 che mira a escludere le terre da scavo dall'ambito di applicazione della direttiva «rifiuti» rappresenti, in virtù delle numerose criticità riscontrate puntualmente in diverse interrogazioni e in circostanziate denunce di cittadini e associazioni, una palese violazione della normativa ambientale europea e dei diritti garantiti dai trattati stessi, oltre ad un concreto rischio per l'ambiente e la salute dei cittadini stessi, di cui la Commissione è garante.

Alla luce di questi fatti, ritiene la Commissione che si possa escludere il rischio concreto di infiltrazioni della criminalità organizzata in questo genere di attività?

Risposta congiunta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(20 agosto 2013)

Per quanto riguarda le tematiche sollevate nelle interrogazioni scritte E-007031/2013, E-007032/2013 e E-007033/2013, la Commissione invita l'onorevole deputata a consultare la lettera del 4 marzo 2013, con cui la Commissione ha fornito, a seguito della denuncia all'associazione Idra, una spiegazione dettagliata dei motivi per cui ritiene che il decreto italiano 161/2012 non sia incompatibile con la direttiva 2008/98.

Per quanto concerne gli ulteriori quesiti posti nell'interrogazione scritta E-007030/2013, la Commissione fa notare quanto segue:

l'uso del termine «opere» di cui all'articolo 4 del decreto italiano 161/2012, al posto del termine «processi di produzione» di cui all'articolo 5 della direttiva 2008/98 (51) relativa ai rifiuti , non costituisce una violazione della direttiva 2008/98 in quanto le opere di costruzione e demolizione di cui al decreto italiano 161/2012 sono un tipo di processo di produzione.

il decreto italiano 161/2012 contiene effettivamente riferimenti alla salute pubblica, all'articolo 2, paragrafo 2, e agli allegati 4 e 8.

Per quanto riguarda i temi sollevati nell'interrogazione scritta E-007034/2013, la Commissione prende atto del fatto che il procuratore di Firenze sta indagando su denunce di smaltimento illecito di rifiuti in connessione con la costruzione della linea ad alta velocità che tocca Firenze. Tuttavia, il fatto che in casi concreti i rifiuti degli scavi siano stati smaltiti illegalmente non dimostra che il decreto italiano 161/2012 sia incompatibile in quanto tale con la direttiva 2008/98.

Infine, la Commissione è a conoscenza del fatto che gruppi criminali organizzati stanno sempre più espandendo le loro attività nel settore dello smaltimento dei rifiuti. Tuttavia, spetta alle autorità nazionali indagare sui casi specifici e assicurare i responsabili alla giustizia.

La Commissione chiederà alle autorità italiane di fornire chiarimenti circa il meccanismo basato sul principio «silenzio assenso» previsto dal decreto italiano in questione.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007030/13

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: definition of waste as a by-product

On 4 March 2013, DG Environment filed a complaint by the Idra association concerning alleged infringement of Community law, arguing that Ministerial Decree 161 of 10 August 2012 on the use of excavated land and rocks effectively complied with Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste and that Article 4 of the decree was in line with Article 5 the directive. In practice, however, the two texts differ substantially The directive refers to ‘production processes’, while the Italian legislation refers to ‘works’ (encompassing construction, demolition, recovery, restructuring, restoration and maintenance activities). The reference frameworks are extremely different. The directive specifies that the substance or object must fulfil ‘all relevant product environmental and health protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.’ The Italian legislation simply specifies that the excavated material must satisfy the environmental conditions set out in Annex 4 with regard to the specific use thereof referred to in paragraph (b) above. However, no reference is made to the fundamental need to verify on a case-by-case basis the absence of any overall unfavourable effects on the environment and public health. This is a serious omission and would appear to be in direct infringement of European law. The Italian legislation merely refers to environmental quality requirements (as opposed to the specific conditions contained in Article 5 of Directive 2008/98/EC). From the technical point of view, it is clear that there are differences between the directive and the Decree, the latter simply referring to the environment and not public health. Annex 4 refers to the chemical and physical classification of materials redefined as by-products. This does not guarantee that the use of residual materials from excavations in place of quarried earth or materials will not have an overall unfavourable impact on the environment and public health and that the use of by-products from them will meet the same requirements as products obtained from raw materials (in terms of the environment and public health).

Does the Commission not consider that the matter therefore warrants closer scrutiny? If not, can it put forward a point-by-point legal refutation of the above arguments?

Question for written answer E-007031/13

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: definition of normal industrial practice

On 4 March 2013, DG Environment filed a complaint by the Idra association concerning alleged infringement of Community law, arguing that Ministerial Decree 161 of 10 August 2012 on the use of excavated land and rocks effectively complied with Directive 2008/98/EC waste and that Article 4 of the decree was in line with Article 5 the directive. In practice, however, the two texts differ substantially, particularly regarding the term ‘normal industrial practices’ which should be given separate consideration. Under Directive 2008/98/EC, the term ‘by-products’ applies to material that can be used directly without any further processing other than normal industrial practices. While this provision is apparently being implemented in full, a number of operations are listed (Annex 3) as normal industrial practice, including those which could be considered as far removed from standard production processes and could radically transform the nature of the material being processed. Activities such as the reduction of man-made elements/materials (for example fibreglass, cement or bentonite fragments) contained in excavated material either manually or by mechanical means relate more to waste processing than to normal industrial practice. ‘Lime or cement stabilisation’ greatly alter the nature of the material (the presence of highly alkaline ph possibly making the new material unsuitable for ‘ground’ uses). This infringes the spirit (while appearing to respect the letter) of the directive since, to be considered a ‘by-product’, a material must be substantially similar to that which it is replacing in terms of environmental impact and effects on public health. Basically, it should not be necessary to carry out special operations to render it harmless so that it can be used for standard industrial practices. This principle is embodied first and foremost in the case law established by the European Union Court of Justice and, by extension, in Italian case law based on European framework legislation.

Does the Commission not consider that the matter therefore warrants closer scrutiny? Can it at least put forward detailed and specific arguments in response to the points raised in this question?

Question for written answer E-007032/13

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for ‘excavated earth and rocks’: monitoring procedures

On 4 March 2013, DG Environment filed a complaint by the Idra association concerning alleged infringement of Community law, arguing that the regulations governing the use of excavated earth and rocks in fact complied with the corresponding provisions of the directive on waste. In reply to objections by Idra regarding inadequate monitoring, DG Environment cited references in the relevant decree to supervision and inspection by the authorities. Can the Commission re-examine these provisions, since they do not appear to guarantee adequately the level of environmental and health protection required under European law? In particular, the decree contains a sort of ‘silence means assent’ mechanism authorising the promoter, 90 days after presenting a resource management plan, to proceed with operations at enormous risk to the environment and public health. Classification of excavated material at the place of arrival rather than the place of production is a possibility that also gives rise to serious misgivings. Furthermore, a major weakness of the decree is the classification of the material by the promoter himself, giving rise to the risk of ad hoc evaluations with vested interests in mind, rather than evaluations carried out in the overall interest of environmental protection and public health, something which has recently been shown to have substantial legal implications. Under the terms of the decree, moreover, the preliminary evaluation serves to verify the existence of an environmental pollution risk alone, completely ignoring public health issues, which are, on the other hand, expressly referred to in the directive on waste. Anther major concern is the standard practice of sampling earth to be excavated prior to commencement of works, a procedure which cannot by itself fully guarantee protection of the public interests at stake, while the absence of any ongoing and independent monitoring of the excavated materials intended for reutilisation substantially defeats the object of the inspection procedure.

Does the Commission not consider that the matter therefore warrants closer scrutiny? Can it at least give detailed and specific evidence of the effectiveness of the statutory monitoring arrangements and their overall compliance with the Community law?

Question for written answer E-007033/13

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for excavated earth and rocks: unwarranted extension of exclusions under the directive on Waste

On 4 March 2013, DG Environment filed a complaint by the Idra association concerning alleged infringement of Community law, arguing that the regulations governing the use of excavated earth and rocks effectively complied with the corresponding provisions of the directive on Waste. There in fact is a substantial difference between Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2008/98, which excludes from its scope ‘uncontaminated soil and other naturally occurring material excavated in the course of construction activities, where it is certain that the material will be used for the purposes of construction in its natural state on the site from which it is excavated’ and Article 3 of Decree Law 2/2012 and the subsequent Ministerial Decree No 161 of 10 August 2012 (referred to above), which gives an authentic interpretation of Article 185 of Legislative Decree 152/2006 (implementing Directive 2008/98). Here earth is also taken to mean aggregate filling material, i.e. heterogeneous material which cannot be assimilated in geological and stratigraphic terms with the earth in situ and may contain extraneous filling material defined in Ministerial Decree 161/2012 and, in particular, Annex 9 thereof, as a heterogeneous mixture of natural soil and manmade materials, including materials from previous building and urban development projects. This would effectively exclude from the scope of the waste provisions not only uncontaminated soil and other natural materials (as laid down under EC law) but also manmade materials, i.e. earth contaminated by non-natural (extraneous) materials or non-natural waste substances and (extraneous) objects) which have been discarded and become mixed up with natural soil. This was manifestly not the intention behind the EU legislation. Moreover, in justifying the exclusion of waste from the directive, Italian legislation never refers to ‘by-products’. Articles 185(b) and (c) of Legislative Decree 152/06, as modified and interpreted, refer simply to exclusions and make no further stipulations. It is therefore clear that the exclusions from the scope of Directive on Waste have been extended to an unwarranted degree under current Italian law, as was the case in 2007, leading to a condemnation by the European Court of Justice.

Does the Commission not consider that the matter therefore warrants closer scrutiny? If not, can it put forward a point-by-point legal refutation of these arguments?

Question for written answer E-007034/13

to the Commission

Sonia Alfano (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Major works and disposal procedures for ‘excavated earth and rocks’: infiltration by organised crime and the Mafia

In its answer to Question P-001908/2013, the Commission stated ‘As for the risk that the Italian Decree might be incorrectly applied thus favouring organised crime, the complainants have provided no evidence of such a concrete case of bad application.’

The Florence Public Prosecutor’s Office (which has also seized building sites) is currently conducting an investigation into alleged criminal enterprise, fraud, corruption and unlawful waste disposal. According to the allegations, a company that disposed of mud and waste (excavated earth) from building sites for the Florence high-speed train line (TAV), had links to the Camorra and in particular to the Casalesi clan. The investigation is part of a wider investigation into the disposal of mud from TAV building sites in Florence. Investigators have discovered that the waste disposal companies agreed to divide up quantities of mud and water between themselves and collected, transported and disposed of them in landfill.

The investigations also involve public officials who, with regard to waste disposal, offered to issue favourable opinions and to reclassify drilling mud as uncontaminated earth, for example. In my view, this investigation is emblematic of the interests at stake and of how organised crime and criminals infiltrate this kind of activity, giving weight to the idea that the 2012 regulation intended to exclude excavated earth from the scope of the ‘Waste’ Directive is, in view of the many critical points detailed in several questions and in detailed complaints from the public and various associations, in clear breach of European environmental law and the rights enshrined in the Treaties, as well as a very real risk to the environment and public health, which the Commission is responsible for safeguarding.

Does the Commission think that it can rule out the very real risk of organised crime infiltrating this kind of activity?

Joint answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2013)

As concerns the issues raised by Questions E-007031/2013, E-007032/2013 and E-007033/2013, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the letter of 4 March 2013 whereby the Commission provided the complainant Idra association with a detailed explanation of why it considers that the Italian Decree 161/2012 is not incompatible with Directive 2008/98/EC.

As concerns the additional issues raised by Question E-007030/2013, the Commission observes the following: — The use of the term ‘works’ in Article 4 of the Italian Decree 161/2012, instead of the ‘production processes’ referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2008/98/EC (52) on waste, does not constitute a breach of Directive 2008/98/EC, because the construction and demolition works covered by the Italian Decree 161/2012 are a kind of production process. — The Italian Decree 161/2012 does contain references to public health in its Article 2(2) and in its Annexes 4 and 8.

As concerns the issues raised by Question E-007034/2013, the Commission takes note that the Florence Public Prosecutor is investigating allegations of unlawful waste disposal in connection with the building of the Florence high-speed train line. However, the fact that in concrete cases excavation waste may have been disposed of illegally does not prove that the Italian Decree 161/2012 is as such incompatible with Directive 2008/98/EC.

Finally, the Commission is aware that Italian organised criminal groups are increasingly expanding their activities in the waste disposal sector. However, the responsibility to investigate and prosecute specific cases rests with national authorities.

The Commission will ask the Italian authorities to provide clarifications on the ‘silence means assent’ mechanism foreseen by the Italian Decree 161/2012.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007035/13

do Komisji

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)

(17 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wstrzymanie funduszy europejskich 2014-2020 na dofiansowanie dróg lokalnych

Komisja Europejska poprzez przygotowane wytyczne wstrzymała możliwość przekazywania dotacji z funduszy unijnych po roku 2014 r. na cele związane z modernizacją i rozbudową sieci dróg lokalnych (w praktyce w Polsce dróg gminnych i powiatowych).

Taka sytuacja przeczy logice funduszy spójności, których celem jest m.in. równomierny rozwój obszarów Unii Europejskiej. Błędem jest aż tak duże zawężanie przez Komisję Europejską celów na inwestycje transportowe. To państwa członkowskie i regiony mają najlepiej rozpoznane swoje potrzeby. Odgórne ograniczanie im narzędzi do realizacji celów zapisanych w dokumentach strategicznych UE jest błędne.

W związku z powyższym proszę o odpowiedź na pytania:

Czym kierowała się Komisja Europejska podejmując decyzję o zlikwidowaniu dofinansowania dla dróg lokalnych?

Dlaczego Komisja Europejska sztucznie zawęża państwom członkowskim narzędzia do realizacji celów strategicznych Unii Europejskiej?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji

(5 sierpnia 2013 r.)

Zwiększenie oddziaływania polityki spójności służącej realizacji priorytetów europejskich stanowi główną zasadę w kontekście wniosków ustawodawczych Komisji na lata 2014-2020. Dlatego też w art. 9 projektu rozporządzenia w sprawie wspólnych przepisów dotyczących europejskich funduszy strukturalnych i inwestycyjnych wprowadzono wykaz celów tematycznych zgodnych ze strategią „Europa 2020”. Wykaz obejmuje m.in. cel tematyczny 7 „Promowanie zrównoważonego transportu i usuwanie niedoborów przepustowości w działaniu najważniejszych infrastruktur sieciowych”. W kontekście wskazanego celu Europejski Fundusz Rozwoju Regionalnego (EFRR) może wspierać inwestycje w zakresie transeuropejskiej sieci transportowej (TEN-T), a także w przypadku drugorzędnych i trzeciorzędnych węzłów połączonych z infrastrukturą TEN-T.

Inwestycje w zakresie dróg lokalnych mogą być uzasadnione jedynie wówczas, gdy stanowią część kompleksowego i zrównoważonego planu na rzecz mobilności w miastach lub też zintegrowanego planu rozwoju obszarów miejskich na rzecz rewitalizacji gospodarczej i społecznej obszaru miejskiego, lub gdy zapewniają dostęp do zasobów gospodarczych wspieranych przez EFRR (na przykład park technologiczny). We wszystkich tych przypadkach inwestycje w drogi lokalne powinny w dalszym ciągu stanowić element uzupełniający działania podstawowego.

Ponadto w ramach celu „Europejska współpraca terytorialna” EFRR może wspierać różne rodzaje infrastruktury ponad granicami.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007035/13

to the Commission

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Withholding of EU funds for the financing of local roads in the 2014-2020 period

The Commission has drafted guidelines that call for the withholding of EU funds after 2014 for objectives relating to the modernisation and development of local roads (in Poland’s case, this mainly affects municipal and county roads).

This contradicts the logic of the cohesion funds, which aim to ensure the equal development of the EU's regions. The Commission was mistaken to narrow the objectives to investments in transport infrastructure to such a large extent. It is the Member States and the regions that are best able to recognise their own needs. Imposing top‐down limitations on the tools at their disposal to implement the objectives set out in EU strategic documents is a mistake.

In this connection:

What spurred the Commission to take the decision to eliminate funding for local roads?

Why is the Commission artificially limiting the tools available to Member States to implement EU strategic objectives?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2013)

Maximising the impact of cohesion policy delivering European priorities is a main principle in the Commission’s legislative proposals for 2014-2020. Therefore, a list of thematic objectives in line with the Europe 2020 strategy has been established in Article 9 of the draft Common Provisions Regulation of the European Structural and Investment Funds. The list includes thematic objective 7 ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’. In this context the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can support investments in the Trans-European Transport (TEN-T) network, as well as the secondary and tertiary nodes connecting to TEN-T infrastructure.

Investments in local roads can only be supported where they form part of a comprehensive and sustainable urban mobility plan, or an integrated urban development plan for economic and social regeneration of an urban area, or where they ensure accessibility to economic assets supported by the ERDF (for instance, a technological park). In all these cases, local roads should remain a complementary part of the core intervention.

Furthermore, under the European Territorial Cooperation Goal, the ERDF may support all types of infrastructure across borders.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007037/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Economia da zona euro

O BCE reconhece que a economia da zona euro vai de mal a pior em 2013. A recessão passa de 0,5 % para 0,6 %.

O BCE admitiu a possibilidade de adotar taxas negativas, cobrando aos bancos para receber os seus depósitos.

Pergunta-se:

Concorda com esta medida admitida pelo BCE?

Que outras medidas tem vindo a Comissão a estudar para combater o agravamento da recessão na zona euro?

Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão

(5 de agosto de 2013)

A Comissão não se pronuncia sobre a política monetária na área do euro; o BCE funciona de forma independente, pelo que todos os pedidos de informações lhe devem ser dirigidos.

Muitos Estados-Membros registam atualmente um crescimento reduzido ou mesmo negativo. Há que implementar reformas estruturais para um retorno ao crescimento. Foram já adotadas medidas nesse sentido. No quadro do Semestre Europeu, a Comissão, conjuntamente com os Estados-Membros, está a procurar soluções para o problema do baixo crescimento. Após uma cuidadosa avaliação das situações orçamentais e dos desafios estruturais de cada país, foram dirigidas aos Estados-Membros recomendações, que fornecem orientações de política económica geral e uma orientação orçamental adequada assente na realização de profundas reformas estruturais. Cabe agora aos Estados-Membros implementar as reformas.

A Comissão está igualmente a trabalhar para restabelecer o fluxo de crédito destinado à economia real, em especial às PME. Em setembro de 2012, a Comissão apresentou uma proposta de criação de um mecanismo único de supervisão (MUR), que constitui o primeiro passo no sentido de uma União bancária na Europa. No Conselho Europeu de junho deste ano, os dirigentes europeus saudaram os acordos celebrados no âmbito do Eurogrupo sobre as principais características do quadro de recapitalização bancária direta pelo MEE e no âmbito do Conselho sobre o projeto de diretiva que estabelece um enquadramento para a recuperação dos bancos e a resolução de crises bancárias. A Comissão propôs legislação relativa a um mecanismo único de resolução (MUR) com vista à obtenção de um acordo no Conselho até ao final de 2013.

A Comissão coopera também estreitamente com o BEI para desenvolver e aplicar instrumentos que potenciem o impacto dos recursos do orçamento da UE com base nos empréstimos do BEI, como a iniciativa «obrigações para financiamento de projetos», e com o FEI para apoiar as PME (53). Uma melhor governação do setor bancário e o apoio ao crédito contribuirão também para melhorar as perspetivas de crescimento da Europa.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007037/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: The economy of the euro area

The European Central Bank (ECB) has acknowledged that the economy of the euro area is going from bad to worse in 2013. The fall in GDP has risen from 0.5% to 0.6%.

The ECB has admitted that negative rates might be introduced, which would allow it to charge banks for receiving their deposits.

Does the Commission agree with this measure suggested by the ECB?

What other steps has the Commission considered to stop the recession in the euro area from getting worse?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2013)

The Commission does not comment on monetary policy in the euro area; ECB acts independently and any inquiries should be addressed to it.

Many Member States are experiencing low or even negative growth. Structural reforms are now needed for a return to growth. Steps in this direction have already been taken. The Commission is addressing low growth together with the Member States within the European Semester. After a careful assessment of national structural challenges and budgetary situations the country-specific recommendations addressed to Member States provide comprehensive economic policy guidance and an appropriate fiscal stance with in-depth structural reforms. It is now up to the Member States to implement reforms.

The Commission is also working to restore the flow of credit to the real sector, in particular to SMEs. In September 2012 it made a proposal for a single supervisory mechanism (SSM), the first step towards a banking union in Europe. At this year's June European Council, European leaders welcomed the agreements reached in the Eurogroup on the main features of the framework for direct bank recapitalisation by the ESM and in the Council on the draft directive establishing a framework for bank recovery and resolution. The Commission has proposed legislation on a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) in view of reaching an agreement by the Council by the end 2013.

The Commission also cooperates closely with the EIB to develop and implement instruments which leverage resources from the EU budget with EIB lending, such as the Project Bond Initiative, and with the EIF in support of SMEs (54). Better governance of the banking sector and credit support will further contribute to improve growth prospects in Europe.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-007038/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(17 iunie 2013)

Subiect: Campaniile împotriva românilor și bulgarilor în Marea Britanie

Unele formațiuni politice din Marea Britanie au declanșat campanii publice, încercând să alimenteze temerile cu privire la gradul de imigrare din România și Bulgaria după ridicarea finală a restricțiilor pe piața muncii la începutul anului viitor.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze ce acțiuni a derulat, derulează sau are în vedere pentru a combate astfel de atitudini antieuropene, jignitoare la adresa cetățenilor europeni din România și Bulgaria.

Răspuns dat de dl Andor în numele Comisiei

(31 iulie 2013)

Comisia nu poate interveni în mod direct împotriva diferitelor formațiuni politice în ceea ce privește campaniile și declarațiile acestora în legătură cu măsurile publice suplimentare demarate împotriva unui eventual aflux al lucrătorilor din România și Bulgaria.

Comisia a accentuat în mod repetat impactul pozitiv al liberei circulații a lucrătorilor. Aceasta a reamintit că măsurile tranzitorii au scopul de a ajuta statele membre să introducă treptat libera circulație și astfel, statele membre nu ar trebui să amâne aplicarea legislației UE privind libera circulație a lucrătorilor până la terminarea efectivă a perioadei de tranziție. Perioada de tranziție se va încheia în mod irevocabil la 31 decembrie 2013. Lucrătorii români și bulgari vor beneficia complet de legislația UE privind libera circulație a lucrătorilor pe teritoriul întregii Uniuni Europene în același mod ca și toți ceilalți cetățeni ai UE.

De asemenea, la 26 aprilie 2013, Comisia a adoptat o propunere de directivă a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind măsurile de facilitare a exercitării drepturilor conferite lucrătorilor în contextul liberei circulații a lucrătorilor (55). Propunerea are ca scop o mai bună informare a lucrătorilor din UE, precum și a părților interesate și a autorităților publice cu privire la drepturile oferite de legislația UE privind libera circulație, instituirea de organisme care să ofere sprijin lucrătorilor migranți din UE și asigurarea că astfel de drepturi pot intra în vigoare eficient la nivel judiciar și administrativ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007038/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Efforts to stir up anti-Romanian and anti-Bulgarian sentiment in the United Kingdom

A number of political organisations in the United Kingdom have been launching a campaign seeking to fuel public fears regarding the influx of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants following the final removal of employment market restrictions early next year.

Can the Commission say what measures it has been taking or envisaging to counter such offensive anti-European attitudes in respect of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

The Commission cannot intervene directly against the different political organisations in relation to their campaigns and declarations for additional public measures against the possible influx of Romanian and Bulgarian workers.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed the positive impact of free movement of workers. It has recalled that the transitional arrangements aim at helping Member States to gradually introduce free movement, and therefore Member States should not simply delay the application of full EC law on free movement of workers until the overall end of the transitional period. The overall transitional period will irrevocably end on 31 December 2013. Romanian and Bulgarian workers will benefit fully from 1 January 2014 from EC law on free movement of workers in the entire EU in the same way as all other EU citizens.

Moreover, on the 26th April 2013 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers (56). The proposal aims to better inform EU workers, as well as other stakeholders and public authorities about the rights conferred by EC law on free movement; to set up bodies providing assistance to EU migrant workers; and to ensure that such rights can be effectively enforced at judicial and administrative levels.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-007039/13

à la Commission

Véronique De Keyser (S&D)

(17 juin 2013)

Objet: Application de l'accord ACAA

L'État d'Israël a-t-il communiqué à la Commission sa nomination d'une autorité responsable en concordance avec l'article 9, paragraphe 1, de l'ACAA? Si tel est le cas, Israël a-t-il bien confirmé que le territoire pour lequel l'autorité responsable (israélienne) est compétente n'inclut absolument pas les territoires palestiniens occupés (TPO)?

Si cette précision importante n'a pas été apportée, la Commission a-t-elle, malgré cela, accepté la nomination? Dans ce cas, la Commission, comprenant ainsi qu'Israël délimite dès lors son territoire comme incluant — en dépit du droit international — les territoires palestiniens occupés, considère-t-elle qu'un avertissement unilatéral serait suffisant pour s'assurer que l'ACAA indique clairement et explicitement sa non‐application aux territoires palestiniens occupés?

En effet, au vu des déclarations du Conseil des affaires étrangères du 10 décembre 2012 affirmant que les colonies sont illégales au regard du droit international, les produits des colonies ne peuvent, de fait, être considérés comme «légalement mis sur le marché» au sens cité dans l'article 5 de l'accord ACAA.

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

(9 août 2013)

La Commission rappelle que l'ACAA est un protocole à l'accord d'association UE-Israël, dont le champ d'application ne couvre pas les territoires placés sous administration israélienne depuis 1967. Au regard du droit international, l'UE ne reconnaît pas la légalité des colonies israéliennes sur ces territoires. L'ACAA n'y change rien.

Aux fins de l'article 9 de l'ACAA, se référant à l'annexe relative à l'acceptation mutuelle des produits industriels — bonnes pratiques de fabrication (BPF) des produits pharmaceutiques, Israël a désigné, le 14 janvier 2013, le ministère de la santé comme autorité responsable pour l'État d'Israël. Dans sa réponse du 4 février 2013, la Commission a reconnu cette désignation et indiqué que «la reconnaissance de l'Union européenne ne modifie pas sa position selon laquelle la juridiction légitime des autorités israéliennes ne s'étend pas aux territoires placés sous administration israélienne depuis 1967».

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007039/13

to the Commission

Véronique De Keyser (S&D)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Implementation of the ACAA with Israel

Has the State of Israel notified the Commission of its nomination of a responsible authority pursuant to Article 9(1) of the ACAA (Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of industrial products)? If so, has Israel confirmed that the area for which the responsible (Israeli) authority is competent does not include any part of the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT)?

Did the Commission accept the nomination despite this important clarification not being provided? If so, does the Commission — on the basis that Israel defines its territory as including the OPT, a stance at odds with international law — believe that a unilateral warning would suffice to secure Israel’s consent to the inclusion in the ACAA of an explicit reference to the fact that it does not apply to the OPT?

The statements made at the Foreign Affairs Council of 10 December 2012 confirming that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law make it clear that products originating in settlements may not be ‘lawfully placed on the market’ within the meaning of Article 5 of the ACAA.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2013)

The Commission recalls that the ACAA is a Protocol to the EU-Israel Association Agreement, whose scope does not include the territories under Israeli administration since 1967. Under international law, the EU does not recognise the legality of the Israeli settlements in those territories. The ACAA does not alter that fact.

For the purpose of Article 9 of the ACAA, as related to the annex on Mutual Acceptance of Industrial Products — Pharrmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), Israel designated on 14 January 2013 the Ministry of Health as the responsible authority for the State of Israel. In its reply of 4 February 2013, the Commission has acknowledged this designation indicating that ‘The European Union's acknowledgement does not alter the European Union's position that the legitimate jurisdiction of Israeli authorities does not extend to the territories brought under Israeli administration since 1967’.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-007040/13

alla Commissione

Fabrizio Bertot (PPE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Preservare il monumento alle vittime della tragedia dell'Heysel

Il 29 maggio 1985, circa un'ora prima dell'inizio della finale di Coppa dei Campioni tra Juventus Fc e Liverpool Fc, lo stadio Heysel di Bruxelles fu teatro di una tragedia a seguito della quale perirono 39 persone, di cui 32 italiani, schiacciate, calpestate e uccise nella calca per sfuggire all'aggressione degli hooligans britannici. Oltre 600 furono i feriti, di cui molti in maniera grave, in quella che è ad oggi uno dei peggiori drammi della storia calcistica europea. Dramma causato dalla violenza dei gruppi di tifosi organizzati inglesi, unita alle carenze di una struttura di per sé considerata inadeguata ad ospitare eventi sportivi della portata di una finale europea. Nel 2005, per commemorare quel dramma, nell'Heysel rimodernato, e ribattezzato Stade Roi Baudoin, è stata scoperta una scultura opera dell'artista francese Patrick Rimoux: posta in corrispondenza del settore Z dove sono stati massacrati i supporter italiani e costata circa 140 mila euro, si compone di una meridiana che comprende i colori delle bandiere italiana e belga, oltre a recare incise i versi della poesia Funeral blues di W.H. Auden. Inoltre 39 luci brillano per ricordare ognuna delle vittime della follia hooligan.

Considerato che adesso, a 28 anni di distanza da quella tragedia, le autorità belghe hanno annunciato l'intenzione di abbattere lo stadio Roi Baudoin, per costruire nelle immediate vicinanze — precisamente nel sito dell'attuale parcheggio C, dall'altra parte rispetto all'ingresso principale della struttura — un nuovo complesso, per consentire alla Federcalcio belga di avanzare la propria candidatura ad ospitare i Mondiali di calcio del 2022, insieme ai Paesi Bassi. Considerato che la scultura in memoria della tragedia dell'Heysel verrebbe anch'essa distrutta, cancellando così un simbolo che dovrebbe servire da monito imperituro perché simili episodi di violenza durante avvenimenti sportivi non si verifichino mai più. Considerato infine che si ritiene necessario mantenere alta l'attenzione sul problema della violenza negli stadi, visti i recenti episodi sia in Italia — Lecce e Roma — che in altre parti d'Europa, ad esempio a Parigi un mese fa e a Londra lo scorso aprile, può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

È essa a conoscenza del progetto di abbattimento dello stadio ex-Heysel e del monumento commemorativo dei 39 tifosi morti nel maggio dell'85?

Può inoltre la Commissione comunicare se siano allo studio regole comuni per impedire alle frange violente delle tifoserie europee di provocare disordini e ostacolare il regolare svolgimento delle manifestazioni sportive?

Come valuta essa la proposta di prevedere un regolamento europeo per affidare alle società sportive l'onere di vigilare sulla sicurezza negli impianti, secondo il modello britannico, evitando così di impegnare ingenti forze di polizia, necessarie per altri compiti?

Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione

(29 luglio 2013)

1.

La Commissione è al corrente del progetto di demolizione dello stadio Re Baldovino. Essa non è tuttavia competente ad intervenire sulla questione, che è di competenza esclusiva delle autorità del Regno del Belgio. L'onorevole parlamentare può quindi prendere direttamente contatto con queste ultime per esprimere la propria preoccupazione.

2.

La Commissione si impegna a contribuire alla prevenzione della violenza degli spettatori. In base alla decisione 2002/348/JHA del Consiglio relativa alla sicurezza in occasione di partite di calcio internazionali è stato messo a punto, di concerto con L'UEFA, lo scambio di dati tra punti nazionali d'informazione sul calcio, rendendo in tal modo possibile lo scambio di informazioni operative sui tifosi a rischio tra servizi di polizia e/o autorità sportive. La Commissione promuove l'ampio ricorso al vademecum sulla cooperazione tra forze di polizia e sostiene la formazione a livello paneuropeo dei funzionari di polizia e degli addetti alla sicurezza per prevenire e controllare più efficacemente la violenza. Le autorità incaricate dell'applicazione della legge non possono tuttavia intervenire sulle cause alla base della violenza nello sport. Per garantire che gli eventi sportivi possano essere vissuti da tutti e per minimizzare i rischi per la sicurezza si invitano le autorità competenti a sostenere misure socioeducative volte alla prevenzione di atti violenti da parte degli spettatori. Un elemento importante in tale senso è la creazione di legami stretti con i gruppi di tifosi. La Commissione invita allo scambio di buone pratiche in questo ambito.

3.

L'articolo 165 del TFUE prevede la competenza dell'Unione nel sostenere, coordinare e integrare l'azione degli Stati membri nel settore dello sport ed esclude esplicitamente qualsiasi armonizzazione delle disposizioni nazionali. La Commissione non è pertanto competente a disciplinare la materia a livello di UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007040/13

to the Commission

Fabrizio Bertot (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Preserving the monument to the victims of the Heysel tragedy

On 29 May 1985, around one hour before the start of the final Champions League match between Juventus FC and Liverpool FC, the Heysel stadium in Brussels was the scene of a tragedy, as a result of which 39 people died, including 32 Italians, who were crushed, trampled upon and killed in a stampede while attempting to escape the aggression of British hooligans. More than 600 were injured, many seriously, in what today stands out as one of the worst tragedies in the history of European football. A tragedy caused by the violence of organised groups of British supporters, combined with the shortcomings of facilities which, in themselves, were considered inadequate for hosting sporting events as important as a European final. In 2005, to commemorate that tragedy, in the revamped Heysel stadium — renamed Stade Roi Baudoin — a sculpture by the French artist Patrick Rimoux was unveiled. It was placed in the Z sector, where the Italian supporters had been killed, and cost around EUR 140 000. It consists of a sundial that includes the colours of the Italian and Belgian flags and bears verses of the poem Funeral Blues, by WH Auden. In addition, 39 lights twinkle in remembrance of each of the victims of the hooligan madness.

Now, 28 years after the tragedy, the Belgian authorities have announced their intention to demolish the Roi Baudoin stadium, in order to build a new complex in the immediate vicinity — more specifically on the site of the current car park C, on the far side of the main stadium entrance — to enable the Belgian Football Association, together with the Netherlands, to apply to host the World Cup in 2022. The sculpture in memory of the Heysel tragedy would thus also be destroyed, thereby erasing a symbol that should serve as an eternal warning for similar incidents of violence during sporting events never to take place again. Moreover, the focus needs to be kept on the problem of football hooliganism, given recent events in Italy (Lecce and Rome) and in other parts of Europe — for instance, in Paris a month ago and in London in April.

In view of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:

Is it aware of the plan to demolish the former Heysel stadium together with the memorial for the 39 supporters who died there in May 1985?

Can the Commission say whether any common rules are being considered, with a view to preventing the violent fringes of European supporters from causing unrest and preventing sporting events from being carried out normally?

What is its view of the proposal to draw up an EU regulation to place the burden on sports clubs for monitoring the safety of the facilities they use, along the lines of the British model, thus avoiding the deployment of large numbers of police officers, who are needed for other tasks?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2013)

1.

The Commission is aware of the plans to demolish the Roi Baudoin stadium. However, the Commission has no jurisdiction to address this issue, which is a matter solely for the authorities in the Kingdom of Belgium. The Honourable Member might therefore want to contact them directly to express his concerns.

2.

The Commission is committed to contributing to the prevention of spectator violence. On the basis of Council Decision 2002/348/JHA on security at international football matches, data exchange between National Football Information Points has been developed with UEFA. Exchange of operational information on risk supporters among police services and/or sports authorities has been made possible. The Commission promotes wide usage of the Handbook for Police Cooperation and supports pan-European training for police officers and safety personnel to prevent and control violence more effectively. However, law enforcement authorities cannot deal with the underlying causes of violence in sport. To ensure that sport events are enjoyable for all those concerned and to minimise safety risks, competent agencies are encouraged to support social and educational measures to prevent spectator violence. Developing close links with supporter groups should be an important element. The Commission encourages the exchange of good practices in this field.

3.

Article 165 of the TFEU provides for a competence to support, coordinate and complement the action of Member States in the field of sport and expressly excludes any harmonisation of national laws. Thus, the Commission has no competence to regulate this matter at EU level.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007041/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Financiación europea de las obras del puerto de Granadilla

En una noticia aparecida el pasado 6 de junio en la prensa local de la isla de Tenerife se afirma que la Comisión Europea cofinanciará el proyecto del puerto de Granadilla con 67 millones de euros. Dicha información aparece tras unas declaraciones supuestamente realizadas por la Comisión tras una reunión mantenida en Bruselas con José Manuel Soria, Ministro de Industria, Energía y Turismo.

Este proyecto lleva años luchando contra la opinión de los habitantes de la isla que se verán fuertemente impactados por el proyecto, que destruirá el medio ambiente de la zona, y por consiguiente, los recursos de la principal actividad económica de la zona, que es el turismo. Este controvertido proyecto ha sido objeto de numerosas preguntas y peticiones, dado el rechazo popular, así como de diversos procedimientos judiciales. Como recordatorio, en 2010 el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias acordó suspender la decisión del Gobierno de Canarias de desproteger los sebadales, lo que implicó la paralización de las obras de construcción.

Lamentablemente, a día de hoy continúan las obras de un puerto que conlleva un daño irreversible para el ecosistema marino, habiéndose iniciado en mayo el vertido de materiales para la banqueta del dique exterior de las obras de abrigo.

En cuanto a una supuesta y controvertida financiación europea, desmentida en diversas ocasiones, en la respuesta que la Comisión Europea dio a mi pasada pregunta E-010807/2011, el Comisario Hahn afirmó que dicha institución no contaba con ninguna solicitud de pago para este proyecto. La información presentada en el citado medio de comunicación local parece contradecir la respuesta dada por el Comisario de Política Regional.

Ante lo expuesto, ¿está la Comisión al corriente de la noticia publicada en la prensa local tinerfeña? ¿Ha puesto la Comisión a disposición los citados 67 millones de euros para la realización del proyecto del puerto de Granadilla?

En caso afirmativo, ¿han incumplido las autoridades españolas el artículo 69 del Reglamento (CE) n° 1083/2006 del Consejo al no haber dado a conocer las solicitudes de fondos? De estar cofinanciando el proyecto, ¿podría detallar en qué momento modificó sus decisiones anteriores sobre el mismo?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007192/13

a la Comisión

Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D)

(19 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Construcción del puerto de Granadilla en Santa Cruz de Tenerife (España)

Según diversos medios de comunicación de Tenerife (España), el puerto de Granadilla ya cuenta de forma oficial y confirmada con la financiación de la UE, fijada en 67 millones de euros. Otras informaciones públicas afirman que la construcción del muelle de Granadilla no cuenta con ningún apoyo por parte de la UE.

Ante estas contradictorias informaciones se formulan las siguientes preguntas:

¿Qué información tiene la Comisión sobre las obras de construcción del puerto de Granadilla en Santa Cruz de Tenerife (España)?

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión algún mecanismo de apoyo para la construcción del muelle de Granadilla?

¿Hay alguna partida presupuestaria prevista por la Comisión para ayudar a la construcción del muelle de Granadilla?

¿Es cierta la información publicada según la cual la UE se ha comprometido a financiar con 67 millones de euros la construcción del citado muelle?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(12 de agosto de 2013)

La Comisión está al corriente de la información publicada en la prensa local de Tenerife y subraya que ha actuado de manera totalmente conforme con el actual marco normativo.

La Comisión recibió en abril de 2009 una solicitud de financiación del gran proyecto del puerto de Granadilla y la trató de acuerdo con las normas y procedimientos vigentes. La Comisión formuló una serie de observaciones relativas al proyecto, especialmente relacionadas con el medio ambiente, la viabilidad económica y las cuestiones relativas a las ayudas estatales; estas observaciones necesitaron de explicaciones detalladas de las autoridades españolas, lo que explica el tiempo requerido para tratar la solicitud.

La financiación que se ha solicitado a la UE para el proyecto asciende a 67 millones de euros, de los que 14 millones han sido certificados a la Comisión hasta la fecha. El gasto relacionado con un gran proyecto puede certificarse a la Comisión antes de que este haya sido aprobado por una decisión de la Comisión.

La Comisión ha llevado a cabo un examen exhaustivo de esta solicitud y ha solicitado información adicional, que se le ha facilitado, con el fin de llegar a una conclusión final sobre su aprobación. Las autoridades españolas consideran que esta infraestructura es vital para la isla de Tenerife y la han incluido como proyecto prioritario en su plan estratégico de desarrollo de los puertos marítimos en España.

Dado que el gran proyecto del puerto de Granadilla no ha sido todavía objeto de ninguna decisión de la Comisión, no se han quebrantado las normas en materia de información y publicidad.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007041/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: EU funding of the work on the Port of Grandadilla

A report published on 6 June in the local press of the island of Tenerife stated that the European Commission is set to co-finance the Granadilla port project with a contribution of EUR 67 million. This information came to light after statements allegedly made by the Commission after a meeting in Brussels with José Manuel Soria, Minister of Industry, Energy and Tourism.

This project has, for years, been up against the opposition of the inhabitants of the island, who will be severely affected by the project, which will destroy the environment in the area and, as a result, the main local economic activity — tourism. This controversial project has been the subject of numerous questions and petitions, given its rejection by the people, as well as a number of legal proceedings. It is worth remembering that in 2010 the High Court of the Canary Islands agreed to suspend the decision of the Government of the Canary Islands to remove the protected status of the seagrass meadows (sebadales), which meant that the building works in question had to be stopped.

Unfortunately, the work on the port, which will lead to irreversible damage to the marine ecosystem, is still continuing, as in May, the dumping of material for the construction of the external sea wall began.

As regards the alleged (and controversial) EU funding, which has been denied on several occasions, in the answer the Commission gave to my last Question E-010807/2011, Commissioner Hahn stated that the Commission had not received any payment claim for this project. The information reported in the local media as mentioned above would appear to contradict this answer given by the Commissioner for Regional Policy.

Is the Commission aware of this report published in the local press in Tenerife? Has the Commission indeed made available the said EUR 67 million for the Granadilla port project?

If so, are the Spanish authorities not in breach of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, for having failed to publicise their applications for funding? As regards the

co-financing of the project, could the Commission give details on when exactly it changed its mind with regard to its previous decisions on the matter?

Question for written answer E-007192/13

to the Commission

Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Construction of the port of Granadilla, Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain)

According to various media reports from Tenerife (Spain), the port of Granadilla has already been officially allocated EU funding to the tune of EUR 67 million. Other sources claim that the construction of the Granadilla pier will not receive any EU funding whatsoever.

In the light of these conflicting reports:

What information does the Commission have at its disposal concerning construction work at Granadilla port, Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain)?

Has the Commission made plans for any type of support mechanism for the construction of the Granadilla pier?

Has any budget item been allocated by the Commission to support the construction of the Granadilla pier?

Is there any truth in the reports that the EU has pledged EUR 67 million to finance construction of the pier?

Joint answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2013)

The Commission is aware of the report published in the local press in Tenerife and underlines that it has acted in full accordance with the current regulatory framework.

The Commission received an application for financing the ‘Port of Granadilla’ Major Project in April 2009 and has dealt with it in line with the current rules and procedures. The Commission had a range of observations regarding the project, notably related to the environment, economic viability and state aid issues, which required detailed explanations from the Spanish authorities, which explains the time required to deal with the application.

The requested EU funding for the project is EUR 67 million, of which EUR 14 million has been certified to the Commission so far. Expenditure related to a major project can be certified to the Commission before the project has been approved by a Commission decision.

The Commission has carried out a thorough examination of this application and has requested additional information, which has been provided, in order to be in a position to reach a final conclusion on its approval. The Spanish authorities consider that this infrastructure is vital for the island of Tenerife and has been included as a priority project in their strategic plan for the development of seaports in Spain.

Since the major project ‘Port of Granadilla’ has not yet been the subject of a Commission decision, there is no breach of information and publicity rules.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007042/13

a la Comisión

María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D)

(17 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Reforma del sistema de pensiones

La mayoría de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea se han visto abocados a realizar una reforma de las pensiones en los últimos años debido a los cambios demográficos (aumento de la esperanza de vida y baja tasa de natalidad) y económicos (incorporación tardía de los jóvenes al mercado de trabajo y aumento del desempleo en la EU).

La Comisión Europea ha urgido al Gobierno español a poner en marcha una serie de medidas antes de finales de año para evitar así un expediente sancionador por desequilibrios excesivos. Entre esos ajustes propuestos por la Comisión se encuentra la reforma de las pensiones y, más concretamente, el diseño del factor de sostenibilidad con el objetivo de garantizar la estabilidad financiera a largo plazo del sistema de pensiones, estableciendo, entre otras cosas, que la edad de jubilación vaya aumentando en función del aumento de la esperanza de vida.

Recientemente, el Parlamento Europeo ha aprobado una Resolución relativa a una Agenda para unas pensiones adecuadas, seguras y sostenibles (P7_TA(2013)0204) en la que se deploran los severos recortes practicados en los Estados miembros afectados más duramente por la crisis, que han empujado a muchos pensionistas a la pobreza o les hacen correr el riesgo de caer en ella, y en la que se pide un consenso entre los Gobiernos, las empresas y los sindicatos a la hora de modificar el aumento de los años de cotización.

¿Qué medidas piensa tomar la Comisión para evitar que los ajustes presupuestarios instaurados por la troika no condicionen el derecho a una calidad de vida digna para todos en la vejez?

En el Libro Blanco sobre las Pensiones que publicó la Comisión en febrero de 2012 no se aborda adecuadamente la importancia de los regímenes universales de pensiones del primer pilar (pensiones públicas universales, por reparto) que como mínimo excluyen la pobreza y que son la base del Estado de bienestar. ¿Piensa la Comisión dar prioridad a esta cuestión con el objetivo de garantizar un nivel de vida digno y una independencia económica para las personas de más edad?

Respuesta del Sr. Mr Andor en nombre de la Comisión

(31 de julio de 2013)

El Libro Blanco sobre las Pensiones demuestra que en unas sociedades en proceso de envejecimiento se pueden garantizar unas pensiones adecuadas, seguras y sostenibles «creando para ello las condiciones que permitan la elevada participación de las mujeres y los hombres en el mercado de trabajo a lo largo de sus vidas y mejorando las oportunidades para constituir unos planes de ahorro complementarios de jubilación» que sean seguros. El Libro Blanco sobre las Pensiones también hace hincapié en que las pensiones públicas son y seguirán siendo la principal fuente de ingresos de los europeos de más edad y en que «los planes de ahorro complementarios de jubilación también pueden contribuir a garantizar unas tasas de reemplazo adecuadas en el futuro». Las recomendaciones específicas para cada país en materia de pensiones y jubilación tienen casi exclusivamente por objetivo ayudar a los Estados miembros a mantener la sostenibilidad y la adecuación de sus sistemas públicos de pensiones. El factor de sostenibilidad de las pensiones españolas propuesto en las correspondientes recomendaciones específicas consistente en vincular la edad de jubilación a la evolución de la esperanza de vida puede tener un impacto positivo en la adecuación y sostenibilidad de las pensiones.

En el Estudio Prospectivo Anual sobre el Crecimiento de 2013 (57), la Comisión recomienda «que se sea selectivo cuando se prevean recortes con el fin de preservar el potencial de crecimiento futuro y las redes esenciales de protección social» y, por consiguiente, que se combinen «las medidas de ajuste de manera que fomenten tanto el crecimiento, como la justicia social».

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007042/13

to the Commission

María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Reform of the pension system

In recent years, most EU Member States have had to reform their pension systems due to demographic changes (higher life expectancy and low birth rate) and economic changes (the late age at which young people enter the labour market and the rise in unemployment in the EU).

The Commission has urged the Spanish Government to initiate a series of steps before the end of the year to avoid being sanctioned for excessive imbalances.

The changes proposed by the Commission include pension reform and, more specifically, defining the sustainability factor in order to guarantee the long-term financial stability of the pension system by ensuring, among other things, that the retirement age increases in accordance with the rise in life expectancy.

Parliament recently adopted a resolution on an agenda for adequate, safe and sustainable pensions (P7_TA(2013)0204) which deplores the severe cuts in the Member States hardest hit by the crisis that have pushed many pensioners into, or put them at risk of, poverty. It also calls for governments, employers and trade unions to reach a consensus on modifying the increase in the number of contributory years.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent the budgetary adjustments established by the troika from affecting the right to a decent quality of life for all in old age?

The White Paper on Pensions, published by the Commission in February 2012, does not adequately address the importance of universal first-pillar pension schemes (universal public pay-as-you-go pensions) which at least keep people out of poverty and form the basis of the welfare state. Does the Commission intend to prioritise this issue in order to ensure that older people enjoy a decent standard of living and economic independence?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

The White Paper on Pensions demonstrates that adequate, safe and sustainable pensions in ageing societies can be ensured ‘by creating the conditions for a high level of labour force participation of women and men throughout their lives and enhancing the opportunities to build up safe complementary retirement savings.’ It also highlights that public pensions are and will remain the main source of income of older Europeans while ‘complementary retirement savings can also help secure adequate replacement rates in the future’. Country Specific Recommendations on pensions and retirement have almost exclusively been aimed at helping Member States preserve the sustainability and adequacy of their public pension systems. Linking the retirement age to changes in life expectancy — proposed in the CSR for the Spanish pension sustainability factor — could have a positive impact on both adequacy and sustainability of pensions.

In the 2013 Annual Growth Survey (58) the Commission recommended ‘being selective where cuts are envisaged so as to preserve future growth potential and essential social safety nets’ and thus use a ‘composition of adjustment which supports both growth and social fairness’.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007044/13

til Kommissionen

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17. juni 2013)

Om: Opfølgende spørgsmål på mangelfuldt svar

I dets svar til de skriftlige spørgsmål E-004765/2013 og E-004767/2013 har Kommissionen tilsyneladende glemt at svare på dele af spørgsmålene i forbindelse med spørgsmål E-004765/2013.

Derfor anmodes Kommissionen venligst om:

En oversigt over sprogkrav for brugsanvisninger for medicinsk udstyr til patienter — i hver af de forskellige medlemsstater? (en oversigt der angiver sprogkrav per medlemsstat).

En oversigt over sprogkrav for brugsanvisninger for medicinsk udstyr til sundhedspersonale — i hver af de forskellige medlemsstater? (en oversigt der angiver sprogkrav per medlemsstat).

En oversigt over sprogkrav for mærkning af medicinsk udstyr — i hver af de forskellige medlemsstater? (en oversigt der angiver sprogkrav per medlemsstat).

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Neven Mimica

(30. juli 2013)

Vedrørende det ærede medlems spørgsmål E-004765/2013 (59) om de sprogkrav, der gælder i hver medlemsstat, for medicinsk udstyr vedrørende brugsanvisninger for patienter og sundhedspersonale samt mærkning, kan Kommissionen oplyse det ærede medlem om, at der ikke er nogen forpligtelse for medlemsstaterne til at oplyse Kommissionen om sådanne krav. Kommissionen er derfor ikke i besiddelse af de oplysninger, som det ærede medlem har udbedt sig.

Det ærede medlem vil være nødt til at henvende sig til de kompetente myndigheder vedrørende medicinsk udstyr i EU-medlemsstaterne for at få sådanne oplysninger. Disse myndigheder er angivet på det nedenstående websted (60).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007044/13

to the Commission

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Medical devices and translation: further question following incomplete answer

In its answers to my written questions E-004765/2013 and E-004767/2013, the Commission seems to have forgotten to answer some of the questions in E-004765/2013.

Could the Commission therefore please outline:

the language requirements applicable to instructions for medical devices for patients in each Member State (listing language requirements for each Member State);

the language requirements applicable to instructions for medical devices for healthcare practitioners in each Member State (listing language requirements for each Member State);

the language requirements applicable to the labelling of medical devices in each Member State (listing language requirements for each Member State)?

Answer given by Mr Mimica on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2013)

Following the Question E-004765/2013 (61) of the Honourable Member as to the medical devices language requirements applicable in each Member State on instructions for patients, instructions for healthcare practitioners and labelling, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no obligation for the Member States to notify such requirements to the Commission. The Commission thus does not possess the information requested by the Honourable Member.

In order to obtain such information, the Honourable Member would have to address this question to the medical devices national competent authorities within the EU Member States (62), which are listed on the website below.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007045/13

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 juni 2013)

Betreft: Gerechtelijke stappen door niet-verzekerde depositohouders in Cyprus

Meer dan 3 000 niet-verzekerde depositohouders van wie de activa bevroren zijn, hebben bij het Hooggerechtshof van Cyprus beroep aangetekend tegen de zogenaamde „bail-in” (redding van de banken door inbreng van de particuliere sector). Volgens de klagers en hun advocaten is de bail-in „eigendomsdiefstal” (63). Hoewel het Hooggerechtshof op 7 juni 2013 oordeelde dat het niet bevoegd is om zich uit te spreken over deze beroepen, stelde het dat deze moeten worden onderzocht in het kader van particuliere processen voor de arrondissementsrechtbank. De depositohouders gaven te kennen dat ze met hun zaak ook zouden gaan naar het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens en het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (64). Indien een rechtbank de twee besluiten van de centrale bank van Cyprus van 29 maart 2013 (65) onwettig acht, dan komt het idee van een bail-in als afwikkelingsinstrument, zoals vervat in het huidige voorstel voor het herstel en de afwikkeling van kredietinstellingen en beleggingsondernemingen, politiek op losse schroeven te staan.

Gezien het bovenstaande:

Heeft de Commissie een behoorlijke effectbeoordeling van haar voorstel uitgevoerd?

Zo ja, hoe beoordeelt zij de mogelijke gevolgen voor het fundamentele recht op eigendom, dat wordt gewaarborgd door artikel 17 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie en artikel 1 van het Protocol bij het Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden?

Gelet op de klachten van belanghebbenden en burgers, acht de Commissie het passend om een nieuwe, juistere effectbeoordeling uit te voeren?

Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie

(27 augustus 2013)

De Commissie heeft met betrekking tot het op 6 juni 2012 gepubliceerde voorstel voor een richtlijn inzake het herstel en de afwikkeling van kredietinstellingen en beleggingsondernemingen een grondige effectbeoordeling verricht. De volledig tekst van de effectbeoordeling is geregistreerd als document SWD(2012)166 final en is op de website van de Commissie beschikbaar op het volgende adres:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/crisis-management/2012_eu_framework/impact_assessment_final_en.pdf

Bij de voorbereiding van het voorstel heeft de Commissie zorgvuldig de implicatie van het bail-ininstrument ten aanzien van de bescherming van de mensenrechten geanalyseerd. Meer bepaald wordt de beperking van de eigendomsrechten als gevolg van het bail-ininstrument op grond van de relevante mensenrechtenregels, als door het Hof van Justitie geïnterpreteerd, gerechtvaardigd door het feit dat tot afwikkeling wordt overgegaan wanneer de instelling niet langer levensvatbaar is of waarschijnlijk niet langer levensvatbaar is. In die omstandigheden zou, als niet tot afwikkeling zou worden overgegaan, de instelling insolvent worden. Voorts worden crediteuren die het voorwerp van een bail-in zijn, beschermd door het beginsel dat „geen crediteur slechter af mag zijn”. Het beginsel wordt weergegeven in artikel 29, lid 1, onder f), van het voorstel dat bepaalt: „geen enkele crediteur lijdt grotere verliezen dan hij zou hebben geleden indien de in artikel 2 bedoelde entiteit volgens een normale insolventieprocedure zou zijn geliquideerd”.

Bovendien wordt, in de context van de aan de gang zijnde wetgevingsonderhandelingen betreffende het voorstel, in overweging genomen in een bevoorrechte rang voor depositohouders te voorzien, ook boven de 100.000 EUR. Een en ander zou garanderen dat deposito's pas na alle ongedekte niet-bevoorrechte passiva het voorwerp van bail-in kunnen zijn.

De Commissie denkt niet dat in dit stadium een verdere effectbeoordeling nodig is.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007045/13

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Legal action taken by uninsured depositors in Cyprus

More than 3 000 appeals against the bail-in have been lodged with the Supreme Court of Cyprus by uninsured depositors whose assets had been frozen. The applicants and their lawyers referred to the bail-in as ‘theft of property’ (66). Although on 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court ruled it had no jurisdiction over these appeals, it stated that they should be examined as part of private lawsuits filed at district courts. Depositors stated that they would also take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice (67). Should a court deem the two decrees issued on March 29 2013 by the Central Bank of Cyprus (68) unlawful, the very idea of the bail-in as a resolution tool, put forward in the current proposal on the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, will politically fall apart.

In the light of this:

Has the Commission properly conducted an impact assessment in relation to its proposal?

If so, how has the Commission evaluated the potential consequences for the fundamental right to property, which is safeguarded by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

In the light of the complaints raised by stakeholders and citizens, does the Commission think it will be appropriate to conduct a new and more accurate impact assessment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2013)

The Commission has conducted a thorough impact assessment in relation to the proposal for a directive on the recovery and resolution of credit institutions released on 6 June 2012. The full text of the impact assessment is registered as document SWD(2012)166 final and is available on the Commission website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/crisis-management/2012_eu_framework/impact_assessment_final_en.pdf

In the preparation of the proposal, the Commission has carefully analysed the implication of the bail-in tool with regard to the protection of human rights. In particular, the limitation to property rights entailed by the bail-in tool is justified under the relevant human rights rules as interpreted by the Court of Justice by the fact that the point of entry into resolution is reached when that the institution is no longer viable or is likely to be no longer viable. In these circumstances, if no resolution action was taken, the institution would have entered into insolvency. Furthermore, bailed-in creditors are protected by the ‘no creditor worse off’ principle. This principle is reproduced under Article 29 (1) f of the proposal whereby ‘no creditor incurs greater losses than would be incurred if the institution had been wound down under normal insolvency proceedings’.

In addition, in the context of the ongoing legislative negotiations of the proposal a privileged ranking for depositors, including above EUR 100.000 is being considered. It would ensure that deposits are bailed-in only after all unsecured non-preferred liabilities.

The Commission does not think that a further impact assessment is needed at this stage.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007046/13

til Kommissionen

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) og Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17. juni 2013)

Om: Udbredelsen af MDR-TB i Europa

Næsten en fjerdedel af alle tilfælde af multiresistent tuberkuse (MDR-TB) i verden optræder i WHO's europæiske region, hvilket udgør en trussel for såvel borgernes sundhed som Europas økonomi. Mens det koster ca. 1 000 EUR at behandle et normalt TB-tilfælde, kan prisen for behandling af MDR-TB komme helt op på 50 000 EUR.

1.

Hvis tuberkulose (TB) og især multiresistent TB fortsætter med at spredes, hvor mange EU-borgere vil så være blevet ramt af TB om ti år?

2.

Eftersom Kommissionen hovedsagelig støtter kampen imod TB gennem bidrag til den globale fond (GFATM), og siden GFATM er ved at rykke sine aktiviteter uden for europæisk område, hvordan agter Kommissionen så at imødegå den voksende MDR-TB-epidemi i Europa?

3.

Hvilke foranstaltninger ville efter Kommissionens mening være mest effektive til at bekæmpe udbredelsen af MDR-TB?

4.

Hvor stor en procentdel af sundhedsudgifterne går til at behandle MDR-TB, og hvor meget går til at forebygge sygdommen i de EU-medlemstater, der er hårdest ramt af MDR-TB? Hvordan kan vi sikre, at de 5 lande, der har de største vanskeligheder i EU, bekæmper epidemien tilstrækkelig effektivt? Hvordan kan EU støtte disse 5 hårdt belastede EU-lande ved hjælp af de eksisterende finansielle instrumenter?

5.

Hvor store EU-midler bruges i øjeblikket til forskning i behandling, undersøgelse og forebyggelse af MDR-TB?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg

(2. august 2013)

1.

Tuberkulose (TB) påvirkes af migration og økonomi samt af, hvor velfungerende sundhedssystemerne er. Indvirkningen af alle faktorerne er vanskelig at forudse, da disse kan ændre sig betydeligt i de kommende 10 år.

2.

De nationale regeringer har kompetencen vedrørende organiseringen af sundhedstjenesterne, herunder retningslinjerne for tiltag til bekæmpelse af TB. EU's struktur‐ og regionalfonde, førtiltrædelsesinstrumentet og det europæiske naboskabsinstrument kan alle bruges til at bekæmpe multiresistent TB (MDR-TB), hvis dette er prioriteret af modtagerlandene. Andre finansieringsmuligheder tilbydes af sundhedsprogrammet, det syvende rammeprogram for forskning og teknologisk udvikling (RP7), herunder mulig støtte, der er til rådighed fra Det Europæiske Center for Forebyggelse af og Kontrol med Sygdomme, fra Verdenssundhedsorganisationen og Stop-TB-partnerskabet, der lægger stor vægt på behovet for at fokusere på marginaliserede befolkningsgrupper.

3.

Til at bekæmpe spredningen af TB er det afgørende at styrke sundhedssystemerne, så alle TB-patienter i EU får en ordentlig behandling, og at tage fat på de sårbare dele af samfundet, der er mest berørt.

4.

Det budget, der er til rådighed til forebyggelse og behandling af TB, er et spørgsmål om prioritering på nationalt plan samt om valg af det bedst egnede finansielle instrument.

5.

Forskning i TB har været et af de prioriterede områder i RP7. 49 projekter er blevet finansieret med mere end 108 mio. EUR gennem EU's bidrag. MDR og XDR TB er ligeledes blevet behandlet specifikt, herunder gennem projektet om det

»Pan-European network for the study and clinical management of drug resistant tuberculosis« (paneuropæisk netværk til undersøgelse og klinisk håndtering af medicinresistent tuberkulose) (11 mio. EUR) og projektet om »Development of a two-approach plate system for the fast and simultaneous detection of MDR and XDR M. tuberculosis« (udvikling af to-tilgangs pladesystemet til hurtig og samtidig påvisning af MDR og XDR M. tuberkulose) (2,7 mio. EUR).

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-007046/13

adresată Comisiei

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) şi Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 iunie 2013)

Subiect: Răspândirea tuberculozei rezistente la medicamente (TB-RM)

Aproape un sfert din cazurile de tuberculoză rezistentă la medicamente (TB-RM) sunt înregistrate în zona europeană a OMS, amenințând sănătatea cetățenilor și a economiilor Europei. Dacă tratarea unui caz de TB normală costă în jur de 1 000 de euro, tratarea unui caz de TB-RM se poate ridica până la 50 000 de euro.

1.

Câți cetățeni europeni vor fi afectați de TB în 10 ani, dacă continuă rata îmbolnăvirilor de TB, mai ales de TB-RM?

2.

În condițiile în care Comisia Europeană sprijină combaterea TB mai ales prin contribuții la Fondul global de luptă împotriva HIV/SIDA, tuberculozei și malariei (FGSTM), dar FGSTM este într-un proces de transfer din Europa spre alte regiuni, cum intenționează Comisia să abordeze epidemia din ce în ce mai mare de TB-RM în Europa?

3.

În opinia Comisiei, care ar fi cea mai eficientă măsură de combatere a răspândirii TB-RM?

4.

În statele membre ale UE cel mai grav afectate de TB-RM, câte procente din cheltuielile de sănătate sunt alocate tratării TB-RM și câte pentru prevenire? Cum putem să ne asigurăm ce cele cinci țări din UE cel mai afectate combat epidemia în mod adecvat? Cum sprijină UE aceste țări prin intermediul instrumentelor financiare?

5.

Câte fonduri UE sunt folosite în prezent pentru cercetarea modalităților de tratare, testare și prevenire a TB-RM?

Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei

(2 august 2013)

1.

Tuberculoza (TB) este influențată de migrație, de situația economică și de funcționarea sistemelor de sănătate. Influența tuturor factorilor este greu de anticipat, deoarece aceștia s-ar putea schimba considerabil în următorii 10 ani.

2.

Organizarea serviciilor de sănătate, incluzând gestionarea intervențiilor de combatere a TB, ține de competența guvernelor naționale. Atât fondurile structurale și regionale ale UE, cât și instrumentele de preaderare și instrumentele europene de vecinătate ar putea fi utilizate pentru combaterea tuberculozei multirezistente la medicamente (MDR-TB) dacă țările beneficiare acordă prioritate acestui lucru. Alte posibilități de finanțare sunt oferite de Programul în domeniul sănătății și de Al șaptelea program-cadru pentru activități de cercetare și de dezvoltare tehnologică (PC7), incluzând posibila acordare de sprijin din partea Centrului European de Prevenire și Control al Bolilor, a Organizației Mondiale a Sănătății și a Parteneriatului Stop TB, care pun un mare accent pe necesitatea de a viza populațiile marginalizate.

3.

Pentru a combate răspândirea tuberculozei este esențial, pe de-o parte, să se consolideze sistemele de sănătate, astfel încât toți pacienții bolnavi de tuberculoză din UE să beneficieze de un tratament corespunzător și, pe de altă parte, să se vizeze acele sectoare vulnerabile ale societății care sunt cele mai afectate.

4.

Bugetul disponibil pentru prevenirea și tratarea tuberculozei este o chestiune care depinde de stabilirea priorităților la nivel național, precum și de alegerea celui mai adecvat instrument financiar.

5.

Cercetarea în domeniul tuberculozei este unul dintre domeniile prioritare ale PC7. 49 de proiecte sunt finanțate, UE contribuind cu peste 108 milioane EUR. Tuberculoza multirezistentă la medicamente (MDR-TB) și tuberculoza extensiv rezistentă la medicamente (XDR-TB) au fost, de asemenea, abordate în mod specific, inclusiv prin proiectul

„Pan-European network for the study and clinical management of drug resistant tuberculosis” („Rețeaua paneuropeană pentru studiul și gestionarea clinică a tuberculozei rezistente la medicamente”, proiect în valoare de 11 milioane EUR) și prin proiectul „Development of a two-approach plate system for the fast and simultaneous detection of MDR and XDR M. tuberculosis” („Dezvoltarea unui sistem pe bază de plăci, cu abordare dublă, pentru detectarea rapidă și simultană a Mycobacterium tuberculosis MDR și XDR”, proiect în valoare de 2,7 milioane EUR).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007046/13

to the Commission

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) and Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Spread of MDR-TB in Europe

Nearly a quarter of the world’s cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis occur in the WHO European Region, posing a threat to both the health of the citizens and the economies of Europe. Where the cost of treating a normal case of TB is around EUR 1 000, the price of treating MDR-TB can be EUR 50 000.

1.

If tuberculosis (TB), and especially multi-drug-resistant TB, continue to spread, how many EU citizens will be affected by TB in 10 years’ time?

2.

Since the European Commission is supporting the fight against TB mainly by contributing to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), but the GFATM is currently transitioning out of the European region, how does the Commission plan to address the growing MDR-TB epidemic in Europe?

3.

What, in the Commission’s opinion, would be the most effective measures to combat the spread of MDR-TB?

4.

In the EU Member States that are hardest hit by MDR-TB, how high a percentage of healthcare expenditure is going towards treating MDR-TB, and what proportion towards preventing it? How can we ensure that the five high burden countries in the EU fight the epidemic adequately ? How can the EU support the five EU high burden countries using existing financial instruments?

5.

How many EU funds are currently being used for research into treating, testing and preventing MDR-TB?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2013)

1.

Tuberculosis (TB) is influenced by migration, economy, and functioning of healthcare systems. The influence of all factors is difficult to forecast since these might change considerably in the coming 10 years.

2.

The health services' organisation is competence of national governments including leadership for interventions to fight TB. EU's structural and regional funds, pre-accession and European neighbourhood instruments could all be used to fight multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB) if this is prioritised by the recipient countries. Other funding opportunities are offered by the Health Programme, the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7), including possible support available from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, from World Health Organisation and the Stop-TB partnership, which put great emphasis on the need to focus on marginalised populations.

3.

To combat the spread of TB it is crucial to reinforce the health systems so that all TB patients in the EU receive adequate treatment, and address those vulnerable sectors of society which are the most affected.

4.

The budget available to prevent and treat TB is matter of setting priorities at national level as well as the choice of the most appropriate financial instrument.

5.

Research on TB has been one of the priority areas of FP7. 49 projects have been funded with EU contribution for more than EUR 108 million. MDR and XDR TB have also been addressed specifically, including the

‘Pan-European network for the study and clinical management of drug resistant tuberculosis’ project (EUR11 million) and the ‘Development of a two-approach plate system for the fast and simultaneous detection of MDR and XDR M. tuberculosis’ project (EUR 2.7 million).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007047/13

alla Commissione

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(17 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Promozione dell'imprenditorialità attraverso l'istruzione

L'imprenditorialità è alla base dell'economia e promuove il dinamismo economico, la crescita e la creazione di posti di lavoro. Per questo motivo, l'Unione europea si trova di fronte alla sfida di proseguire nella promozione dei fattori necessari alla creazione di un ambiente in cui l'iniziativa imprenditoriale e le attività commerciali possano prosperare. Poiché il modo di pensare e la comprensione sociale si formano in giovane età, l'istruzione può svolgere un ruolo importante nell'affrontare con successo la sfida imprenditoriale.

La ricerca ha dimostrato l'esistenza di una correlazione positiva tra la presenza di start-up, da un lato, e la competitività economica e la crescita, dall'altro. Tuttavia, i benefici dell'educazione all'imprenditorialità non sono solo di carattere economico. L'imprenditorialità è una competenza utile nella vita quotidiana, a livello sia personale che sociale. Rappresenta altresì una soluzione al problema della disoccupazione giovanile (al 23 % in Europa).

L'Unione europea offre molte opportunità attraverso fondi e programmi, come ad esempio l'Erasmus giovani imprenditori, tuttavia non sensibilizza in modo sufficiente all'imprenditorialità e non incoraggia abbastanza i giovani a sviluppare questa competenza. È per questo che è necessario promuovere e incoraggiare l'imprenditorialità negli istituti di istruzione, nonché fornire maggiori offerte formative ai giovani, agli insegnanti e ai docenti.

Nel 2012 la Commissione ha condotto un'indagine dal titolo «Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond» (L'imprenditorialità nell'UE e oltre). Dai risultati è emerso che meno di un quarto (il 23 %) degli intervistati nell'Unione ha partecipato a corsi o attività relativi all'imprenditorialità. Tra i giovani europei si riscontra una mancanza di fiducia e spirito imprenditoriale.

In considerazione di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Dati i vantaggi sociali ed economici apportati dall'imprenditorialità, vi è margine per una maggiore promozione nelle scuole e nelle università?

Potrebbe la Commissione considerare la possibilità di elaborare un quadro specifico per una simile iniziativa?

Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione

(14 agosto 2013)

La Commissione è impegnata, in stretta collaborazione con le autorità nazionali e le altre parti interessate, nella promozione dell'educazione all'imprenditorialità. Con la comunicazione «Ripensare l'istruzione» e il «piano d'azione imprenditorialità 2020» la Commissione ha presentato un quadro politico coerente per l'educazione all'imprenditorialità, proponendo interventi a livello di UE e di Stati membri. La Commissioneinvitagli Stati membri a garantire a tutti i giovani la possibilità di compiere almeno un'esperienza imprenditoriale concreta nel ciclo dell'istruzione obbligatoria poiché è prioritario fare di questo tipo di insegnamento un elemento essenziale dei nostri sistemi di istruzione. In questo campo i paesi possono avere accesso a ulteriori risorse attraverso Erasmus + e i fondi strutturali e di investimento.

Recentemente le attività della Commissione si sono concentrate anche sulla formazione degli insegnanti, visto il loro ruolo essenziale ai fini dell'introduzione dell'educazione all'imprenditorialità nelle scuole. Per favorire uno scambio sui metodi più validi e promuoverne la diffusione, si sono tenuti nel 2012 due workshop europei, cui ha fatto seguito la pubblicazione nel 2013 di una guida riservata agli educatori. Sette progetti europei riguardanti temi chiave, quali la formazione degli insegnanti, una piattaforma on line per gli educatori e nuovi metodi per la valutazione delle competenze imprenditoriali, sono stati al centro di un invito a presentare proposte pubblicato nel 2012. Infine nel novembre del 2013 verranno pubblicati orientamenti politici cui seguirà la messa a punto di strumenti e quadri a sostegno di una maggiore promozione di tali competenze a beneficio dei discenti in tutta Europa.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007047/13

to the Commission

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Promotion of entrepreneurship through education

Entrepreneurship is at the heart of the economy and fosters economic dynamism, growth and job creation. This is why the challenge for the European Union (EU) is to continue promoting the key factors for building a climate in which entrepreneurial initiative and business activities can thrive. As attitudes and social understanding take shape at an early age, education can play a major part in successfully addressing the entrepreneurial challenge.

Research has proved the existence of a positive correlation between business start-ups and economic competitiveness and growth. However, the benefits of entrepreneurship education are not only economic. Entrepreneurship is a skill that is useful in both personal and social aspects of everyday life. It also presents itself as a solution to youth unemployment (23% in Europe).

The EU offers many opportunities in the form of funds and programmes, such as Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs. However, it does not raise enough awareness of entrepreneurship and does not sufficiently encourage young people to develop this skill. This is why there is a need to promote and encourage entrepreneurship in educational institutions, and why more training should be offered to students as well as to teachers and professors.

In 2012 a survey called ‘Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond’ was conducted by the Commission. The results showed that just under a quarter (23%) of EU respondents have ever taken part in any course or activity about entrepreneurship. There is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit and confidence among the young people of Europe.

In light of the above, could the Commission answer to the following questions:

Given the social and economic benefits of entrepreneurship, is there scope for greater promotion in schools and universities?

Would the Commission consider developing a specific framework for this initiative?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2013)

The Commission is working in close cooperation with national authorities and other relevant stakeholders to promote education for entrepreneurship. The Commission presented a coherent policy framework for entrepreneurship education with ‘Rethinking Education’ and the ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ proposing actions at EU and Member State level. The Commissioncalls onMember States to give all young people the chance of at least one practical entrepreneurial experience during compulsory education since the priority is to make this type of learning a basic feature in our education systems. Sources such as Erasmus+ and Structural and Investment Funds offer countries a route to additional resources for this work.

The Commission's activities have also recently focused on training teachers, as they have a key role in bringing entrepreneurship education into the classroom. Two European workshops in 2012 aimed to share and disseminate successful methods, followed up with the publication of a guide for educators in 2013. A 2012 call for proposals sees seven European projects addressing key issues such as training teachers, online platform for educators and new methods to assess entrepreneurial skills. Further to this, policy guidance will be published in November 2013 followed by development of tools and frameworks to support greater promotion of these skills for learners across Europe.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007048/13

to the Commission

Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Charges for mobile phone calls

Can the Commission outline the action it will be taking to narrow the gap between Irish consumers and consumers in the rest of the EU in relation to charges for making calls on mobile phones?

At present, Ireland is the fifth most expensive country in the EU as regards charges for mobile phone calls, which cost 36% more than the EU average.

Can the Commission explain why there remains such a disparity between some Member States in relation to charges for making calls on mobile phones?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2013)

Domestic mobile call charges fall under the supervision of the National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NRA) in each country (69). The EU rules provide NRAs with tools to act in relation to any competition problems that exist within their national markets and to impose remedies on operators when appropriate. The Irish mobile market offers its customers a variety of services and tariffs, both as a stand alone or in bundles that allow consumers to choose services that best corresponds to their needs. The latest available data suggest that Irish consumers pay prices that are close to the EU's average (70).

The Commission has addressed an important issue which contributes substantially to end-user prices, namely the rates operators charge to each other when terminating calls on their respective networks. The Commission adopted in May 2009 a recommendation (71) which includes guidance for NRAs to set these termination charges at the level which corresponds to the efficient costs. Application of cost-oriented termination charges will lower the wholesale costs for domestic calls, which in a competitive market should also lead to lower retail prices.

Despite the tools available under the current regulatory framework it is true that disparities between Member States exist, which should not be present in a fully functioning single market. The 2013 Spring European Council stressed the importance of the digital single market for growth and called for concrete measures be prepared in time for the October European Council. The Commission is currently working on a legislative measure which should allow operators to provide digital services across the EU and allow citizens and businesses to enjoy such services from anywhere in Europe.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007049/13

to the Commission

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Wave defences and coastal erosion

In Renvyle, Co. Galway, Ireland, wave defences have been severely damaged by recent bad weather. Any further damage threatens to cause the seawater to contaminate a small freshwater lake. The lake is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), because of a rare strain of weed which is growing in it.

Could the Commission outline what support or funding, if any, are available to tackle coastal erosion where it threatens Special Areas of Conservation?

Is there funding available for the construction of wave defences?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

The regulatory framework governing 2007-2013 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) projects includes environmental and risk protection as a potential investment area. The regional ERDF programme for the Border, Midland and Western (BMW) region (in which Galway is situated) thus contains an investment priority dealing with environment and risk protection. The corresponding funding allocation supports investments in the fields of water source protection (drinking water) and promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The construction of flood and/or coastal erosion defences is not, however, an investment activity foreseen under the BMW programme.

The regulatory framework governing the 2007-2013 European Fisheries Fund operations provides no scope for the construction of flood and/or coastal erosion defences.

There may be scope under priority 3 (quality of life and diversification) of Ireland's Rural Development Programme for 2007-13 to support coastal communities in the protection and restoration of local areas of natural and/or environmental importance. Enquiries may be addressed to the following department: Rural Development II, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Teeling Street, Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo, telephone (07191) 86700.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E/5490/08.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007050/13

til Kommissionen

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17. juni 2013)

Om: Forskellige definitioner af sjældne sygdomme

Prævalens i definitionen af sjældne sygdomme har konsekvent været anvendt i EU's lovgivning og politik om sjældne sygdomme. Rådets henstilling fra 2009 om et tiltag vedrørende sjældne sygdomme henviser til både EF-handlingsprogrammet vedrørende sjældne sygdomme og forordning (EF) nr. 141/2000 med hensyn til prævalens i definitionen af sjældne sygdomme som en lidelse, »der berører højst fem ud 10 000 personer i Fællesskabet«.

Til trods for dette tal har lande som f.eks. Danmark, Sverige og Det Forenede Kongerige defineret sjældne sygdomme som sygdomme med en anden prævalens. Dette er ikke kun i modstrid med EU's regelsæt, men denne udvikling kan være til skade for patienterne, idet det kan føre til en forskelsbehandling mellem de mere almindelige sjældne sygdomme og andre sjældne sygdomme, når lovgivningen og politikken for sjældne sygdomme anvendes på nationalt plan. Det kan desuden føre til problemer, hvis en EU-borger med en sjælden sygdom flytter fra en EU-medlemsstat, som anvender EU-prævalensen, til en medlemsstat, som ikke anvender den.

Kommissionen anmodes i denne forbindelse om at besvare følgende spørgsmål:

Mener Kommissionen, at der burde være overensstemmelse i definitionen af sjældne sygdomme i hele Europa?

Vil Kommissionen i sin vurderingsrapport efter gennemførelsen af de nationale planer for sjældne sygdomme se på, hvordan sjældne sygdomme defineres i de nationale planer i hele Europa?

Hvilke konsekvenser har medlemsstaternes forskellige definitioner af sjældne sygdomme for EU's lovgivning som f.eks. forordning (EF) nr. 141/2000 om lægemidler til sjældne sygdomme?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg

(25. juli 2013)

Kommissionen fremmer en konsekvent definition af sjældne sygdomme i alle sine politikker. Samtidig fremgår det af traktatens artikel 168, at Unionens indsats på folkesundhedsområdet respekterer medlemsstaternes ansvar for organisation og levering af sundhedstjenesteydelser og behandling på sundhedsområdet. Dette omfatter definitionen af sjældne sygdomme.

I Rådets henstilling (72) af 8. juni 2009 om et tiltag vedrørende sjældne sygdomme henstilles det ikke desto mindre til medlemsstaterne, at de med henblik på policyarbejdet på fællesskabsplan anvender en fælles definition af sjældne sygdomme, som sygdomme, der højst rammer 5 ud af 10 000 personer.

I gennemførelsesrapporten om foranstaltninger i forbindelse med Kommissionens meddelelse om sjældne sygdomme: en udfordring for Europa og om ovennævnte henstilling fra Rådet planlægger Kommissionen at aflægge beretning om, hvordan medlemsstaterne anvender definitionen af sjældne sygdomme i forbindelse med politik på EU-plan.

Terminologi på medlemsstatsplan har ingen indvirkning på, hvordan forordning (EF) nr. 141/2000 fungerer, da dens anvendelsesområde og dens anvendelse er baseret på definitionen af lægemidler til sjældne sygdomme i forordningen selv.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007050/13

to the Commission

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Different definitions of rare diseases

Prevalence in the definition of rare diseases has been consistently applied in EU rare disease legislation and policy. The Council Recommendation of 2009 on an action in the field of rare diseases refers to both the Community action programme on rare diseases and Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 with regard to prevalence in the definition of rare diseases as ‘affecting not more than 5 in 10 000 persons in the Community’.

Despite this figure, countries such as Denmark, Sweden and the UK have defined rare diseases as having a different prevalence. Not only is this contrary to the EU regulatory framework, but this development could be detrimental to patients, as it could result in discrimination between more common rare diseases and other rare diseases when rare disease legislation and policy are applied at national level. Furthermore, it could lead to problems if an EU citizen with a rare disease moves from an EU Member State that applies the EU prevalence to one that does not.

In connection with this, can the Commission please answer the following questions:

Does the Commission feel there should be consistency in the definition of rare diseases across Europe?

In its assessment report following the implementation of the national plans for rare diseases, will the Commission look at how rare diseases are defined in the national plans across Europe?

What implications do the Member States’ different definitions of rare diseases have for EU legislation, such as Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2013)

The Commission is promoting one consistent definition of rare diseases across all its policies. At the same time, according to Art. 168 of the Treaty, EU action in the field of public health shall respect the responsibilities of Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. This includes the definition of rare diseases.

Nevertheless, in the Council Recommendation (73) of 8 June 2009 on an action in the field of rare diseases,Member States have committed themselves to use, for the purposes of EU-level policy work, a common definition of rare disease as a disease affecting no more than 5 per 10 000 persons.

In the Implementation Report on action under the Commission Communication on Rare Diseases: Europe's challenges and on the Council recommendation mentioned above, the Commission is planning to report upon how Member States are using the definition of rare diseases for the purposes of EU-level policy.

Terminology used at Member State level has no impact on the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 as the scope of that instrument and its application are based on the definition of an orphan medicinal product as provided and specified in the regulation itself.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007051/13

til Kommissionen

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17. juni 2013)

Om: Vaccine imod tuberkulose

En af de voksende tursler mod folkesundheden i Europa er udbredelsen af tuberkulose, især de multiresistente former for tuberkulose. En del af problemet er behandling af mennesker, der er smittet med TB, en anden del består i manglen på tilstrækkelige foranstaltninger til at forhindre, at sygdommen breder sig.

Kommissionen anmodes i denne forbindelse om at besvare følgende:

Hvornår kan vi forvente at have en ny vaccine, der virker imod tuberkulose?

Tager Kommissionen initiativer, og yder den støtte (i givet fald hvilke initiativer og hvilken støtte) med henblik på at udvikle bedre forebyggende foranstaltninger imod tuberkulose, herunder nye vaccine(r)?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Máire Geoghegan-Quinn

(26. juli 2013)

Kommissionen er opmærksom på, at forebyggende foranstaltninger er vigtige for udryddelsen af tuberkulose (TB) som globalt sundhedsproblem. Siden 2000 har Kommissionen gennem sine rammeprogrammer for forskning, teknologisk udvikling og demonstration støttet forskningssamarbejdet vedrørende udviklingen af en tuberkulosevaccine med mere end 34 mio. EUR. FP6 (74) projektet TBVAC (75) har hjulpet fem potentielle vacciner videre til klinisk fase I-undersøgelser, mens det nuværende FP7 (76) projekt NEWTBVAC (77) fokuserer på opdagelse og præklinisk udvikling af en ny generation af potentielle TB-vacciner. Derudover har partnerskabet mellem de europæiske lande og udviklingslande vedrørende kliniske forsøg (EDCTP), som er Kommissionens og 16 europæiske landes fælles initiativ vedrørende klinisk forskning, støttet otte kliniske forsøg med TB-vacciner i det sydlige Sahara.

De mest avancerede potentielle TB-vacciner undergår p.t. klinisk fase II-undersøgelser, og det vil kræve væsentlige videnskabelige og finansielle ressourcer at udvikle dem til færdige vacciner. Det er en udfordring, men ifølge det mest optimistiske skøn vil det kunne resultere i lanceringen af en ny TB vaccine inden 2030.

Kommissionen støtter også forebyggelse mod TB i medlemsstaterne gennem sit sundhedsprogram (78) og målrettede initiativer, der koordineres i tæt samarbejde med Verdenssundhedsorganisationen og Det Europæiske Center for Forebyggelse af og Kontrol med Sygdomme. Den femte rapport »Tilsyn med og overvågning af tuberkulose i Europa 2013« (79) konsoliderer de resultater, der hidtil er nået.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007051/13

to the Commission

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Vaccine against tuberculosis

One of the growing public health threats in Europe is the spread of tuberculosis (TB), especially in its drug-resistant forms. While one part of the problem is the treatment of people infected with TB, another part is the lack of sufficient measures to prevent the spread of the disease.

In connection with this, can the Commission please answer the following:

When can we expect to see a new working vaccine against tuberculosis?

What, if any, initiatives and support does the Commission have with regard to developing better prevention measures against tuberculosis, including new vaccine(s)?

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

(26 July 2013)

The Commission is aware of the importance of preventive measures for eliminating tuberculosis (TB) as a global health problem. Since 2000, the Commission has supported collaborative research for TB vaccine development with more than EUR 34 million through its Framework Programmes (FPs) for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities. The FP6 (80) project TBVAC (81) has helped advance five TB vaccine candidates to phase I clinical trials, while the ongoing FP7 (82) project NEWTBVAC (83) is focusing on the discovery and preclinical development of a new generation of TB vaccine candidates. In addition to this, the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), a joint clinical research initiative between the Commission and 16 European countries, has supported eight clinical trials on TB vaccines in sub-Saharan Africa.

The most advanced TB vaccine candidates are currently in phase II clinical trials, and developing these into final products will require the mobilisation of significant scientific and financial resources. This is a challenging task but in the most optimistic scenario, it could result in the introduction of a new TB vaccine by 2030.

The Commission also supports the prevention of TB in Member States through its Health Programme (84) and through targeted initiatives coordinated in close contact with the World Health Organisation and with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The fifth report on ‘Tuberculosis surveillance and monitoring in Europe 2013’ (85) consolidates the achievements reached so far.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007052/13

til Kommissionen

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17. juni 2013)

Om: Forskellig ordlyd af forskellige sprogversioner af et direktiv

Det er vigtigt, at meningen med EU's lovgivning altid fremgår klart, uanset hvilket af de officielle sprog, den oversættes til. Der kan imidlertid altid ske fejl, og der sker fejl. I forbindelse med direktiv 93/42/EØF om medicinske anordninger er der således tilsyneladende sket en fejl. I bilag I til dette direktiv, »Væsentlige krav«, afsnit 13, »Fabrikantens oplysninger«, underafsnit 13.6 står der:

»Brugsanvisningen skal i givet fald omfatte følgende:

(q) udstedelsesdato eller dato for seneste revision af brugsanvisningen«

I de andre sprogversioner (såsom spansk, italiensk eller hollandsk) står der ikke »eller«; i stedet for står der, at brugsanvisningen skal indeholde:

»the date of publication of the latest version of the instructions for use« (»datoen for offentliggørelse af den seneste udgave af brugsanvisningen«) (på spansk: »fecha de publicación de la última revisión de las instrucciones de utilización«).

Kommissionen anmodes i denne forbindelse om at besvare følgende:

Er det virkelig tilstrækkeligt kun at anføre datoen for udstedelse i brugsanvisningen til en medicinsk anordning og ikke for »den seneste revision af brugsanvisningen«?

Hvad agter Kommissionen at gøre for at råde bod på denne uoverensstemmelse mellem de forskellige sprogudgaver?

Ved Kommissionen, om denne forskel i ordlyd har ført til, at medlemsstaterne gennemfører direktivet på forskellige måder?

Hvis borgere, organisationer eller virksomheder opdager en sådan uoverensstemmelse mellem de forskellige oversættelser, er der så en nem måde, hvorpå de kan indberette dette? Kan det så også sikres, at der foretages en rettelse, eller at der i det mindste offentliggøres en påmindelse, der forklarer forskellene og præciserer, hvilken fortolkning af teksten, der er den korrekte?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Neven Mimica

(6. august 2013)

Kommissionen anerkender fuldt ud betydningen af at sikre en sammenhængende oversættelse af retsakter til de forskellige officielle EU-sprog og anerkender den afvigelse, som det ærede medlem har stillet spørgsmål om, vedrørende oversættelsen af del 1 (væsentlige krav), afsnit 13.6, litra q), i bilag I til direktiv 93/42/EØF (86).

Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at denne afvigelse skyldes en skrivefejl, og at sætningen »… udstedelsesdato eller dato for den seneste revision af brugsanvisningen« skal læses som »… dato for offentliggørelse af den seneste udgave af brugsanvisningen«. Kommissionen er dog ikke bekendt med afvigende gennemførelse i medlemsstaterne af direktiv 93/42/EØF som følge af forskelle i oversættelsen af den pågældende sætning.

Det er vigtigt at bemærke, at direktiv 93/42/EØF blev vedtaget af Rådet, og at den pågældende bestemmelse i dette direktiv er blevet indsat ved direktiv 2007/47/EF, der blev vedtaget af Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet. I sådanne tilfælde ligger ansvaret for at rette eventuelle fejl i originalen og/eller oversættelser hos den eller de institutioner, der har vedtaget retsakten. Det er derfor op til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet at analysere sagen og beslutte, om en sprogudgave bør rettes.

Borgere, organisationer og virksomheder kan meddele fejl i retsakter gennem EUR-Lex‐ helpdesken (eurlex-helpdesk@publications.europa.eu). Læsernes anmodninger vil blive analyseret af Publikationskontoret og omdirigeret til de kompetente myndigheder eller institutioner, der skal behandle sådanne anmodninger og rette eventuelle fejl.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007052/13

to the Commission

Anna Rosbach (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Different wording in different language versions of a directive

It is important that the meaning of EU legislation should always be clear, regardless of which of the official languages it is translated into. However, mistakes can and do happen. One such case seems to be the Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC. In Annex 1 to this directive, Essential Requirements, Section 13, Information supplied by the manufacturer, subSection 13.6, it says:

‘Where appropriate, the instructions for use must contain the following particulars:

(q) date of issue or the latest revision of the instructions for use’.

However, in other language versions (such as Spanish, Italian and Dutch) there is no ‘or’; instead, it is stated that the instructions for use must contain:

‘the date of publication of the latest version of the instructions for use’ (in Spanish: ‘fecha de publicación de la última revisión de las instrucciones de utilización’).

In connection with this, can the Commission please answer the following:

Is it really sufficient to include only the date of issue in the instructions for use of a medical device, rather than the ‘latest revision of the instructions for use’?

What does the Commission intend to do about this discrepancy in meaning between the language versions?

Does the Commission know if this difference in wording has led to the Member States implementing the directive in different ways?

If citizens, organisations or companies discover such a discrepancy among translations, is there an easy way for them to report it? And can it then be ensured that a correction is made — or at least a memo published explaining the differences and stating which is the valid interpretation of the text?

Answer given by Mr Mimica on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2013)

The Commission fully recognises the importance of ensuring coherent translation of legal acts into the different official languages of the European Union and acknowledges the discrepancy raised by the Honourable Member regarding the translation of Part 1 (Essential Requirements), Section 13.6(q) of Annex I to Directive 93/42/EEC (87).

The Commission is of the opinion that this discrepancy is a typographical error and that the sentence ‘… date of issue or the latest revision of the instructions for use.’ should be read as ‘… date of issue of the latest revision of the instructions for use.’ The Commission is, however, not aware of any diverging implementation within the Member States of Directive 93/42/EEC due to discrepancies in the translations of the concerned sentence.

It is important to note that directive 93/42/EEC was adopted by the Council and that the relevant provision of this directive has been inserted by Directive 2007/47/EC which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. In such cases, the responsibility of correcting any errors in the original and/or in any translations lays on the institution(s) who adopted the legal act. Therefore, it is for the European Parliament and the Council to analyse the case and decide if any language version needs to be corrected.

Citizens, organisations and companies can notify errors in legal acts through Eur-Lex public helpdesk (eurlex-helpdesk@publications.europa.eu). Readers' requests will be analysed by the Publications Office and redirected to the responsible services or institutions that have to handle such requests and correct notified errors, if considered necessary.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007053/13

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Aid targets and corporate tax avoidance in the developing world

While the UK continues to honour its strong commitment to international aid, it is estimated that a total of some EUR 200 billion a year is lost in tax revenue to developing countries through tax avoidance by multinationals.

Does the Commission have its own estimates of the revenue that is currently lost to developing countries, and does it believe that it is appropriate for European taxpayers to effectively subsidise tax avoidance on this scale?

Does the Commission believe that there are steps that could be taken involving the World Bank to reduce this loss of revenue to the developing world, or is this a problem that can only be addressed through a UN‐ or G8-sponsored multilateral tax treaty?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2013)

Various estimates of the amount of tax revenues lost in developing countries exist and show substantial losses as the Honourable MEP rightly points out. These losses are difficult to estimate in a precise manner due to their nature. However, the Commission shares the view that they are very high.

For combating tax avoidance and tax havens, the Commission refers to its initiative of 6 December 2012: an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion (88) together with two recommendations on aggressive tax planning and regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters (89).

The 2010 Communication ‘Tax and Development’ (90) aims at improving synergies between tax and development policies by suggesting ways to help developing countries to build efficient, effective, fair and transparent tax systems to increase revenue mobilisation and tackle tax evasion and avoidance. The Commission worked with the UN to develop a Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries and is in a Tripartite Partnership with the World Bank and the OECD to strengthen countries’ capacities in auditing and monitoring transfer pricing transactions.

Furthermore, the Commission strongly supports international efforts to curb tax evasion and avoidance and welcomes the international prominence these issues are given in international fora, such as the G8, G20, UN and the OECD.

The EU also supports a large number ofcountry-specific projects, capacity building initiatives and other activities. For example in 2011/2012 in Ghana, we trained 20 tax specialists of the ‘large tax payers’ unit' to enable them to audit transfer pricing transactions.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007054/13

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Profit disclosure and tax avoidance proposals at Fermanagh

Tax avoidance by large corporations is now a major concern for governments around the world, and it is an issue that will feature prominently at the G8 summit that begins today in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland.

The Treasury ministers of Britain, France and Germany recently discussed the option of forcing banks operating within the EU to disclose their international profits.

Does the Commission support this initiative and, if so, does the Commission believe that such transparency should be restricted to banks or should it apply to all transnational corporations? Finally, what proposals on tax avoidance does the Commission intend to propose at the summit?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2013)

The Commission notes that the recently agreed Capital Requirements Directive (91) already foresees that banks shall disclose on a country-by country basis from 2015 onwards certain information, such as tax on profit or loss.

In addition, the Commission fully supports the European Council’s conclusions of 22 May 2013 as regards reporting by all large companies and groups on tax matters. To this end, the Commission will work closely together with the European Parliament and the Council to make sure that EU rules are adopted as quickly as possible in this area. In parallel, the Commission will continue to follow closely the international discussions on these issues in the G8, G20 and OECD.

The Commission's contribution concentrated on evasion rather than avoidance, notably the aim for automatic exchange of information between tax authorities to become the new global standard of cooperation in tax matters. The Commission has long advocated the use of automatic exchange of information as a tool to combat and prevent tax fraud and evasion and achieved tangible results on this within the EU. On 12 June 2013 the Commission adopted a further legislative proposal (92) to extend the scope of automatic exchange of information under the directive on Administrative Cooperation (93). New initiatives on automatic exchange of information which are ongoing at the international level could greatly benefit from EU achievements in this area.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007055/13

à la Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 juin 2013)

Objet: Exportations européennes de vin en Chine

Comme plusieurs études démontrent que les entreprises chinoises vendent leurs panneaux solaires sur le marché européen à un prix considérablement plus bas que les coûts de production (dumping), la Commission a décidé d'instaurer des taxes provisoires sur le solaire chinois.

Depuis le 6 juin 2013, les taxes appliquées aux panneaux solaires chinois s'élèvent à 11,8 % et passeront à 47,6 % en moyenne si la Commission européenne et Pékin ne parviennent pas à trouver un accord dans les deux mois à venir.

À la suite de cette décision, les autorités chinoises ont annoncé l'ouverture d'une enquête antidumping et antisubventions sur les vins importés de l'Union européenne.

Cette enquête, qui s'apparente à une mesure de représailles commerciales, fait porter une menace sérieuse sur les exportations de vins et spiritueux européens vers un marché en pleine croissance. La Chine représente en effet près de 12 % des exportations de vins de l'Union européenne, soit 546 000 000 d'euros pour la France, 89 000 000 d'euros pour l'Espagne et 77 000 000 d'euros pour l'Italie.

D'éventuelles mesures antidumping ne feraient qu'accroître les charges qui pèsent déjà sur les exportations de vins européens en Chine et qui sont aujourd'hui considérables (majoration du prix à l'importation estimée entre 75 % et 200 %).

1.

Alors que la Commission a réagi en garantissant

«qu'il n'y a pas de dumping ou de subventions sur les exportations de vins européens vers la Chine», comment entend-elle répondre à cette enquête?

2.

Sur quels types de vins et sur quels pays producteurs l'enquête porte-t-elle?

3.

La Commission envisage-t-elle de déposer un recours devant l'OMC?

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

(20 août 2013)

La Commission se permet de renvoyer l'Honorable Parlementaire à sa réponse à la question écrite n° E-005790/2013 (94).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007055/13

to the Commission

Dominique Vlasto (PPE)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: European wine exports to China

In response to several studies which show that Chinese firms are ‘dumping’ their solar panels on the European market, i.e. selling them at a price far below their production cost, the Commission decided to impose temporary anti-dumping duties on these products.

As of 6 June 2013, tariffs of 11.8% have been levied on Chinese solar panels; this figure will rise to an average of 47.6% if the Commission and Beijing fail to reach an agreement within the next two months.

The Chinese authorities have responded by announcing the launch of an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy probe into wine imports from the European Union.

This probe, which seems to be some kind of retaliatory measure, may seriously jeopardise EU wine and spirit exports to a fast-growing market. In 2012, almost 12% of the EU’s wine exports went to China, equating to sales worth EUR 546 million for France, EUR 89 million for Spain and EUR 77 million for Italy.

Any anti-dumping measures will only serve to make EU wines exported to China, which are already marked up by between 75% and 200% by importers, even more expensive.

1.

Although the Commission has already made it clear that there is no dumping or subsidising of European wine exports to China, how does it intend to respond to this anti-dumping probe?

2.

Which kinds of wine and which wine-producing countries does the probe cover?

3.

Does the Commission intend to lodge an appeal with the WTO?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to previous Written Question E-005790/2013 (95).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007056/13

à la Commission

Frédéric Daerden (S&D)

(17 juin 2013)

Objet: Dumping social entre États membres au préjudice des travailleurs

Dans ma question écrite P-003479/2013, j'avais particulièrement insisté pour que la Commission dispose de moyens pour mettre fin au dumping social et sanctionner l'exploitation honteuse des conditions de travail et de rémunération des travailleurs détachés à l'intérieur de l'Union.

La Commission ne précise nullement de façon concrète dans sa réponse quels seront ses moyens d'intervention et de sanction en cas d'abus avérés.

D'autre part, quand la Commission affirme que «la proposition de la Commission garantit que les travailleurs détachés sont rémunérés à hauteur du travail fourni» ou «met un terme à la concurrence déloyale des salaires», elle ne précise nullement de quelle manière.

Par conséquent, la Commission peut-elle indiquer concrètement, au‐delà de la proposition de directive (COM(2012)131 final) relative à l'exécution de la directive 96/71/CE, en cours d'examen, de quels moyens d'investigation elle disposera et quelles seront les sanctions imposées pour mettre fin rapidement à ces abus, autrement que par des déclarations incantatoires?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(31 juillet 2013)

Le suivi et le contrôle de l'application des conditions de travail et d'emploi ainsi que la rémunération effective des travailleurs, y compris des travailleurs détachés, relèvent de la compétence des États membres, qui disposent d'organismes spécialisés tels que les services de l'inspection du travail pour procéder aux vérifications et déterminer les mesures correctrices qui s'imposent.

Dans sa question, l'Honorable Parlementaire ne fournit pas d'éléments de preuve concrets, ni d'exemple d'une «pratique déloyale» dans le domaine du détachement de travailleurs. S'en tenant au contexte global de la question, la Commission réaffirme que, en tant que gardienne des traités, elle veille à la bonne application de la législation de l'Union européenne dans les États membres. Lorsque la Commission prend connaissance de pratiques qualifiées de déloyales ou d'abusives, elle doit tout d'abord tirer entièrement au clair les faits afin d'être en mesure d'évaluer si les allégations de pratiques de dumping social constituent une violation des règles applicables de l'Union. S'il apparaît qu'un État membre n'a pas transposé correctement la législation de l'UE, ne l'a pas transposée du tout, ou applique de façon erronée certaines règles transposées, une procédure d'infraction est engagée, pour contraindre l'État membre concerné à modifier sa législation ou la manière dont il l'applique.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007056/13

to the Commission

Frédéric Daerden (S&D)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Social dumping within the EU at the expense of workers

In my Written Question P-003479/2013, I placed particular emphasis on the need for the Commission to be equipped with the resources required to put an end to social dumping and to penalise deplorable working conditions and unfair wages for workers posted within the EU.

In its reply, the Commission gives no clear indication of what preventive or punitive measures it would take in cases involving the proven exploitation of workers.

What is more, when the Commission says its proposal ‘should ensure that posted workers are paid for the work they do’ and should aim to ‘stop unfair wage competition’, it gives no indication as to how this might be done.

Could the Commission therefore explain, in detail and without resorting to the usual tired mantras, and setting aside its proposal for a directive (COM(2012) 131 final) on the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC, which is currently under consideration, what investigative measures it will take and what penalties it will impose in order to put a swift end to these unfair practices?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

The monitoring and enforcement of the working and employment conditions and the actual remuneration of workers, including posted workers, fall within the competence of the Member States, which have specialized bodies such as labour inspectorates to make such verifications and determine the appropriate corrective measures.

In his question the Honourable member does not indicate any factual evidence or describe any example of an ‘unfair practice’ related to the posting of workers. Keeping with the general terms of the question, the Commission restates that, as guardian of the Treaties, it monitors the correct application of EC law in the Member States. When the Commission becomes aware of alleged abusive or unfair practices, it first has to make a thorough clarification of the factual circumstances in order to be able to assess whether or not the allegations of social dumping practices constitute a breach of the applicable Union rules. If it becomes apparent that a Member State has not transposed EU legislation correctly, has failed to transpose it at all, or is applying transposed rules incorrectly, infringement proceedings are instituted to compel the Member State concerned to amend its legislation or the way in which it is applied.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007057/13

do Komisji

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR) oraz Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)

(17 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Realizacja inwestycji przeciwpowodziowych w Polsce

W związku z pojawiającymi się informacjami o niedopełnieniu przez polski rząd obowiązków wynikających z Ramowej Dyrektywy Wodnej w zakresie zintegrowanego podejścia do zarządzania wodami prosimy o odpowiedzi na następujące pytania:

Jaka dokładnie kwota może zostać Polsce odebrana? Jak realnym jest zagrożenie utraty ponad 2 mld zł na ten cel?

Czy możliwa jest utrata środków z nowej perspektywy budżetowej 2014-2020?

Do kiedy Polska musi wprowadzić jednolity plan gospodarowania wodami w dorzeczach w Polsce, aby móc skorzystać ze środków z Programu Operacyjnego Infrastruktura i Środowisko?

Czy Komisja widzi szansę na wdrożenie takiego planu w odpowiednim czasie? Czy polski rząd podjął odpowiednie starania w tym zakresie?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji

(8 sierpnia 2013 r.)

1.

Dyskusje pomiędzy Komisją a władzami polskimi w sprawie właściwego wdrożenia ramowej dyrektywy wodnej trwają od 2011 r. Komisja wydała kilka zaleceń mających na celu zagwarantowanie, że infrastruktura przeciwpowodziowa otrzymująca wsparcie UE nie narusza przepisów ramowej dyrektywy wodnej. Nigdy nie rozważano cofnięcia dotąd niewykorzystanych funduszy UE w tym sektorze. Wszystkie wysiłki koncentrują się obecnie na zapewnieniu, aby przydzielone środki były wydawane zgodnie z przepisami UE.

2.

Ramy prawne dotyczące europejskich funduszy strukturalnych i inwestycyjnych na lata 2014-2020 są nadal przedmiotem dyskusji z Radą i Parlamentem, dlatego nie można udzielić ostatecznej odpowiedzi w tej kwestii. Wniosek Komisji zawiera jednak

2.

Ramy prawne dotyczące europejskich funduszy strukturalnych i inwestycyjnych na lata 2014-2020 są nadal przedmiotem dyskusji z Radą i Parlamentem, dlatego nie można udzielić ostatecznej odpowiedzi w tej kwestii. Wniosek Komisji zawiera jednak

ex ante  (96)

3.

Polska nie musi wprowadzić jednolitego planu gospodarowania wodami w dorzeczach w Polsce w ramach programu operacyjnego

„Infrastruktura i środowisko na lata 2007-2013”, projekty, które korzystają z funduszy UE w ramach tego programu, muszą być zgodne z wymogami ramowej dyrektywy wodnej.

4.

Według harmonogramu przedstawionego przez władze polskie, głowne plany dla Odry i Wisły będą gotowe do sierpnia 2014 r.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007057/13

to the Commission

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR) and Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)

(17 June 2013)

Subject: Implementation of anti-flood investment projects in Poland

Given the emerging reports concerning the Polish Government’s failure to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive in terms of an integrated approach to water management, we should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

How exactly could Poland’s share of funds be clawed back? How likely is it that more than PLN 2 billion invested for anti‐flood purposes will be lost?

Is there a risk that funding will be lost from the new Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014‐2020?

By what date must Poland introduce a single water management plan for Poland’s river basins in order to be able to benefit from Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme funds?

Does the Commission foresee the possibility of implementing such a plan within a suitable time frame? Has the Polish Government made adequate efforts in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

1.

Discussions between the Commission and the Polish authorities on the correct implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have been ongoing since 2011. The Commission made several recommendations aiming at ensuring that flood prevention infrastructure receiving EU support does not violate the WFD. At no point was the option to withdraw still unused EU funds in this sector discussed. All efforts are currently concentrated on making sure that all allocated money is spent in compliance with EU legislation.

2.

The legal framework for the European Structural and Investment Funds for 2014-2020 is still being discussed with the Council and the Parliament, and thus no definitive answer can be provided at this time. Nevertheless, the Commission proposal includes an

2.

The legal framework for the European Structural and Investment Funds for 2014-2020 is still being discussed with the Council and the Parliament, and thus no definitive answer can be provided at this time. Nevertheless, the Commission proposal includes an

ex-ante  (97)

3.

There is no requirement for Poland to introduce a single water management plan for Poland's river basins under the Infrastructure & Environment 2007 — 2013 programme; the projects which benefit from EU Funds under this programme must comply with the requirements of the WFD.

4.

According to the timetable presented by the Polish authorities, the master plans for the Odra and Wisla Rivers will be ready by August 2014.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007058/13

al Consejo

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Espionaje del Reino Unido en la Cumbre del G-20

Recientemente han aparecido en The guardian unas revelaciones sobre la manera en que los servicios de inteligencia británicos espiaron a las autoridades diplomáticas que participaron en la cumbre mundial del G-20 celebrada el pasado 2009, a través de escuchas y todo tipo de violaciones de la privacidad, con la autorización expresa del Gobierno del Reino Unido.

Las revelaciones proceden de los documentos enviados por el ex colaborador de la NSA Edward Snowden a dicho periódico, filtraciones por las que se encuentra actualmente escondido en Hong Kong. Las escuchas realizadas a representantes políticos y diplomáticos de los participantes en el G-20 supusieron una herramienta fundamental de negociación que fue empleada por el Reino Unido para sacar el mayor provecho posible de dicha cumbre. Las escuchas fueron autorizadas por el anterior ministro Gordon Brown y suponen numerosas violaciones de derechos, así como un varapalo a la legitimidad de la diplomacia británica y a los resultados de la citada cumbre.

El espionaje realizado empleaba la tecnología estadounidense Prisma que, según los documentos de Snowden, viene siendo utilizada por los servicios de inteligencia del país desde hace años. Con dicha tecnología los agentes británicos practicaron escuchas a numerosos representantes y fueron capaces de superar la seguridad de sus mensajes electrónicos, pudiendo acceder al correo electrónico de los representantes diplomáticos en tiempo real para informar a los negociadores del Reino Unido durante la cumbre. Esta violación masiva de la intimidad y de los intereses nacionales en una cumbre de tan elevado nivel supone un delito sin precedentes, al menos conocidos, y exige por tanto que se tomen medidas concretas con respecto al Reino Unido.

1.

¿Piensa el Consejo exigir responsabilidades penales al Reino Unido ante este escandaloso caso de espionaje?

2.

¿Ha adoptado alguna medida el Consejo para que el Reino Unido no viole sistemáticamente las libertades fundamentales y los intereses nacionales de otros países?

3.

¿Cómo piensa colaborar el Consejo en la protección de Edward Snowden para garantizar su seguridad y el acceso a la información que ha puesto a disposición de la opinión pública?

4.

¿Piensa el Consejo pedir explicaciones al Reino Unido por los citados hechos?

Respuesta

(16 de septiembre de 2013)

No incumbe al Consejo comentar artículos publicados en la prensa.

El Consejo no ha debatido ninguna de las cuestiones específicas que plantea Su Señoría.

En este sentido, el Consejo quisiera señalar que, con arreglo al artículo 4, apartado 2, del TUE, la seguridad nacional sigue siendo responsabilidad exclusiva de cada Estado miembro.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007058/13

to the Council

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Revelations of UK spying at G20 summit

The Guardian newspaper recently revealed how the British intelligence services had spied on visiting diplomats at the G20 summit in 2009. They reportedly tapped private communications and breached any number of privacy rules, with the express authorisation of the UK Government.

These revelations come from documents leaked to the Guardian by Edward Snowden, a former NSA employee, who is now in hiding in Hong Kong.Intercepting the communications of the visiting G20 politicians and diplomats was instrumental in enabling the UK to secure a negotiating advantage at the summit.The surveillance was authorised by the former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and constitutes multiple rights violations, dealing a blow to the legitimacy of British diplomacy and the results of the summit itself.

The operation involved the use of Prism, a US surveillance program, which, according to Snowden’s documents, the UK's intelligence services have been using for years.British agents used this technology to bug numerous representatives and were able to bypass their email security systems to gain real-time access to diplomats’ private messages before sending their findings to UK negotiators at the summit.As far as we know, this gross violation of national interests and privacy at such a high-level summit is an unprecedented crime which calls for concrete action to be taken against the UK.

l. Does the Council intend to hold the UK criminally responsible for this shocking act of espionage?

2.

Has the Council taken any action to ensure the UK does not repeatedly violate the fundamental liberties and national interests of other countries?

3.

How does the Council intend to help ensure Edward Snowden’s safety and guarantee access to the information he made available to the public?

4.

Does the Council intend to ask the UK to explain its actions?

Reply

(16 September 2013)

It is not for the Council to comment on articles appearing in the press.

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

In this connection, the Council would point out that, in accordance with Article 4(2) TEU, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007059/13

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: VP/HR — Protección de Edward Snowden

Durante el presente mes hemos asistido a un nuevo escándalo relacionado con los excesos que los servicios secretos norteamericanos cometen a lo largo y ancho del mundo sin que ningún país exija responsabilidad por la violación que estos actos de espionaje suponen.

El ciudadano norteamericano Edward Snowden, de 29 años de edad, viajó desde los Estados Unidos hasta Hong Kong el mismo día en que reveló información a los periódicos The Washington Post y The Guardian sobre el programa de escuchas internacionales de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA). Este ciudadano, que trabajaba para una subcontrata que colaboraba en el proyecto, se ha escondido en Hong Kong puesto que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha iniciado su persecución. En este sentido, el pasado 13 de junio, el FBI afirmó que este ciudadano está siendo objeto de una investigación criminal, aunque no se han especificado los cargos.

Si bien actualmente se está alentando el acuerdo transatlántico entre Europa y los Estados Unidos, este último país viola sistemáticamente las libertades fundamentales y además persigue a aquellos ciudadanos que tratan de revelar la verdad del funcionamiento del entramado institucional de la inteligencia del país. En este contexto parece que Snowden puede convertirse en el nuevo soldado Maning, una nueva víctima de la represión norteamericana por dar a conocer la verdadera actividad que lleva a cabo la inteligencia de los EE.UU.

1.

¿Qué medidas está llevando la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante para presionar a los EE.UU. para que garanticen la seguridad y terminen con la persecución de Edward Snowden?

2.

La Comisaria de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales, Viviane Reding ha exigido que los EE.UU. den explicaciones por la violación masiva de derechos de ciudadanos europeos. ¿Considera la Comisión que se deben detener las negociaciones del Acuerdo de Asociación Transatlántico hasta que se esclarezcan las responsabilidades penales de las violaciones cometidas por la NSA y hasta que se garantice la seguridad y libertad de Edward Snowden?

3.

¿Considera la Comisión que se debe detener este acuerdo de asociación hasta que se tengan garantías de que los EE.UU. respetan los derechos fundamentales y el Derecho internacional?

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

(5 de septiembre de 2013)

La Comisión no hace comentarios sobre la persecución del Sr. Snowden. Sin embargo, ha expresado su preocupación y ha pedido aclaraciones a los Estados Unidos acerca de sus actividades de vigilancia reveladas por los medios de comunicación en la medida en que se refieran a personas e instalaciones de la UE. La Comisión toma nota del compromiso del Presidente Obama de facilitar esas aclaraciones y de la propuesta del fiscal general de crear un grupo de expertos de alto nivel UE-EE.UU. para estudiar estas cuestiones. La primera reunión de este grupo de trabajo se celebró en Bruselas los días 22 y 23 de julio de 2013 y otra reunión tendrá lugar en las próximas semanas.

La Comisión considera que las negociaciones comerciales con los Estados Unidos no deberían aplazarse, sino celebrarse paralelamente a las conversaciones sobre las actividades de vigilancia de ese país. La Comisión seguirá este asunto con la mayor atención.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007059/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Protecting Edward Snowden

This month, we have witnessed a fresh scandal concerning the lines the US secret services are able to cross all over the world, without any country holding them to account for the rights violations these acts of espionage represent.

The US whistleblower Edward Snowden, 29, fled from the US to Hong Kong on the same day that he revealed information to the Washington Post and the Guardian newspapers about the NSA's international wiretapping programme. Snowden, who worked for a subcontractor that was involved in the project, has taken refuge in Hong Kong after a hunt was launched by the US Government. On 13 June 2013, the FBI stated that Snowden is the subject of a criminal investigation, but the charges have not been made public.

Although an EU-US transatlantic agreement is currently on the table, the US consistently violates fundamental liberties and pursues those people who try to make public how the country’s intelligence services really operate. In this sense, it seems Snowden might follow Manning, the US soldier behind the Wikileaks revelations, as the latest victim of US repression for shedding light on the real activity of the US intelligence services.

1.

What action is the Vice-President/High Representative taking to pressure the US into guaranteeing Edward Snowden’s safety and putting an end to his persecution?

2.

The European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, has demanded that the US explain this gross violation of EU citizens’ rights. Does the Commission consider that the EU-US Transatlantic Partnership Agreement negotiations ought to be put on hold until the people behind the violations committed by the NSA have been held criminally responsible and Edward Snowden’s safety and freedom have been guaranteed?

3.

Does the Commission consider this partnership agreement ought to be put on hold until assurance is given that the US will respect fundamental rights and international law?

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

(5 September 2013)

The Commission does not comment on the prosecution of Mr Snowden. However the Commission has expressed its concerns and has sought clarifications from the United States on its reported surveillance activities to the extent that they concern EU individuals and premises. The Commission notes President Obama's commitment to provide such clarifications and the Attorney General Holder's proposal to establish an EU/US high level expert group to examine these matters. The first meeting of this Working Group was held in Brussels on 22-23 July 2013 and it will meet again in the coming weeks.

The Commission considers that the trade negotiations with the United States should not be postponed, but that conversations on US surveillance activities should run in parallel to the negotiations. The Commission will follow this matter with the utmost attention.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007060/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Rehabilitación energética y el BEI

La Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo objeto del procedimiento 2011/0172 (COD) contempla diferentes medidas para poder alcanzar los compromisos de eficiencia energética que la Unión Energética se ha propuesto cumplir antes del 2020.

Esta Directiva prevé movilizar un paquete de préstamos del Banco Europeo de Inversiones de hasta 120 000 millones de euros. Existen propuestas en comunidades autónomas de España de planes económicos de fomento del sector de la construcción con el objetivo de impulsar una rehabilitación de viviendas que mejore su eficiencia energética.

Estas propuestas se ajustan al cumplimiento de la citada Directiva para mejorar la eficiencia energética, pero el desarrollo de estos planes depende de la disposición de dichos fondos del BEI. En comunidades autónomas como Andalucía existe una voluntad política de implementar planes para aplicar esta Directiva, pero resulta necesaria la colaboración del Gobierno central.

1.

¿Dispone la Comisión de información sobre si el Gobierno de España ha solicitado acceso a los fondos que el BEI pone a disposición para proyectos relativos a la implementación de la mencionada Directiva?

2.

¿Es posible que un G

obierno regional del nivel de una comunidad autónoma en España pueda solicitar acceso a dicha financiación del BEI sin necesidad de que sea el Gobierno central el que solicite los citados fondos?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(3 de septiembre de 2013)

El BEI viene apoyando activamente numerosas inversiones en el ámbito de la eficiencia energética en toda España. Las solicitudes proceden del Gobierno central, las Comunidades Autónomas y los municipios, así como de entidades públicas y privadas. La cartera de préstamos en estudio muestra un esfuerzo creciente en dicho ámbito.

Por otro lado, el BEI ha promovido de forma complementaria las siguientes iniciativas especiales en materia de eficiencia energética en España:

ELENA — Asistencia Energética Local Europea — un mecanismo de asistencia técnica de la Comisión Europea para acelerar la preparación y aplicación de los proyectos de eficiencia energética y energías renovables desarrollados por los municipios, regiones y otras entidades locales. En España, este mecanismo ha sido utilizado ya en Madrid y Barcelona y en la Región de Murcia para proyectos relacionados con la mejora de la eficiencia energética del transporte, el alumbrado y los edificios.

Jessica — Ayuda Europea Conjunta en Apoyo de Inversiones Sostenibles en Zonas Urbanas — una forma de utilizar las dotaciones de los Fondos Estructurales para apoyar el desarrollo urbano, por ejemplo, mediante proyectos de eficiencia energética. En España existen en la actualidad dos Fondos de Cartera Jessica destinados a las inversiones en este ámbito: el FC de Andalucía (80,5 millones de euros), y el FC FIDAE (123,2 millones de euros).

Los Gobiernos regionales pueden solicitar directamente los préstamos del BEI. Los proyectos deben atenerse a los objetivos del BEI para los préstamos y a los criterios de admisibilidad en materia de eficiencia energética.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007060/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: The EIB and improving energy efficiency

The directive of the European Parliament and of the Council under procedure No 2011/0172 (COD) provides for various measures by which to fulfil the energy efficiency commitments that the Energy Union has pledged to meet by 2020.

This directive provides for a package of loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) of up to EUR 120 000 million. Some of Spain's autonomous communities (regional governments) have put forward proposals concerning economic development plans for the construction sector, with the aim of promoting the improvement of energy efficiency in housing.

These proposals comply with the energy efficiency directive, but the development of the plans depends on the availability of the funds in question from the EIB. In regions such as Andalusia, the political will to implement plans to comply with this directive exists, but the cooperation of central government is needed.

1.

Does the Commission have any information as to whether the Spanish Government has requested access to the EIB funds made available for projects relating to the implementation of this directive?

2.

May a regional government, such as an autonomous community in Spain, request access to this EIB funding directly, without passing through the central government?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2013)

The EIB has been actively supporting multiple energy efficiency (EE) investments across Spain. Requests have originated in the Spanish Government, regional governments, municipalities, and in public and private institutions. The pipeline of loans under study shows an increasing effort in this field.

Furthermore, the EIB has additionally promoted the following special energy efficiency initiatives in Spain:

ELENA — European Local Energy Assistance — a European Commission technical assistance facility for accelerating the preparation and implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects developed by municipalities, regions and other local authorities. In Spain this facility has already been used in the cities of Madrid and Barcelona, and in the region of Murcia for projects related to improving EE in public transport, lighting and buildings.

JESSICA — Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas — is a way of using existing Structural Fund allocations to support urban development including energy efficiency projects. In Spain there are currently two JESSICA holding funds (HF) dedicated to investments in EE: the HF Andalucía (EUR 80.5m), and HF FIDAE (EUR 123.2m).

Regional governments can request the EIB for loans directly. The projects must be in line with general EIB lending objectives and eligibility criteria for energy efficiency.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007061/13

an die Kommission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Menschenhandel innerhalb der thailändischen Fischereiindustrie

In dem am 29. Mai veröffentlichten Bericht einer Umwelt‐ und Menschenrechtsorganisation werden Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Menschenhandel in der thailändischen Fischereiindustrie beklagt. Der Bericht umfasst Zeugenaussagen von burmesischen Arbeitern — einige nicht älter als 16 –, die unter Zwang mehrere Monate auf Schiffen festgehalten wurden. Sie alle unterlagen mühseligen und oft auch gewalttätigen Arbeitsbedingungen, ohne eine Entlohnung zu erhalten. Die Zeugenaussagen umfassen sowohl Berichte über Prügel, Folter und Mord auf See und an der Küste als auch Informationen über Mittäterschaft von thailändischen Beamten.

Über Umwege erreichen Fänge dieser Schiffe auch die EU. Dabei werden Fischfänge, die aus derartigen Schiffen stammen, zu Fischmehl verarbeitet und als Futter für thailändische Garnelen genutzt, die wiederum in den europäischen Markt exportiert werden.

Was gedenkt die Kommission vor dem Hintergrund dieser Entwicklungen in der thailändischen Fischerei zu tun, um die Umsetzung der im Bericht „Towards Global EU Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings“ empfohlenen Maßnahmen zu gewährleisten?

Was hält die Kommission von der Einrichtung einer internationalen Datenbank (Global Record) für Fischereifahrzeuge, um gegebenenfalls den Markteintritt von Produkten aus Fängen solcher Schiffe zu verhindern?

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

(5. September 2013)

Die EU teilt die Besorgnis der Frau Abgeordneten. Das Thema wurde gegenüber der thailändischen Regierung angesprochen, darunter auch vom Präsidenten der Kommission anlässlich des Besuchs der thailändischen Ministerpräsidentin Yingluck Shinawatra im März 2013.

Neben den Maßnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten und anderer Geber finanziert die EU bilaterale und regionale Projekte zur Bekämpfung des Menschenhandels in Thailand und Myanmar, vor allem durch Hilfe für die Opfer des Menschenhandels, einschließlich Schutzmechanismen für Kinder und Unterstützung für die Rückkehr in ihr Heimatland.

Nachdem die thailändische Regierung ihren Wunsch zum Ausdruck gebracht hat, mit der EU zusammenzuarbeiten, wird im Oktober 2013 ein Workshop mit der Generalstaatsanwaltsanwaltschaft und EU-Experten stattfinden, um Informationen über verbesserte Methoden der Rechtsdurchsetzung auszutauschen. Darüber hinaus hat Thailand kürzlich Mittel aus dem Programm „MIEUX“ beantragt, das darauf abzielt, die Kapazitäten der Partnerländer auszubauen, damit sie durch ein umfassendes Konzept für die Migrationssteuerung alle Aspekte der Migration besser bewältigen können.

Die EU wird weiter beobachten, ob Thailand die Arbeitsnormen der Übereinkommen der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation (IAO) einhält, und sich in den laufenden Verhandlungen mit Thailand über ein Freihandelsabkommen darum bemühen, dass eine Klausel über die Einhaltung der Kernarbeitsnormen, einschließlich der Beseitigung von Kinderarbeit und Zwangsarbeit, aufgenommen wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007061/13

to the Commission

Jutta Steinruck (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Human trafficking in the Thai fishing industry

A report drawn up by an environmental and human rights organisation and published on 29 May 2013 points the finger at human rights violations and human trafficking in the Thai fishing industry. The report reproduces testimony given by Burmese workers — some as young as 16 — who were held against their will on fishing vessels for months on end. They had to cope with difficult working conditions and often violent treatment, and without being paid. The testimony includes accounts of beatings, torture and murder which took place at sea and while the vessels were moored near the coast and information pointing to the complicity of Thai officials.

Fish caught by these vessels also reach the EU by circuitous routes. The fish in question are processed to make meal which is then used as feed for Thai prawns, and those prawns are in turn exported to Europe.

In the light of this information concerning the Thai fishing industry, what steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the measures recommended in the report entitled ‘Towards Global EU Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings’ are in fact implemented?

What does the Commission think of the idea of setting up an international database (Global Record) in an effort to prevent products made from fish caught by these vessels from entering the EU market?

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

(5 September 2013)

The EU shares the concerns raised by the Honourable Member. This issue has been raised with the Thai Government and more recently, by the President of the Commission during Thai Prime Minister Yingluck’s visit in March 2013.

In addition to the activities of Member States and other donors, the EU has funded bilateral and regional projects addressing trafficking in human beings in Thailand, Myanmar, in particular providing assistance to the victims of trafficking, including child protection mechanisms, and supporting their return to the country of origin.

Following the Thai government's expressed desire to cooperate with the EU, a workshop with the Attorney’s General Office and relevant EU experts will be organised in October 2013 with a view to sharing information on improved enforcement practices. Furthermore, Thailand has recently requested funds from the ‘MIEUX’ programme which aims at enhancing the capacities of partner countries to better address all areas of migration through a comprehensive approach to migration management.

The EU will continue to monitor the implementation by Thailand of labour standards under the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions and will seek in the ongoing Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with Thailand to include a reference to the implementation of core labour standards, including the elimination of child labour and forced labour.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007062/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(18 Ιουνίου 2013)

Θέμα: Σκάνδαλο Prism

Οι κολοσσοί του διαδικτύου Google και Facebook επιμένουν πως δεν γνώριζαν την ύπαρξη του προγράμματος Prism, το οποίο δίνει πρόσβαση στις αρχές των ΗΠΑ σε στοιχεία χρηστών δημοφιλών διαδικτυακών εταιρειών. Ωστόσο, στο έγγραφο στο οποίο απέκτησε πρόσβαση η εφημερίδα Guardian δηλώνεται ότι η αμερικανική κυβέρνηση έχει πρόσβαση σε τέτοια δεδομένα με τη σύμφωνη γνώμη των κολοσσών του διαδικτύου και συγκεκριμένα των AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk και Yahoo, παρέχοντας μάλιστα και ημερομηνίες για το πότε «εντάχθηκαν» στο πρόγραμμα. Επιπλέον, σύμφωνα με δηλώσεις της αμερικανικής κυβέρνησης, υπήρξε πρόσβαση «μόνο» σε προσωπικά δεδομένα χρηστών εκτός ΗΠΑ και όχι σε Αμερικανούς πολίτες.

Με δεδομένο πως η προστασία προσωπικών δεδομένων των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών πρέπει να αποτελεί ύψιστο καθήκον της ΕΕ, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Γνώριζε την ύπαρξη του προγράμματος Prism και τους πραγματικούς στόχους του;

Πιστεύει ότι δημιουργούνται οποιοιδήποτε κίνδυνοι για την ιδιωτική ζωή ή/και τα προσωπικά δεδομένα των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών και ποιοί;

Τι προτίθεται να πράξει για να διερευνήσει σε βάθος την υπόθεση, προστατεύοντας τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες στις 27 χώρες μέλη της από μυστικές συγκεντρώσεις μέσω διαδικτύου, πληροφοριών και προσωπικών δεδομένων που τους αφορούν;

Υπάρχουν ευρωπαϊκές κυβερνήσεις ή υπηρεσίες της ΕΕ που εμπλέκονται, συνεργάζονται ή συνδέονται με οποιοδήποτε τρόπο με το πρόγραμμα αυτό;

Υπάρχει αντίστοιχο σύστημα πληροφορικής το οποίο χρησιμοποιεί η ΕΕ για την προστασία της εποπτείας πληροφοριών και των πολιτών από το ενδεχόμενο τρομοκρατίας;

Προτίθεται να θέσει το θέμα στην κυβέρνηση των ΗΠΑ στα πλαίσια των διμερών σχέσεων Ευρώπης-ΗΠΑ και με ποιό τρόπο;

Απάντηση της κ. Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(5 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει τo Αξιότιμο Μέλος στις απαντήσεις που έδωσε στις γραπτές ερωτήσεις E‐007934/13 και E‐006783/13.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007062/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: The Prism scandal

Internet giants Google and Facebook insist they were unaware of the existence of the Prism programme, which gives the US authorities access to the data of users of popular online companies. However, the document to which the Guardian newspaper has obtained access states that the US government enjoyed access to such data with the consent of Internet giants, namely AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk and Yahoo. It even provides dates when they ‘joined’ the programme. However, according to statements by the US government, access was granted ‘only’ to the personal data of users outside the US, and not US citizens.

Given that the personal data protection of European citizens should be a top responsibility for the EU, will the Commission say:

Did it know of the existence of the Prism programme and its real objectives?

Does it believe that this has created any risks for the privacy and/or personal data of European citizens? If so, what risks?

What will it do to thoroughly investigate this case, protecting European citizens in the 27 Member States from secret attempts over the Internet to gather information and personal data relating to them?

Are there any European governments or services that are involved, cooperate or are connected in any way with this programme?

Is there a corresponding IT system used by the EU as an intelligence oversight instrument to forestall acts of terrorism?

Does it intend to raise the issue with the US government in bilateral EU-US relations and, if so, how?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E‐007934/13 and E‐006783/13.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007063/13

to the Commission

Mike Nattrass (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Corvera Airport not opening — EU funds expended

Will the Commission give a total figure for all EU funds granted and a separate figure for funds intended to be granted to Corvera Airport, also known as ‘Murcia International Airport’.

Does the Commission intend to claw back any funds in view of the failure of the implementation of the project?

Please also see the inaccurate and out-dated website: http://www.corveraairporttravel.com/

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2013)

The Commission has not granted any funds to Murcia International Airport.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007064/13

to the Commission

Mike Nattrass (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: www.mepranking.eu site and abuse of the MEP questions system

Are you aware that a site exists at www.mepranking.eu which counts the number of questions asked by MEPs to the Commission and that this is regarded as a factor in judging the effectiveness of MEPs?

Does the Commission believe that this is an incentive to ask questions which leads to an abuse of the system?

Does it consider that excessive numbers of questions asked to the Commission by MEPs leads to high administration costs and that these questions should be limited with this cost factor in mind?

What is the cost of asking a question to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2013)

1.

The Commission is aware of the website mentioned by the Honourable Member.

2.

The Commission considers that this should not be an incentive to ask more questions.

3.

It is not for the Commission to judge whether the number of parliamentary questions is

‘excessive’, but the constant increase in the number of questions posed does lead to significant administrative costs.

4.

The Commission has

not calculated the costs involved in answering a written question posed by a Member of Parliament.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007065/13

à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: VP/HR — Utilisation d'armes chimiques contre les rebelles syriens par le régime d'Al-Assad

Les récents développements en Syrie ont permis de reconnaître que le régime largement contesté d'Al‐Assad en Syrie a pu faire l'usage, contre les rebelles, de différentes armes chimiques mortelles, parmi lesquelles le gaz Sarin. Les sources concordent désormais et attestent d'une utilisation de ces gaz à plusieurs reprises.

L'usage de tels gaz est strictement prohibé par le droit international. Dès 1925, le protocole de Genève condamnait largement l'usage de telles armes, aux effets dévastateurs et inhumains. La convention de 1993 sur l'interdiction de l'usage des armes chimiques et sur leur destruction confirme ce principe de droit international. La Syrie est donc clairement en violation du droit international.

1.

Face à ce non-respect des règles du droit international, que compte faire la Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité?

2.

La Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante entend-t-elle augmenter la pression sur le régime syrien, représenté par Al‐Assad?

Réponse donnée par Mme Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission

(26 août 2013)

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a été informée par certains États membres de l'UE et par les États-Unis de l'utilisation d'agents chimiques contre des civils en Syrie. Le 14 juin 2013, elle a publié à ce sujet une déclaration indiquant notamment que «cette évaluation de la situation, conjuguée aux autres informations qui ont été rapportées, souligne l'urgence de donner suite à nos appels réitérés en faveur d'un accord portant sur le déploiement immédiat d'une mission de vérification des Nations unies chargée d'enquêter sur le terrain au sujet de ces allégations» (98).

À ce stade, en l'absence de déploiement réussi d'une mission d'enquête des Nations unies, il est difficile de confirmer l'usage d'armes chimiques. L'UE continuera à insister auprès de la Syrie pour qu'elle adhère à la convention sur les armes chimiques et ratifie d'urgence la convention sur les armes biologiques. L'UE rappelle que tout usage d'armes chimiques par quiconque et en quelque circonstance que ce soit est répréhensible et tout à fait contraire aux normes et règles de droit de la communauté internationale. Il incombe tout particulièrement aux autorités syriennes de veiller à ce que leurs armes chimiques soient stockées en sécurité en attendant leur destruction sous contrôle indépendant, et à ce qu'elles ne tombent pas entre les mains de tout autre État ou acteur non étatique.

L'UE rappelle qu'il est urgent de trouver une solution politique au conflit et salue l'appel conjoint lancé par les États-Unis et la Russie en faveur d'une conférence de paix sur la Syrie pour favoriser l'émergence d'un processus politique fondé sur les principes énoncés dans le communiqué de Genève du 30 juin 2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007065/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels by the al-Assad regime

Recent events in Syria have shown that Bashar al‐Assad's beleaguered regime has used deadly chemical weapons, including Sarin gas, against rebel groups. Evidence from a range of sources now confirms that such gases have been used several times.

The use of such gases is strictly prohibited by international law, and the Geneva Protocol of 1925 declared the use of these destructive and inhumane weapons unacceptable. The 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction reiterates this principle of international law. Syria is, therefore, in clear violation of international law.

1.

How does the VP/HR intend to respond to Syria's violation of international law?

2.

Does the VP/HR intend to increase the pressure on the al‐Assad regime in Syria?

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

(26 August 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of reports from some EU Member States and the US on the use of chemical agents against civilians in Syria. The HR/VP released a statement on that matter on 14 June 2013, which stated that ‘this assessment, combined with others that have been circulated, makes even more urgent our repeated calls for an agreement to immediately deploy a UN verification mission to investigate these allegations on the ground’ (99).

At this time, without a sucessful deployment of a UN investigation mission, it is difficult to confirm the use of chemical weapons. The EU will continue to urge Syria to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention and to ratify the Biological Weapons Convention as a matter of urgency. The EU recalls that any use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community. The Syrian authorities bear a particular responsibility to ensure that their chemical weapons are stored securely pending independently verified destruction and are not permitted to fall into the hands of any other State or non-state actor.

The EU reiterates the urgent need for a political solution of the conflict and welcomes the joint US-Russian call for a peace conference on Syria to promote a political process based on the principles included in the Geneva communique of 30 June 2012.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007066/13

à la Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: Croissance du salafisme en Europe

Le salafisme est un mouvement fondamentaliste qui prône un retour à l'islam originel à travers une lecture stricte et littérale du Coran et de la sunna. S'il est bien sûr certain que tous les salafistes ne sont pas amenés à entreprendre des actions violentes, le mouvement entretient des rapports difficiles avec les divers gouvernements européens: le ministère allemand de l'Intérieur a annoncé le 13 juin 2013 la dissolution de trois groupes salafistes, «DawaFFM», «Audios islamiques» et «An-Nussrah».

Le salafisme constitue un groupe à la croissance particulièrement rapide et relativement inquiétante, en ce qu'il remet en cause l'idée démocratique en elle-même. En un an, le nombre de salafistes en Allemagne est passé de 3 800 à 4 500. En France, selon le ministère de l'Intérieur, les salafistes seraient au nombre de 13 000, contre quelques dizaines dans les années 1990. Certains États membres ont pu participer, vendredi 7 juin, à une réunion à Luxembourg sur la menace constituée par les jeunes Européens partis combattre en Syrie dans les rangs de groupes radicaux. Lors de cette réunion, le statut des groupes salafistes en Europe n'a malheureusement pas été abordé, alors qu'il nécessite une plus grande coopération entre les États membres.

En se gardant de tomber dans tout amalgame, force est de constater que le salafisme est souvent un passage obligé vers une revendication islamiste plus violente. Un exemple concret est que, récemment, tous les jeunes partis d'Allemagne pour faire le Djihad en Syrie ou en Égypte entretenaient, de près ou de loin, des liens avec le mouvement salafiste.

1.

Face à ce nouvel enjeu sécuritaire en Europe, quelle est la position de la Commission?

2.

La Commission entend‐elle œuvrer pour une plus grande coordination entre États membres afin de prévenir tous les risques possibles?

Réponse donnée par Mme Malmström au nom de la Commission

(13 septembre 2013)

La Commission accorde la plus grande attention aux analyses et aux rapports disponibles au niveau de l'UE, notamment le rapport EU Terrorism Situation and Trend (situation et tendances en matière de terrorisme dans l'UE) élaboré par Europol (100) Les citoyens de l'Union européenne qui se rendent en Syrie ou dans d'autres régions touchées par des conflits sont une source d'inquiétude grave pour la sécurité interne européenne. Ce rapport fait état du nombre croissant de citoyens radicalisés de l'UE qui se sont rendus dans des régions touchées par des conflits pour y mener des activités terroristes, et de la menace qu'ils représentent au cas où ils reviendraient sur le territoire de l'Union européenne avec l'intention d'y perpétrer des actes terroristes. Le traitement des données PNR, envisagé par la Commission dans la proposition PNR au niveau de l'UE, constitue un instrument efficace permettant de détecter et de prévenir les activités liées au terrorisme en analysant les itinéraires aériens.

La Commission considère toujours que toutes les formes de radicalisation et d'extrémisme violent constituent l'une des priorités de la sécurité interne. Le Conseil (JAI) s'est penché sur cette question le 7 juin 2013, en se fondant sur un rapport élaboré par le coordinateur de la lutte contre le terrorisme de l'UE, qui présente les mesures que l'UE et les États membres pourraient prendre en termes d'intensification de la coopération et d'échange d'informations, de collaboration avec les communautés locales et de communication. Il a également été question d'une amélioration de l'utilisation des voies diplomatiques et des possibilités offertes par la législation actuelle de l'UE (101). La Commission a accepté de soumettre, d'ici à la fin de l'année, une analyse des risques pour déterminer les menaces que font peser sur la sécurité de l'UE les combattants étrangers qui reviennent sur le territoire de l'Union et les mesures qui pourraient être prises pour atténuer ces risques.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007066/13

to the Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Growth of Salafism in Europe

Salafism is a fundamentalist movement which advocates returning to an original form of Islam through a strict and literal interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah. Although not all Salafists are prepared to engage in violent acts, the movement has a troubled relationship with European governments: on 13 June 2013, the German Ministry of the Interior announced the banning of three Salafist groups — ‘DawaFFM’, ‘Islamische Audios’ and ‘an‐Nussrah’.

The Salafist movement is growing very rapidly, and this is worrying as it could pose a threat to the very idea of democracy. In one year, the number of Salafists has grown from 3 800 to 4 500 in Germany. According to the French Ministry of the Interior, the number of Salafists in France has risen from several dozen in the 1990s to some 13 000 now. On 7 June 2013, representatives of several Member States attended a meeting in Luxembourg at which the threat posed by young Europeans leaving to fight alongside radical groups in Syria was discussed. Regrettably, the status of Salafist groups in Europe was not addressed, even though closer cooperation among the Member States on this issue is now badly needed.

Without generalising, it must be acknowledged that Salafism is often a stage on the path towards a more violent form of Islamism. By way of illustration, all the young people who recently travelled from Germany to join the jihads in Syria or Egypt had ties of one kind or another with the Salafist movement.

1.

What is the Commission’s position on this new security challenge facing Europe?

2.

Does the Commission intend to take steps to facilitate closer coordination between Member States with a view to tackling all possible threats?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2013)

The Commission closely follows the analysis and reports available at EU level, inter alia, the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend report produced by Europol (102). EU citizens travelling to Syria and other conflict zones are a serious concern for European internal security. This report indicates that increasing numbers of radicalised EU citizens travelled to regions of conflict to engage in terrorist activities, and refers to the threat posed by these people should they return to the European Union with the intent to commit acts of terrorism. The processing of PNR data, as envisaged in the Commission EU PNR proposal, provides an effective instrument to detect and prevent terrorist-related activities by analysing air travel routes.

The Commission continues to addresses all forms of radicalisation and violent extremism as one of the priorities for internal security. The issue was discussed at the Council (JHA) on 7 June 2013, based on a paper prepared by the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator, outlining possible actions by the EU and Member States in terms of closer cooperation and information exchange, work with local communities and communication. Better use of diplomatic channels and possibilities offered by existing EU legislation (103) was also discussed. The Commission has agreed to present, by the end of the year, an analysis identifying major security risks for the EU from returning foreign fighters and to propose possible mitigation measures.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007067/13

à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: VP/HR — Violences confessionnelles en Égypte

Depuis la chute du régime de M. Moubarak, les violences confessionnelles à l'encontre des coptes ont refait une brusque apparition en Égypte. Les coptes chrétiens représentent entre 6 et 10 % des 83 millions d'Égyptiens, et des affrontements surviennent régulièrement entre coptes et musulmans. Depuis la chute du régime d'Hosni Moubarak en février 2011, ces heurts ont tué une cinquantaine de chrétiens et plusieurs musulmans.

Le 6 avril 2013, au moins quatre chrétiens et un musulman ont trouvé la mort dans des affrontements confessionnels armés dans le gouvernorat de Qalyoubia, au nord du Caire. Ces affrontements ont pu être encouragés par l'arrivée au pouvoir de M. Morsi, islamiste appartenant aux frères musulmans, même si ce dernier a pu appeler au calme à plusieurs reprises.

1.

Face à cette situation préoccupante, qui se traduit par une insécurité grandissante pour la minorité copte d'Égypte, qu'envisage la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante?

2.

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante entend-elle renforcer son soutien à la liberté de croyance et de religion en Égypte, afin d'atteindre les objectifs de protection et de défense de la liberté de culte?

Réponse donnée par la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante Ashton au nom de la Commission

(24 septembre 2013)

L'UE est consciente et inquiète des difficultés auxquelles les différentes minorités religieuses sont confrontées en Égypte et condamne toute forme d'intolérance, de discrimination et de violence à l'encontre des personnes en raison de leur religion ou de leurs convictions, indépendamment du lieu où elles sont commises et indépendamment de la religion. La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a appelé à plusieurs reprises les autorités égyptiennes à garantir la liberté de religion ou de conviction dans le pays.

La délégation de l'UE suit de près les cas de violences sectaires et souligne l'importance d'éviter toute discrimination pour des motifs religieux dans ses contacts avec les autorités égyptiennes. Afin d'encourager l'amélioration de la liberté de religion ou de conviction en Égypte, le SEAE souhaite collaborer avec tous les acteurs concernés dans le pays et avec les organisations internationales et régionales partageant les valeurs et objectifs de l'Union européenne à cet égard.

L'UE considère que la coopération et le dialogue politique sont les voies les plus appropriées pour encourager le gouvernement du Caire et faire pression sur lui pour qu'il entreprenne des actions concrètes afin de protéger les Coptes et les autres minorités religieuses. Par conséquent, et compte tenu des développements récents survenus dans le pays, l'UE suit l'évolution de la situation sur le terrain par un contact et un dialogue étroits avec les principales parties prenantes afin de prendre les mesures nécessaires et appropriées.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007067/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Sectarian violence in Egypt

Since the fall of the Mubarak regime, sectarian violence against Copts has made a sudden reappearance in Egypt. Coptic Christians account for between 6% and 10% of the 83 million Egyptians and there are regular clashes between Copts and Muslims. Since the fall of the regime of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, these clashes have killed around 50 Christians and a number of Muslims.

On 6 April 2013, at least four Christians and one Muslim were killed in sectarian armed clashes in the Qalyubia governorate, north of Cairo. The clashes were encouraged by the rise to power of Mr Morsi, an Islamist belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, even though he has managed to restore calm on several occasions.

1.

In view of this alarming situation, which is resulting in a growing sense of insecurity for the Coptic minority in Egypt, what does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to do?

2.

Will the Vice-President/High Representative strengthen her support for freedom of faith and religion in Egypt, in order to achieve the objectives of protection and defence of the freedom of worship?

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

(24 September 2013)

The EU is aware and concerned about the constraints that different religious minorities face in Egypt and condemns all forms of intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons because of their religion or belief, wherever it takes place and regardless of the religion. The HR/VP repeatedly called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure freedom of religion or belief in the country.

The EU delegation is closely following cases of sectarian violence and emphasises the importance of avoiding discrimination on religious grounds in its contacts with Egyptian authorities. In order to support the improvement of freedom of religion or belief in Egypt, the EEAS is keen to engage with all the relevant stakeholders in the country as well as with the regional and international organisations sharing EU's values and objectives in this respect.

The EU considers that cooperation and political dialogue are the most appropriate channels to encourage and put pressure on Cairo's government so that it will undertake concrete actions in order to protect Copts and other religious minorities. Therefore, and in light of the recent developments in the country, the EU is monitoring the situation on the ground in close contact and dialogue with key stake holders in order to take the necessary and appropriate measures.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007068/13

à la Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE) et Tokia Saïfi (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: Musique dans l'accord de libre-échange Union européenne — États-Unis

Les ministres du commerce européens se sont mis d'accord, vendredi 14 juin, pour exclure le secteur audiovisuel du mandat de négociations commerciales de l'Union européenne avec les États-Unis afin de protéger l'exception culturelle. Le compromis final prévoit que l'audiovisuel pourra être ajouté à un stade ultérieur dans le mandat confié à la Commission européenne, à condition d'obtenir l'unanimité des 27 États membres.

Toutefois, les déclarations de la Commission européenne qui ont suivi vident de tout son sens l'accord obtenu et caricaturent la défense de l'exception culturelle. Le Président de la Commission européenne a ainsi tenu à qualifier l'attitude de la France dans les négociations de «réactionnaire» et le Commissaire européen au Commerce a précisé à maintes reprises que la non-inclusion de la culture n'était que «provisoire» et que la discussion serait ouverte si la partie américaine en faisait la demande.

Ceci ne peut engendrer que de la confusion, de l'inquiétude et de la défiance chez les acteurs culturels en Europe. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle permettre à l'UE de rester libre de définir sa politique de quotas et de subventions pour le cinéma, la télévision, la musique et la radio en tenant une telle position?

Les débats sur l'exception culturelle ont avant tout concerné le cinéma européen, notamment les politiques nationales et européennes de soutien et de développement de ce secteur. Toutefois, les biens audiovisuels couvrent également la musique qui, par le biais des quotas radio, dispositif qui a fait ses preuves, est un secteur qui a su préserver des productions nationales fortes. Les quotas ont permis de sauver la chanson française et ont créé un effet économique positif pour l'industrie musicale. La France est aujourd'hui le seul pays de l'Union dont le répertoire local détient une part aussi importante dans la vente de musique enregistrée. En outre, malgré la crise du disque, la valeur annuelle créée par la filière musicale en France est estimée à environ 8 milliards d'euros.

La Commission peut-elle nous confirmer que l'accord de libre-échange UE/États-Unis ne constituera pas une menace pour les quotas radio, tels que pratiqués notamment en France, dans le secteur de la musique?

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

(21 août 2013)

La Commission tient à informer l'Honorable Parlementaire que la dimension européenne de la diversité culturelle n'est pas matière à discussion: la défense de ce principe est un objectif fondamental de l'Union européenne, mais aussi une obligation légale, inscrite dans le traité. Par ailleurs, l'Union s'est engagée à cet égard au titre de la Convention de l'Unesco sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles. La question n'est pas de savoir si la diversité culturelle doit être défendue dans les négociations sur un nouveau partenariat avec les États-Unis (partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement, «PTCI»), le problème est de déterminer la meilleure façon de le faire. La Commission et les États membres ont débattu des moyens d'introduire, dans les directives de négociation, un juste équilibre entre, d'une part, la sensibilité du secteur audiovisuel et, d'autre part, l'objectif consistant à mener des négociations larges et ambitieuses. Les services audiovisuels sont exclus du chapitre sur le commerce des services et l'établissement. Bien que la Commission soit prête à écouter les idées de ses partenaires sur cette question, elle n'est naturellement pas en position de négocier des engagements de libéralisation dans ce secteur sensible.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007068/13

to the Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE) and Tokia Saïfi (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Music in free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States

The European Ministers for Trade agreed on Friday, 14 June, to exclude the audiovisual sector from trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States, in order to protect the culture exclusion. The final compromise states that the audiovisual sector may be added at a later date to the mandate granted to the European Commission, provided that the 27 Member States are in unanimous agreement.

However, subsequent declarations by the European Commission render the agreement obtained meaningless and make a mockery of the defence of the culture exclusion. The President of the European Commission qualified the attitude of France in the negotiations as ‘reactionary’ and the European Commissioner for Trade stipulated several times that the culture exclusion was merely provisional and that talks would be opened if the US so requested.

This will simply cause confusion, concern and defiance on the part of cultural players in Europe. How does the Commission intend to allow the EU to remain free to define its policy of quotas and subsidies for cinema, television, music and radio in taking such a stand?

The debate on the culture exclusion has revolved primarily around European cinema, especially national and European support and development policies for that sector. However, audiovisual goods also include music which, through the tried and tested system of radio quotas, is a sector which has managed to maintain strong national production. Quotas have allowed French song to be preserved and have generated a positive economic effect for the music industry. France is the only country in the Union today whose local repertoire accounts for an important proportion of registered music sales. Moreover, despite the CD crisis, the annual value generated by the music industry in France is estimated at approximately EUR 8 billion.

Can the Commission confirm that the EU/US free trade agreement will not constitute a risk to radio quotas in the music industry, as applied in France in particular?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2013)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that there is no discussion on the European dimension of cultural diversity: the defence of this principle is a fundamental objective of the European Union, but also a legal obligation, enshrined in the Treaty. In addition, the EU has made commitments in this regard as part of the Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The question is not whether cultural diversity must be defended in the negotiations on a new partnership for trade and investment with the United States (‘TTIP’), but what is the best way to do this. The Commission and the Member States have discussed about ways to include the right balance in the negotiating directives of the TTIP between, on the one hand, the sensitivity of the audiovisual sector and on the other, the aim of extensive and ambitious negotiations. Audiovisual services are excluded from the chapter on trade in services and establishment. Although the Commission is willing to listen to the ideas of its partners on this issue, it is of course not in a position to negotiate liberalisation commitments in this sensitive area.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007069/13

alla Commissione

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Geologia ed aree a rischio in Europa

Quest'anno cade il cinquantenario del disastro del Vajont. Il 9 ottobre 1963 nel neo-bacino idroelettrico artificiale del Vajont a causa della caduta di una colossale frana dal soprastante pendio montuoso nelle acque del sottostante e omonimo bacino lacustre alpino vi fu una tracimazione dell'acqua contenuta nell'invaso con effetti devastanti su tutta la valle, che causò quasi 2000 vittime. È stato dimostrato che il disastro del Vajont poteva essere evitato anche e soprattutto attraverso un giusto impiego degli studi geologici. Da allora si è quindi capito quanto importante dovesse essere la geologia applicata all'ingegneria civile. Molte cose sono state fatte in ambito europeo in questa direzione, ma non abbastanza. Neanche un anno fa, durante l'Assemblea generale del Servizio Geologico europeo è stato ribadito come la geologia possa dare molto all'Europa ma anche come la geologia stessa abbia bisogno di un impegno diretto da parte dell'Europa. Non vi può essere sviluppo del territorio senza la conoscenza del territorio. Le scienze della terra assumono quindi un ruolo centrale tanto nello sviluppo economico quanto in quello sociale.

Come portavoce degli interessi italiani voglio rimarcare come il Consiglio Nazionale Geologi sia una parte attiva della Federazione Europea Geologi (contando più di 15000 iscritti) e che le sue numerose attività coinvolgono le diverse componenti della geologia ossia quella professionale, quella universitaria e quella della ricerca.

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

Reputa la Commissione che sia necessario lo stanziamento di fondi per la ricerca e lo studio di aree a rischio geologico sul territorio dell'Unione al fine di prevenire disastri evitabili?

Reputa la Commissione che sia necessario promuovere uno standard europeo di sicurezza e di certificazione geologica per l'installazione e gestione dei siti industriali sul territorio dell'Unione?

Reputa la Commissione che sia auspicabile un'implementazione delle funzioni della Federazione europea dei Geologi, anche semplificando l'iter di accesso al titolo di eurogeologo?

Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione

(2 agosto 2013)

Dalla fine degli anni ottanta l'UE sostiene la ricerca interdisciplinare a livello internazionale nel settore dei rischi naturali (di natura geologica o legati al clima e alle condizioni meteorologiche), contribuendo così a migliorare la base di conoscenze necessarie per affrontare con più efficacia i pericoli, i punti deboli e i rischi in questo settore e a sviluppare solidi approcci di gestione dei rischi che promuovano strategie di prevenzione e attenuazione.

La comunicazione COM(2009)82 (104) e il «documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione sugli orientamenti per la valutazione e l'individuazione dei rischi per la gestione dei disastri» (105) favoriscono e migliorano la coerenza rispetto alle valutazioni dei rischi negli Stati membri dell'UE.

Per proteggere l'ambiente sono essenziali norme di sicurezza in materia di realizzazione e gestione dei siti industriali. La Commissione ha riconosciuto questa necessità, che trova riscontro nel sostegno dato ai progetti nel settore della gestione delle crisi nell'ambito dell'attuale programma quadro per la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico (7°PQ). Tuttavia, finora non sono state svolte ricerche specifiche sulla fattibilità di norme europee di certificazione geologica riguardanti i siti industriali. Occorrerebbe effettuare ricerche supplementari prima di adottare qualsiasi ulteriore misura.

Il titolo professionale di «geologo europeo» è frutto di un'iniziativa volontaria avviata dalla Federazione europea dei geologi. La direttiva aggiornata riguardante le qualifiche professionali (106) prevede nuovi strumenti per semplificare la mobilità dei professionisti. Introduce un nuovo sistema di riconoscimento automatico sulla base di un bagaglio comune di conoscenze, capacità e competenze. Si potrebbero elaborare «quadri comuni di formazione» per i professionisti grazie ai quali le qualifiche così ottenute potrebbero essere riconosciute negli altri Stati membri.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007069/13

to the Commission

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Geology and at-risk areas in Europe

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Vajont disaster. On 9 October 1963, a huge landslide from the mountainside into the waters of the Vajont mountain lake below caused the water contained in the reservoir to overtop the Vajont artificial hydroelectric basin, devastating the whole valley and killing some 2 000 people. It has been shown that the Vajont disaster could have been avoided, particularly had geological studies been used properly. Since then, the importance of applying geology to civil engineering has been recognised. Much has been done in the EU along these lines, but not enough. Barely a year ago, at the general meeting of the European Geological Service, it was reiterated how geology can offer Europe a great deal but also how geology needs direct commitment from Europe. It is not possible to develop the land without understanding the land. Earth sciences thus play a pivotal role in both economic and social development.

As I represent Italian interests, I should like to point out how the Italian National Geologists’ Council is an active member of the European Federation of Geologists (which has over 15 000 members) and that its many activities involve the various fields of geology, namely professional, university and research geology.

— Does the Commission think that funds should be allocated to the research and study of areas of the EU that are at risk in geological terms, in order to prevent avoidable disasters?

— Does the Commission think that it should promote a European safety and geological certification standard for setting up and running industrial sites within the EU?

— Does the Commission think that it would be desirable for the European Federation of Geologists to implement its tasks, also simplifying the procedure for obtaining the professional title of ‘European Geologist’?

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

(2 August 2013)

The EU has been supporting international inter-disciplinary research in the field of natural hazards (geological or climate/meteorological related) since the late 1980s thus contributing to the improved integrated knowledge‐base necessary for a better assessment of hazards, vulnerabilities and risks and for the development of sound risk management approaches promoting prevention and mitigation strategies.

Communication COM(2009)82 (107) and the ‘Staff Working Paper on Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management’ (108) support and improve coherence with respect to risk assessments undertaken in EU Member States.

Safety rules on setting up and running industrial sites are essential to ensure a secure environment. The Commission has recognised this necessity, which is reflected in the support of projects in the area of crisis management through the current Framework Programme for Research, Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7). However, to date, no specific research has been carried out on the feasibility of developing European geological certification standards related to industrial sites. Additional research would be needed before any further steps are taken.

The professional title of ‘European Geologist’ is a voluntary initiative set up by the European Federation of Geologists. The modernised Professional Qualifications Directive (109) provides for new tools aimed at simplifying the mobility of professionals. This directive introduces a new system of automatic recognition based on a common set of knowledge, skills and competences. ‘Common training frameworks’ could be developed for professions and the qualifications obtained under such a framework could be recognised in other Member States.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007902/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(3 luglio 2013)

Oggetto: Valutazione d'impatto dell'ingresso della Croazia nell'Unione europea

Il 1° luglio 2013, la Croazia ha fatto il suo ingresso nell'Unione europea. La domanda di adesione era stata presentata il 21 febbraio 2003, mentre il Consiglio europeo l'aveva dichiarata «paese candidato» il 18 giugno dell'anno successivo. Osservati nel loro complesso, i negoziati di adesione si sono protratti per circa 8 anni, dall'ottobre del 2005 ad oggi.

La Croazia vive una particolare situazione economica, avendo subito anch'essa il contraccolpo della crisi finanziaria iniziata nel 2008 ed avendo perso nel successivo biennio, come sottolinea uno studio del Ministero degli Affari esteri italiano, circa sette punti percentuali di prodotto interno lordo.

Nonostante l'andamento economico leggermente più favorevole degli anni 2011-2012, l'industria croata è ancora coinvolta nella recessione e il sistema bancario nazionale è tuttora controllato per i 4/5 da banche straniere.

La pubblica amministrazione croata è colpita da elevati tassi di corruzione, mentre il settore privato manca di un'industria produttiva di carattere medio-piccolo ed il debito pubblico continua a crescere, attestandosi ormai a quota 56,3 % del Pil.

Infine il tasso croato di disoccupazione è tra i più alti in tutta l'Unione, raggiungendo il 20,9 %, è inferiore solo a quello greco (26,8 %) e spagnolo (27 %).

Può la Commissione precisare se ha eseguito nuove valutazioni sull'impatto che l'adesione di questo nuovo Stato membro produrrà sull'economia UE e sulle possibili conseguenze negative sulle economie delle regioni limitrofe?

Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione

(6 settembre 2013)

La Croazia ha risentito della crisi economica fino dall’inizio, nel 2008, e deve ancora affrontare, come molti Stati membri dell’UE, notevoli sfide legate alla prolungata recessione. Ora come ora, il suo problema principale è migliorare la competitività dell’economia e avviare una crescita che sia fonte di occupazione, garantendo al tempo stesso il risanamento di bilancio. Sono state prese alcune misure importanti per quanto riguarda l’attuazione di riforme strutturali urgenti in campo economico al fine di migliorare la competitività e le prospettive di crescita. In presenza della leadership politica necessaria per attuare ulteriori riforme, la Croazia ha buone probabilità di tornare alla crescita nel 2014, come previsto dalla Commissione. Le precedenti adesioni hanno prodotto risultati tangibili in termini di crescita e occupazione in tutta l’UE e di aumento degli investimenti. La Croazia non dovrebbe fare eccezione. Inoltre, la partecipazione della Croazia al mercato interno e alla politica di coesione dell’UE offre opportunità supplementari per gli operatori economici di tutta l’UE.

Durante i preparativi per l’adesione, la Croazia ha adottato misure strutturali per migliorare l’efficienza del sistema giudiziario, rafforzare lo Stato di diritto e ottenere buoni risultati in termini di lotta alla corruzione, compresa una serie di misure preventive. Il paese si è dotato del quadro giuridico e istituzionale necessario per combattere la corruzione, ottenendo già i primi risultati in questo campo.

I progressi compiuti dalla Croazia dal 2005, quando sono iniziati i negoziati di adesione, dimostrano che il 1o luglio 2013, data di adesione all’UE, il paese era sufficientemente preparato. In quanto Stato membro dell’UE, la Croazia è ora soggetta al medesimo monitoraggio esercitato su tutti gli altri Stati membri.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007070/13

aan de Commissie

Daniël van der Stoep (NI)

(18 juni 2013)

Betreft: Toetreding van Kroatië tot de Europese Unie

Ondanks het ontbreken van publieke ondersteuning, ondanks de existentiële crisis van de Europese Unie en ondanks de algehele malaise in Europa, heeft men het schijnbaar toch verstandig geacht om Kroatië te laten toetreden tot de Europese Unie.

Zoals reeds lang geleden viel te voorspellen, komen de eerste onheilsberichten al tot ons (110). In dit kader stel ik de Commissie graag de volgende vragen:

Volgens een artikel van Reuters1 is Kroatië amper toegetreden, of er is al sprake van begrotingstekorten, slechte ondernemersomstandigheden, een slecht functionerend rechtssysteem en dito overheid. Deelt de Commissie mijn mening dat de Europese Unie het zich niet kan permitteren een land dat zijn zaken zo slecht voor elkaar heeft toe te laten treden? Zo niet, waarom niet?

Deelt de Commissie mijn mening dat het toetreden van Kroatië wederom zal leiden tot een oneigenlijke en zware belasting voor de lidstaten, die nu al gebukt gaan onder het oplossen van de problemen van andere zwakke landen? Zo niet, waarom niet?

Volgens een artikel op EUobserver (111) behoort Kroatië tot de meest corrupte landen van Europa. Deelt de Commissie mijn mening dat als een land al in aanmerking zou moeten komen voor toetreding tot de Europese Unie, dergelijke alarmerende problemen eerst opgelost moeten zijn, voordat er sprake kan zijn van toetreding. Zo niet, waarom niet?

Deelt de Commissie de zorgen dat zodra Kroatië is toegetreden tot de Europese Unie, de bereidheid tot hervorming van het land  terug zal zakken naar een laag niveau en men wederom weer niet blijkt te hebben geleerd van fouten uit het verleden, zoals de toetreding van Bulgarije. Zo niet, waarom niet?

Kan de Commissie minstens een week voor ingang van de toetreding van Kroatië antwoord geven op mijn vragen?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(6 september 2013)

Kroatië is slachtoffer van de economische crisis die in 2008 begon en staat, net als veel EU-lidstaten, voor grote problemen in de nasleep daarvan; zo kampt het land nog steeds met een recessie. De belangrijkste taak is nu om het concurrentievermogen van de economie te vergroten en snel werkgelegenheidsbevorderende groei op gang te brengen, terwijl ook de begroting wordt geconsolideerd. Met betrekking tot de tenuitvoerlegging van de zeer dringende structurele hervormingen van de economie zijn de eerste belangrijke stappen gezet om het concurrentievermogen en de groeiperspectieven te verbeteren. Met de nodige politieke wil om verdere hervormingen door te voeren, zou Kroatië in 2014 opnieuw groei moeten vertonen, zoals de Commissie verwacht. In het verleden zijn dankzij uitbreidingen concrete resultaten geboekt wat betreft groei en werkgelegenheid in de hele EU, alsmede meer investeringen. Er is geen reden om aan te nemen dat Kroatië in dat opzicht een uitzondering zal zijn. Daarnaast biedt de deelname van Kroatië aan de interne markt en het cohesiebeleid ondernemingen in de hele EU extra kansen.

Gedurende de voorbereidingen op de toetreding heeft Kroatië structurele maatregelen doorgevoerd om het justitiële stelsel efficiënter te maken, de rechtsstaat te versterken en resultaten te boeken met betrekking tot corruptiebestrijding, waaronder een serie preventieve maatregelen. Het wettelijke en institutionele kader om corruptie te bestrijden is opgezet en begint vruchten af te werpen.

Dankzij de vorderingen die Kroatië heeft geboekt sinds de opening van de toetredingsonderhandelingen in 2005, is het land op 1 juli 2013 goed voorbereid toegetreden tot de EU. Als EU-lidstaat gelden voor Kroatië nu dezelfde toezichtsmechanismen als voor alle andere EU-lidstaten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007070/13

to the Commission

Daniël van der Stoep (NI)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Accession of Croatia to the European Union

Despite the lack of public support, despite the existential crisis facing the European Union and despite the general malaise in Europe, it has apparently been considered wise to allow Croatia to join the European Union.

As might have been predicted long ago, the first bad news stories are already reaching us (112). This gives rise to the following questions to the Commission:

According to a Reuters article1, Croatia has no sooner joined than there are budget deficits, conditions for business are poor, and neither the judicial system nor the machinery of government is functioning properly. Does the Commission agree that the European Union cannot afford to let a country which is performing so badly join the EU? If not, why not?

Does the Commission agree that the accession of Croatia will once more impose a heavy and improper burden on the Member States, which are already struggling to solve the problems of other weak countries? If not, why not?

According to an EUobserver article (113), Croatia is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Does the Commission agree that even if it is accepted that a country should be eligible for accession to the European Union, such alarming problems must first be solved before accession is possible. If not, why not?

Does the Commission share the concern that as soon as Croatia has acceded to the European Union, the readiness to reform the country will decline to a low level and it will again become clear that the lessons of the past have not been learned, for example those prompted by the accession of Bulgaria? If not, why not?

Can the Commission answer my questions at least a week before Croatia’s accession takes effect?

Question for written answer E-007902/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(3 July 2013)

Subject: Impact assessment of Croatia's accession to the European Union

On 1 July 2013, Croatia joined the European Union. Its membership application was submitted on 21 February 2003 and the European Council declared it a ‘candidate country’ on 18 June of the following year. Taken as a whole, the accession negotiations lasted for around 8 years, from October 2005 to the present day.

Croatia is going through a difficult economic situation, given that it too has suffered the backlash of the financial crisis that began in 2008 and, over the following two years (as pointed out in a study conducted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs), lost around seven percentage points of its gross domestic product.

Despite the slightly more favourable economic trend of 2011 and 2012, Croatian industry is still mired in recession and 4/5 of the domestic banking system is still controlled by foreign banks.

The Croatian civil service has high rates of corruption, while the private sector has no small and medium-sized industries and the national debt continues to grow, having now reached 56.3% of GDP.

Lastly, the Croatian unemployment rate is among the highest in the whole of the EU and, at 20.9%, is lower only than the rate in Greece (26.8%) and Spain (27%).

Can the Commission say whether it has carried out any new assessments on the impact that the accession of this new EU Member State will have on the EU economy and on any negative consequences it might have on the economies of neighbouring regions?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2013)

Croatia has suffered from the onset of the economic crisis in 2008 and, like many EU Member States, faces big challenges in its wake, as it continues to struggle with recession. Its main challenge now is to improve the competitiveness of its economy and kick-start job-rich growth, while ensuring fiscal consolidation. Some important initial steps have been taken regarding the implementation of urgently needed structural reforms in the economy, to improve competitiveness and growth prospects. With the required political leadership to implement further reforms, Croatia is well-placed to return to growth in 2014, as the Commission forecasts. Past accessions have yielded tangible results in terms of growth and jobs across the EU and higher levels of investments. Croatia should be no exception. In addition, Croatia's participation in the EU's Internal Market and Cohesion Policy, offers additional opportunities for economic operators across the EU.

During its accession preparations, Croatia took structural measures to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, strengthened rule of law, and built up a track record in fighting corruption, including setting up a series of preventive measures. The relevant legal and institutional framework to fight corruption is in place and has started to deliver results.

The progress made by Croatia since the opening of the accession negotiations in 2005 meant that Croatia has joined the EU on 1 July 2013 well prepared. As an EU Member State, Croatia is now subject to the same monitoring as all other EU Member States.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení P-007071/13

Komisi

Zuzana Roithová (PPE)

(18. června 2013)

Předmět: Podmínky garance půjček pro studenty v rámci programu „Erasmus pro všechny“

Evropská komise představila projekt garancí půjček pro studenty v rámci programu „Erasmus pro všechny“ ve výši 880 milionů EUR. Jde o potenciálně velmi pozitivní nástroj pomoci pro studenty, kteří by jinak neměli přístup k odpovídajícím finančním zdrojům pro studium v zahraničí. Do návrhu nařízení však nejsou zahrnuty jednoznačné a podrobnější informace o mechanismu garancí – tedy za jakých podmínek budou banky spravovat poskytnuté stovky milionů EUR tak, aby nemohlo dojít k jejich nehospodárnému vynakládání například na administrativní úkony banky. Poskytovat veřejné prostředky bankám nelze jen na základě obecného mandátu, ale podle naprosto transparentních pravidel. Přitom v dopadové studii jsou této otázce věnovány jen obecné a stručné informace, které neposkytují vyčerpávající přehled o nastavení systému a jeho účinné kontrole.

Jaká kritéria hodlá Evropská komise společně s Evropskou investiční bankou stanovit pro systém garancí půjček pro studenty v rámci programu „Erasmus pro všechny“?

Jakým striktním podmínkám budou podléhat banky vybrané ve veřejné soutěži, aby nedošlo k nehospodárnému užití veřejných prostředků v rámci tohoto systému garancí půjček?

Kdo bude ručit za účelné využití a splacení svěřených prostředků (půjde o stát, Evropskou investiční banku či vybrané národní banky)?

Jakým způsobem hodlá Evropská komise zaručit zapojení a efektivní kontrolu realizace systému garancí půjček ze strany Evropského parlamentu?

Jaký dopad nesplácených studentských půjček na rozpočet EU je předpokládán, respektive, jaký je předpoklad schopnosti VŠ studentů splátky splácet?

Banky tímto způsobem získají tisíce nových klientů s podporou EU; nepůjde o nedovolenou veřejnou podporu v rámci hospodářské soutěže (tj. o přílišné zvýhodnění těchto subjektů oproti jejich konkurenci)?

Odpověď komisařky Vassiliou jménem Komise

(15. července 2013)

Navrhovaná kritéria systému záruk za studentské půjčky jsou tato: nevyžaduje se ručitel či ručení rodiči, úrokové sazby nižší než tržní úrokové sazby a možnost odložit či zmrazit splácení až na dva roky. Tato kritéria budou stanovena v právním základě po dohodě mezi Parlamentem a Radou.

Finanční zprostředkovatelé (subjekty poskytující studentské půjčky, banky atd.) budou vybíráni transparentním a otevřeným postupem na základě výzvy k vyjádření zájmu – příklady výzev pro jiné záruky ES spravované EIF jsou uvedeny na jejich internetových stránkách. Žadatelé budou muset prokázat, jak splňují zveřejněná kritéria, a doložit, že převedou maximální přínos prostředků EU na studenty.

Evropský investiční fond, jednající jménem Komise, zajistí náležité využití prostředků prostřednictvím smluvního vztahu s vybranými finančními zprostředkovateli. Plnění bude sledováno průběžně a v souladu s čl. 140 odst. 8 finančního nařízení. Komise bude každoročně podávat zprávu Parlamentu a Radě. Zvláštní hodnocení v polovině období věnované zárukám za studentské půjčky bude součástí programu Erasmus+.

Systém je koncipován tak, aby splácení půjček bylo dostupné a uskutečnitelné. Zatímco o výši jednotlivých půjček rozhoduje student a finanční zprostředkovatel, sociální kritéria a omezení záruky (na 12 000 EUR na program trvající 1 rok a 18 000 EUR na program trvající 2 roky) vyvažují přístup k dostatečnému kapitálu snížením rizika nadměrného zadlužení. Zatížení rozpočtu EU je omezeno na částku stanovenou pro tento systém v programu Erasmus+.

Tento systém bude otevřený všem bankám. Vybrány budou ty banky, které studentům nabídnou nejlepší podmínky.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007071/13

to the Commission

Zuzana Roithová (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Student loan guarantee conditions for the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme

The Commission has proposed a student loan guarantee facility for the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme amounting to EUR 880 million. This could potentially have a very positive effect, helping students who would not otherwise have had access to appropriate funding to finance their studies abroad. However, the draft regulation does not contain explicit or detailed information on the guarantee mechanism, i.e. on the conditions governing how the banks will manage the hundreds of millions of euros entrusted to them without engaging in wasteful spending, for instance on administrative transactions. Entrusting public funds to banks is unacceptable under a general mandate; rather, absolutely transparent rules must be put in place. The impact study only contains brief, general references to this issue, and it fails to provide an exhaustive overview of how the system would be set up and how it would be monitored effectively.

What criteria will the Commission and the European Investment Bank prescribe for the student loan guarantee scheme for the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme?

What stringent conditions will the banks selected through public tender procedures be required to fulfil, with a view to preventing the wasteful spending of public funds through the loan guarantee scheme?

Who will be responsible for ensuring that the funds are used appropriately and repaid: the Member State, the European Investment Bank or the chosen national banks?

How does the Commission intend to ensure Parliament’s involvement in, and effective supervision of, the implementation of the loan guarantee scheme?

What is the anticipated impact of unpaid student loans on the EU budget, or more precisely, what is the predicted capacity of university students to make repayments?

Under this scheme, the EU will help banks to gain thousands of new customers; is the scheme not, therefore, a form of forbidden public aid that undermines competition by giving the chosen banks an undue advantage over their competitors?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2013)

The proposed criteria for the Student Loan Guarantee scheme are: no requirement for collateral or parental guarantees, lower than market interest rates, and the possibility to defer or freeze repayments for up to two years. These will be set out in the legal base following agreement between Parliament and Council.

Financial intermediaries (student loan agencies, banks etc) will be selected in a transparent and open procedure via a call for expressions of interest — examples of calls for other EC guarantees managed by the EIF can be found on their website. Applicants will have to demonstrate how they meet the published criteria and prove that they will transfer the maximum benefit of the EU resources to students.

The European Investment Fund, acting on the Commission's behalf, will ensure proper use of the funds via the contractual relationship with the selected financial intermediaries. Delivery will be monitored on an ongoing basis and in accordance with Article 140 (8) of the Financial Regulation. The Commission will report annually to the Parliament and Council. As part of the Erasmus+ programme, there will be a specific mid-term evaluation of the Student Loan Guarantee.

The scheme is designed so that repayments are affordable and achievable. While the level of individual loans is for the student and financial intermediary to decide, social criteria and a limit on the guarantee (EUR 12 000 for a 1-year programme and EUR 18 000 for 2 years) balance access to sufficient capital with limiting the risk of overindebtedness. EU budget exposure is limited to the amount laid down for the scheme in Erasmus +.

The scheme will be open to all banks. Those selected will be the ones that give the best deal to students.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007072/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Espionaje del Reino Unido en la Cumbre del G-20

Recientemente han aparecido en The Guardian unas revelaciones sobre la manera en que los servicios de inteligencia británicos espiaron a las autoridades diplomáticas que participaron en la cumbre mundial del G-20 celebrada el pasado 2009, a través de escuchas y todo tipo de violaciones de la privacidad, con la autorización expresa del Gobierno del Reino Unido.

Las revelaciones proceden de los documentos enviados por el ex colaborador de la NSA Edward Snowden a dicho periódico, filtraciones por las que se encuentra actualmente escondido en Hong Kong. Las escuchas realizadas a representantes políticos y diplomáticos de los participantes en el G-20 supusieron una herramienta fundamental de negociación que fue empleada por el Reino Unido para sacar el mayor provecho posible de dicha cumbre. Las escuchas fueron autorizadas por el anterior ministro Gordon Brown y suponen numerosas violaciones de derechos, así como un varapalo a la legitimidad de la diplomacia británica y a los resultados de la citada cumbre.

El espionaje realizado empleaba la tecnología estadounidense Prisma que, según los documentos de Snowden, viene siendo utilizada por los servicios de inteligencia del país desde hace años. Con dicha tecnología los agentes británicos practicaron escuchas a numerosos representantes y fueron capaces de superar la seguridad de sus mensajes electrónicos, pudiendo acceder al correo electrónico de los representantes diplomáticos en tiempo real para informar a los negociadores del Reino Unido durante la cumbre. Esta violación masiva de la intimidad y de los intereses nacionales en una cumbre de tan elevado nivel supone un delito sin precedentes, al menos conocidos, y exige por tanto que se tomen medidas concretas con respecto al Reino Unido.

1.

¿Piensa la Comisión exigir responsabilidades penales al Reino Unido ante este escandaloso caso de espionaje?

2.

¿Ha adoptado alguna medida la Comisión para que el Reino Unido no viole sistemáticamente las libertades fundamentales y los intereses nacionales de otros países?

3.

¿Cómo piensa colaborar la Comisión en la protección de Edward Snowden para garantizar su seguridad y el acceso a la información que ha puesto a disposición de la opinión pública?

4.

La Comisaria de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales, Viviane Reding, ha exigido que los Estados Unidos den explicaciones por la violación masiva de derechos de ciudadanos europeos. ¿Piensa la Comisión hacerlo con el Reino Unido?

Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión

(5 de septiembre de 2013)

La Comisión ruega a Su Señoría se remita a su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E‐006783/13.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007072/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Revelations of UK spying at the G20 summit

The Guardian recently published information revealing that the British intelligence services spied on diplomats attending the G20 world summit in 2009. They reportedly tapped into communications and breached any number of privacy rules, with the express authorisation of the UK Government.

These revelations come from documents leaked to the newspaper by Edward Snowden, a former NSA employee, who is now in hiding in Hong Kong. Eavesdropping on visiting politicians and diplomats from the G20 nations was instrumental in enabling the UK to secure a negotiating advantage at the summit. These eavesdropping operations were authorised by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and constitute multiple rights violations, as well as dealing a blow to the legitimacy of British diplomacy and the results of the summit itself.

The spying operations employed US Prism technology which, according to Snowden's documents, the country's intelligence services have been using for years. British agents used this technology to bug numerous representatives and were able to bypass their email security systems to gain real-time access to diplomats’ private messages before sending their findings to UK negotiators at the summit. As far as we know, this gross violation of privacy and national interests at such a high-level summit is an unprecedented crime which calls for concrete measures to be taken against the United Kingdom.

1.

Does the Commission intend to hold the UK criminally responsible for this shocking act of espionage?

2.

Has the Commission taken any action to ensure that the United Kingdom does not systematically violate the fundamental liberties and national interests of other countries?

3.

How will the Commission help to protect Edward Snowden, in order to guarantee his safety and safeguard access to the information that he has made available to the public?

4.

The Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights, Viviane Reding, has demanded explanations from the United States regarding the massive violation of European citizens' rights. Will the Commission demand similar explanations from the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐006783/13.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007073/13

a la Comisión

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Protocolo de pesca con Mauritania

Tras la votación en la Comisión de Pesca del pasado día 29 de mayo en la que, por 16 votos a favor, 6 en contra y 1 abstención, fue aprobado el informe Mato que proponía «el rechazo a la celebración del Protocolo por el que se fijan las posibilidades de pesca y la contrapartida financiera establecidas en el Acuerdo de Asociación en el sector pesquero entre la Unión Europea y la República Islámica de Mauritania», y antes de que se celebre la votación final en el pleno de la Cámara, teniendo en cuenta la infrautilización del Protocolo que se viene aplicando provisionalmente, cabe formular la siguiente pregunta:

¿Va a adoptar la Comisión alguna medida encaminada a modificar el actual protocolo de manera que sea utilizado por la flota europea?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007074/13

a la Comisión

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Contraprestación financiera Mauritania

¿Mantiene la Comisión que, a la vista de la escasa utilización de las licencias para faenar en aguas de Mauritania y a la vista de los nuevos datos sobre las reservas de pulpo, la contraprestación financiera de 70 millones de euros abonada por la UE es una cantidad razonable?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007075/13

a la Comisión

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Comité Conjunto — Acuerdo de Pesca UE-Mauritania

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de las previsiones para la celebración de la reunión del Comité Conjunto en la que se deben validar los acuerdos del pasado 24 de mayo?

¿Tiene intención la Comisión de hacer algún nuevo planteamiento al Comité Conjunto en vista de las actuales circunstancias, a saber, nuevos informes, infrautilización y rechazo por parte de la Comisión de Pesca del PE del Protocolo de pesca UE‐Mauritania que viene aplicándose de manera provisional?

Respuesta conjunta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de septiembre de 2013)

La Comisión logró mejoras significativas de las medidas técnicas, especialmente las referidas a los camarones y a las especies pelágicas, en la reunión del Comité conjunto celebrada en París en febrero de 2013 y en una reunión técnica que tuvo lugar en Bruselas en mayo de 2013. En septiembre de 2013, se celebrará otra reunión del Comité conjunto para certificar el acuerdo alcanzado en la reunión técnica. Es intención de la Comisión explorar con Mauritania la posibilidad de mejoras adicionales.

En los primeros seis meses de aplicación provisional del Protocolo, la Comisión ha estado siguiendo de cerca el porcentaje de utilización y el correspondiente valor generado por las actividades pesqueras enmarcadas en él, basándose tanto en las licencias de pesca como en las capturas. A finales de junio, el nivel general de utilización era bajo, pero en las últimas semanas ha habido un cambio significativo. En el caso de las especies pelágicas, se ha producido un incremento del número de licencias utilizadas. Según los datos más recientes comunicados por los armadores, la productividad de las actividades pesqueras es buena. Otros segmentos de la flota también están faenando con buenos resultados (merluza senegalesa, especies demersales, atún).

La Comisión continuará supervisando el porcentaje de utilización a fin de asegurarse de que el Protocolo genera un valor que compense la inversión.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007073/13

to the Commission

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Fishing Protocol with Mauritania

After a vote in the Committee on Fisheries on 29 May 2013, the Mato report was adopted by 16 votes to 6 with 1 abstention. This report calls on Parliament to reject the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. A final vote will now take place in plenary. Given the under-utilisation of the Protocol which was being implemented on a provisional basis:

Does the Commission intend to take some kind of action to change the current protocol so that it can be used by the European fleet?

Question for written answer E-007074/13

to the Commission

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Compensatory payment to Mauritania

In view of the low take-up of licences for fishing in Mauritanian waters and the new information on octopus stocks, does the Commission still consider the EUR 70 million the EU pays in financial compensation to be a reasonable figure?

Question for written answer E-007075/13

to the Commission

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Joint committee — EU-Mauritania fisheries agreement

Does the Commission know what is likely to happen at the Joint Committee meeting at which the agreements of 24 May 2013 are supposed to be ratified?

Does the Commission intend to suggest that the Joint Committee adopt a new approach in the light of the publication of new reports, the underuse of fishing opportunities and the rejection by Parliament's Fisheries Committee of the EU-Mauritania fisheries protocol which is currently being applied provisionally?

Joint answer given by Mrs Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2013)

The Commission has achieved significant improvements of technical measures in particular for shrimp and pelagic categories during the Joint Committee held in Paris in February 2013 and a technical meeting in Brussels in May 2013. A Joint Committee will be organised in September 2013 to validate the results of the technical meeting. The Commission is committed to explore with Mauritania potential further improvements.

In the first 6 months of the provisional application of the protocol, the Commission has been closely monitoring the utilisation rate and the corresponding value generated by fishing activities under the protocol, both based on licences and catches. The overall level of utilisation was low at the end of June, however there has been a significant change in the last few weeks. For pelagics, the uptake of licences has increased. According to the most recent information from the ship-owners, the productivity of fishing activities is good. Other segments are also fishing with good results (black hake, demersal, tuna).

The Commission will continue to monitor the utilisation rate in order to ensure that the protocol delivers value for money.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007076/13

a la Comisión

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Sobreexplotación de cefalópodos

A la vista de los informes recientemente publicados en relación con la supuesta sobreexplotación de cefalópodos en Mauritania, cabe fomentar las siguientes preguntas:

¿Mantiene la Comisión que la pesquería de cefalópodos está sobreexplotada?

¿Cree la Comisión que a la vista de los últimos estudios científicos sobre la supuesta escasez de la reservas de pulpo, está justificada la exclusión de la flota cefalopodera de la UE del Protocolo de pesca con Mauritania?

¿Se propone la Comisión adoptar alguna medida en relación con esta situación?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de septiembre de 2013)

En el informe de la última reunión del comité científico conjunto (celebrada en Rennes del 2 al 5 de abril de 2013) se comunicaron al Parlamento Europeo los datos más reciente sobre las poblaciones de cefalópodos y una evaluación de las mismas. La Comisión toma nota de los resultados de las evaluaciones realizadas por ese Comité, que confirman que dichas poblaciones continúan estando sobreexplotadas.

Los cefalópodos no están excluidos del nuevo Protocolo con Mauritania sino que figuran mencionados con un cupo de cero. Mauritania ha dejado clara su intención de desarrollar su propia pesca cefalopodera artesanal. El Protocolo concede a la flota de la Unión Europea acceso prioritario a los excedentes disponibles en las zonas de pesca de ese país, lo que significa que, en cuanto exista algún excedente de la población de cefalópodos y Mauritania decida asignar una parte del mismo a flotas extranjeras, la flota de la UE tendrá prioridad de acceso sobre las de otros países.

La Comisión seguirá trabajando con Mauritania para lograr el mejor resultado posible para la flota de la UE y velar por la sostenibilidad de esa población. Así, por ejemplo, mediante un marco alternativo de gestión, basado en un enfoque espaciotemporal, se podría generar un aumento de los rendimientos futuros de esa pesquería. Para evaluar la posibilidad de ese modelo de gestión en aguas mauritanas, se organizará en los próximos meses un protocolo experimental en el comité científico conjunto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007076/13

to the Commission

Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Overfishing of cephalopods

In light of the recently published reports concerning the supposed overfishing of cephalopods in Mauritania:

Does the Commission agree that cephalopod stocks are being overfished?

In light of the recent scientific studies into the supposed scarcity of octopus stocks, does the Commission see any justification for excluding the EU’s cephalopod fleet from the Fishing Protocol with Mauritania?

Does the Commission intend to take action to address this issue?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2013)

The most recent data and assessment regarding cephalopod stocks have been made available to the European Parliament in the report of the last Joint Scientific Committee (Rennes,

2-5 April 2013). The Commission takes note of the results of the assessments carried out by this Committee, confirming that these stocks remain overexploited.

Cephalopods are not excluded from the new Protocol with Mauritania, but mentioned with zero quota. Mauritania has made clear its intention to develop its own coastal cephalopod fishery. The Protocol grants European Union fleets priority access to available surpluses in Mauritanian fishing zones. This means that as soon as a surplus of the cephalopod stock is available, and if Mauritania agrees to allocate part of this surplus to foreign fleets, EU fleets will have priority access over other foreign fleets.

The Commission will continue to work with Mauritania in order to secure the best possible outcome for the EU fleet and sustainability of the stock. Hence, an alternative framework, based on a spatio-temporal approach, might generate increases of future yields of this fishery. An experimental protocol, in the framework of the Joint Scientific Committee, will be organised in the upcoming months to evaluate this management model in Mauritanian waters.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007077/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Condanna di un'attivista per i diritti delle donne in Arabia Saudita: il caso di Wajeeha al-Huwaider

Lo scorso 15 giugno è stata divulgata la notizia della condanna a dieci mesi di reclusione dell'attivista saudita Wajeeha al-Huwaider, cui si applicherà anche il divieto di lasciare il territorio nazionale per i prossimi due anni. La blogger, fondatrice di una lega femminile per promuovere il diritto delle donne a conseguire la patente di guida e a circolare liberamente, ha sfidato i divieti delle autorità religiose in più occasioni: accusando pubblicamente un imam saudita di aver ucciso la figlioletta picchiandola ripetutamente e aiutando una cittadina canadese a fuggire, con il marito arabo e i suoi figli, dal Regno.

L'accusa per la quale Al-Huwaider si trova attualmente in carcere è quella di favoreggiamento in una «tentata evasione», rispetto al quale la condannata si è però limitata a un sostegno morale, più che sostanziale.

Inoltre l'Arabia Saudita, nonostante l'estensione del diritto di voto alle donne a partire dal 2015, vede appena trenta donne in Parlamento e pretende che ciascuna sottostia al controllo di un tutore, al limite anche un figlio minorenne, purché maschio, continuando a negare loro la possibilità di guidare in città, di partecipare a riunioni pubbliche da sole, di esprimere la propria opinione e di utilizzare i nuovi strumenti di comunicazione.

Tutto ciò contrasta con i diritti riconosciuti alle donne a livello internazionale, in particolar modo con l'art. 1 della Convenzione sui diritti delle Donne ai sensi del quale «Gli Stati parti condannano la discriminazione nei confronti della donna in ogni sua forma, convengono di perseguire con ogni mezzo appropriato e senza indugio, una politica tendente ad eliminare la discriminazione nei confronti della donna (…)».

Alla luce di quanto sopra può la Commissione far sapere:

se sia a conoscenza della condanna contro Wajeeha al-Huwaider e di sentenze simili nei confronti di altre attiviste e

quali azioni intenda intraprendere per spingere l'Arabia Saudita ad avviare un dialogo serio e costruttivo sui diritti umani e, in particolare, sulla dignità della donna?

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

(24 settembre 2013)

1.

La Commissione è ben consapevole delle questioni sollevate dall’onorevole parlamentare e ha costantemente inserito la questione dei diritti delle donne nell’ambito delle sue relazioni con l’Arabia Saudita, a livello sia bilaterale che multilaterale, in linea con la posizione di principio dell'UE sulla parità tra i sessi.

2.

Si rinvia cortesemente l’onorevole parlamentare alla risposta data alla sua precedente interrogazione scritta E-006638/2013

2.

Si rinvia cortesemente l’onorevole parlamentare alla risposta data alla sua precedente interrogazione scritta E-006638/2013

 (114)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007077/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Conviction of a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia: the case of Wajeeha al-Huwaider

It was revealed on 15 June that the Saudi activist, Wajeeha al-Huwaider, had been sentenced to ten months in prison and will also be banned from leaving the country for the next two years. The blogger, founder of a women's league for the promotion of women's right to obtain a driving licence and circulate freely, has defied bans imposed by the religious authorities on several occasions: by publicly accusing a Saudi imam of having killed his daughter by repeatedly beating her and by helping a Canadian citizen to flee the Kingdom with her Arab husband and children.

Al-Huwaider has now been imprisoned for having aided in an ‘escape attempt’, although her conviction was limited to moral, rather than concrete, support.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia, despite having awarded women the right to vote from 2015, has barely thirty women in Parliament and claims that each of them is under the supervision of a tutor, even an underage child if necessary, provided that it is a son, and thus continues to deny them the possibility of driving in the city, taking part in public meetings alone, expressing their own opinions and using new means of communication.

This is all in conflict with women's rights recognised at international level, especially Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which states that ‘States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women (…)’.

In view of the above, could the Commission state:

whether it is aware of the conviction of Wajeeha al-Huwaider and similar sentences against other activists and

which measure it intends to implement to press Saudi Arabia into opening a serious and constructive dialogue concerning human rights and, especially, women's dignity?

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

(24 September 2013)

1.

The Commission is well aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member, and has consistently included the issue of women's rights in its relations with Saudi Arabia, both at bilateral and multilateral level, in line with the EU's principled stance on gender equality.

2.

The Honourable Member is kindly refered to the reply given to his previous Written Question E-006638/2013

2.

The Honourable Member is kindly refered to the reply given to his previous Written Question E-006638/2013

 (115)

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007078/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Condizioni di cristiani nel Bangladesh e nella regione indiana del Maharastra

È notizia recente la vittoria del Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) alle elezioni amministrative locali e l'aumento delle violenze perpetrate dagli estremisti indù contro i cristiani in Maharastra, uno degli Stati tradizionalmente più tolleranti del sub-continente indiano.

Il BNP sostiene le manifestazioni del gruppo estremista Jamaat-e-Islam, il quale attacca da tempo i verdetti di colpevolezza dei tribunali di guerra che processano i membri del partito islamico, avendo causato nel solo mese di marzo di quest'anno 35 morti e circa 800 feriti.

Al contempo, in India l'odio religioso assume dimensioni tali per le quali ai Cristiani viene impedito di costruirsi casa, di lavorare i terreni di proprietà, e di recarsi in chiesa la domenica. Gli edifici religiosi cristiani vengono distrutti o sfregiati.

Sia in Bangladesh che in India, la posizione dei cristiani è quanto mai fragile, e i loro diritti calpestati — soprattutto risultano violati l'eguaglianza richiamata dal preambolo della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo del 1948, il diritto al rispetto della propria vita familiare ex art. 7 CEDU, il diritto di costruire una famiglia di cui all'art. 9, la libertà di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione ex art. 10 e, infine, quello alla proprietà ex art. 17 CEDU.

Può l'Alto Rappresentante precisare quanto segue:

è a conoscenza degli avvenimenti che hanno investito il Bangladesh e la regione indiana del Maharastra?

quali azioni intenda intraprendere per dare impulso al dibattito sulla libertà religiosa nei due Paesi?

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

(8 agosto 2013)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è ben consapevole delle questioni menzionate dall’onorevole parlamentare nella sua interrogazione. Infatti, i problemi che le comunità cristiane si trovano ad affrontare in Maharashtra sono le stesse riscontrate in altre regioni dell’India.

L’Unione europea presta grande attenzione alla necessità di tutelare i diritti umani e le libertà fondamentali sia in India sia in Bangladesh. La non discriminazione, le questioni di genere e i diritti delle donne, la libertà di religione e di credo sono tra i principali temi che vengono regolarmente sollevati con entrambi i governi. Discussioni approfondite sulla situazione in India e in Bangladesh hanno luogo anche a livello multilaterale, in particolare presso il Consiglio per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, a Ginevra.

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha espresso costernazione per l’elevato numero di morti registrato in Bangladesh durante le manifestazioni che hanno seguito le sentenze pronunciate, nel febbraio 2013, dall’International Crimes Tribunal. L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha fatto appello a tutte le forze politiche affinché lavorino insieme nell’interesse del paese, invito rinnovato anche durante il suo incontro con il ministro degli Affari esteri del Bangladesh Dipu Moni, il 1o giugno 2013.

Il dialogo sui diritti umani tra l’Unione europea e l’India rappresenta inoltre una buona opportunità per intrattenere un periodico scambio di opinioni su tali questioni.

L’UE sostiene anche progetti per la salvaguardia dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali in entrambi i paesi, in particolare attraverso lo Strumento europeo per la democrazia e i diritti umani (EIDHR).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007078/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Situation of Christians in Bangladesh and in the Indian region of Maharashtra

According to recent news, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has won local elections and there has been a rise in acts of violence by Hindu extremists against Christians in Maharashtra, traditionally one of the most tolerant states of the Indian subcontinent.

The BNP supports protests by the extremist group Jamaat-e-Islami, which for some time has attacked the guilty verdicts handed down by war courts trying members of the Islamist party, leaving 35 people dead and around 800 wounded in March 2013 alone.

At the same time, religious hatred is becoming so widespread in India that Christians are prevented from building homes, from working their land and from going to church on Sundays. Christian religious buildings are destroyed or defaced.

Christians in Bangladesh and in India are in a very vulnerable position and their rights are being trampled. In particular, the equality referred to in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the right to respect for family life under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and the right to found a family under Article 9, the freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 10 and the right to property under Article 17 of the CFREU are being violated.

— Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the events in Bangladesh and the Indian region of Maharashtra?

— What action will she take to promote a debate on religious freedom in the two countries?

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

(8 August 2013)

The High Representative/Vice-President is well aware of the issues mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question. Indeed, as regards India, the problems Christian communities face in Maharashtra are the same as the ones encountered in other regions.

The European Union pays great attention to the necessity of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in both India and Bangladesh. Non-discrimination, gender issues and women's rights, freedom of religion and belief are some of the most relevant topics that are regularly raised with both governments. Thorough discussions on the situation in India and Bangladesh also take place at the multilateral level, in particular at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The High Representative/Vice-President expressed her distress at the large number of dead in Bangladesh during demonstrations following the verdicts handed down in February 2013 by the International Crimes Tribunal. The High Representative/Vice-President appealed to all political forces to work together in the interests of the country, a point also made during her meeting with the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, H.E. Dipu Moni, on 1 June 2013.

The EU-India Human Rights Dialogue also provides a good opportunity to exchange views on these matters at regular intervals.

The EU also supports projects on human rights and fundamental freedoms in both countries, especially through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007079/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Reiterarsi dei casi di esecuzioni sommarie in Siria

Nelle città siriane di Idlib e Al-Bab, nonché in alcune zone di Aleppo, vige da un anno la Sharia, imposta dai ribelli islamisti affiliati ad Al-Qaeda. Le corti islamiche, nell'applicazione della legge, colpiscono soprattutto i cristiani e tutti coloro che, pur essendo musulmani, non appartengano alla corrente islamica wahhabita.

L'interrogante:

considerando che durante l'attacco delle milizie di Sadeq al-Amin al villaggio sciita di Hatlah sono stati uccisi tutti coloro che si opponevano all'avanzata islamica, e che i loro corpi sono stati esposti al vilipendio pubblico anche con la registrazione di video in proposito inneggianti alla guerra santa, poi diffusi su Internet;

osservando inoltre che il supporto economico ai ribelli, negli ultimi mesi, è stato contestuale alla repressione della milizia sciita di Hezbollah contro i sunniti e i non-musulmani;

evidenziando infine che, delle circa trenta milizie ribelli oggi attive in Siria, solo tre fanno parte del Free Syrian Army, l'organismo attivo nel dialogo con i paesi occidentali, mentre le altre risultano legate ad Al-Qaeda e a cellule terroristiche affini, e divulgano la notizia di voler rafforzare l'Islam radicale in Medio Oriente,

chiede all'Alto Rappresentante Ashton:

quale situazione si sia prodotta dopo la cessazione dell'embargo delle armi nei confronti della Siria da parte dell'UE;

quali siano oggi i dati sulle persecuzioni religiose contro i cristiani e le altre minoranze nel paese.

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

(24 settembre 2013)

Dal 31 maggio l’UE non applica più l’embargo sulle armi nei confronti della Siria. Le decisioni in merito a un’eventuale esportazione di armi verso questo paese sono ora di competenza dei singoli Stati membri. Gli Stati membri hanno inoltre convenuto sul fatto di vietare, in questo frangente, le esportazioni di attrezzature letali o che possano essere utilizzate per la repressione interna. Ad oggi non siamo a conoscenza di forniture di armi da parte di uno Stato membro.

La questione del rispetto e della tutela delle minoranze in Siria suscita grande preoccupazione. In molte occasioni l’UE ha sollecitato tutte le parti coinvolte nel conflitto a rispettare pienamente le disposizioni di diritto internazionale umanitario e sui diritti umani nonché a rispettare i diritti delle minoranze religiose ed etniche. Tutti coloro che si sono resi responsabili di atrocità e di violazioni e abusi dei diritti umani devono rispondere dei loro atti. L’UE ribadisce che queste violazioni non possono rimanere impunite e ricorda che il Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite può adire in qualsiasi momento la Corte penale internazionale sulla situazione in Siria. L’UE rinnova l’invito alla Siria a concedere alla commissione d’inchiesta un accesso immediato, pieno e incondizionato a tutto il paese.

L’Unione europea riafferma l’urgente necessità di una soluzione politica del conflitto e ha accolto con favore la proposta congiunta di Stati Uniti e Russia per una conferenza di pace sulla Siria volta a promuovere un processo politico fondato sui principi sanciti dal comunicato di Ginevra del 30 giugno 2012. L’UE si adopererà con il massimo impegno per contribuire a creare le condizioni affinché tale conferenza si possa realizzare con successo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007079/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Repeated instances of summary executions in Syria

Shariah law has been in force in the Syrian cities of Idlib and Al-Bab and in some areas of Aleppo for the past year, imposed by Al-Qaida-affiliated Islamist rebels. The enforcement of Shariah law by Islamic courts particularly affects Christians and all those who, despite being Muslims, do not belong to the Wahhabi movement.

In the Sadiq al-Ameen militia attack on the Shiite village of Hatla all those who opposed Shariah rule were killed and their bodies were publicly desecrated, including through the shooting of videos praising the holy war, which were then broadcast on the Internet.

The financial support provided to the rebels in recent months must be seen in the context of the acts of violence committed by the Hezbollah Shiite militia against Sunnis and non-Muslims.

Only three of the 30 or so rebel militias active in Syria today are part of the Free Syrian Army, the body engaged in dialogue with Western countries. The others are linked to Al‐Qaida and similar terrorist groups which want to spread their message of radical Islam and strengthen that religion’s hold in the Middle East.

Can the VP/HR say what the situation is following the EU’s lifting of its arms embargo on Syria?

What information is available on religious persecution of Christians and other minorities in Syria?

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

(24 September 2013)

Since 31 May the EU has no longer applied an arms embargo against Syria. The possible export of arms to Syria is now a matter of Member States' national policies. Member States also agreed that they would not allow exports of lethal equipment or internal repression items at that stage. We are not aware of any arms delivery by any Member State so far.

The issue of the respect and protection of minorities in Syria is a subject of major concern. The EU has urged in many occassions all parties in the conflict to fully respect international humanitarian and human rights law and to respect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. All those responsbible for atrocities and human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable. The EU reaffirms that there should be no impunity for any such violations and recalls that the UN Security Council can refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court at any time. The EU continues to call on Syria to allow the Commission of Inquiry immediate, full and unfettered access throughout the country.

The EU reiterates the urgent need for a political solution of the conflict and has welcomed the joint US-Russia call for a peace conference on Syria to promote a political process based on the principles included in the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. The EU will spare no efforts in helping to create the appropiate conditions for the succesful convening of this conference.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007080/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Divieto di frequentare le scuole cattoliche in Indonesia

Il Consiglio dei Mullah indonesiani (MUI) ha recentemente emesso una fatwa nei confronti di quelle famiglie musulmane che, nella regione di Jawa, iscrivono i figli in scuole cattoliche. In particolare, rischiano la chiusura due scuole gestite da religiosi, gli istituti di Tegal e Pemalang, i quali si sono opposti al decreto ingiuntivo che prevede di rendere obbligatorio lo studio dell'islam in classe.

Considerando che le due scuole citate offrono da anni il loro servizio a studenti di ogni fede, realizzando in concreto il diritto allo studio di migliaia di giovani indonesiani;

Osservando inoltre gli artt. 14 e 21 CEDU, rispettivamente sul tema del diritto all'istruzione e alla non discriminazione, in particolare nella parte in cui si sottolinea la libertà dei genitori di istruire ed educare i figli secondo le proprie convinzioni religiose, filosofiche e pedagogiche, vietando ogni discriminazione fondata sulla religione, sulle convinzioni personali e su opinioni politiche;

Evidenziando infine che il MUI ha già intrapreso campagne analoghe contro la moda nel vestiario femminile, vietando pantaloni attillati e minigonne, il diritto di voto e l'alzabandiera;

Si chiede alla Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante:

se sia a conoscenza di eventuali nuovi decreti emessi dal consiglio in questione;

quali misure intenda intraprendere per garantire il diritto alla studio degli studenti indonesiani.

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

(16 agosto 2013)

La delegazione dell'Unione europea non segue sistematicamente le nuove fatwa emesse dal Consiglio dei Mullah indonesiani (MUI). Sebbene le fatwa siano prese sul serio da molti indonesiani musulmani, esse non sono giuridicamente vincolanti e spesso vengono semplicemente ignorate. A quanto risulta alla delegazione, la fatwa contro le famiglie musulmane della regione di Giava che mandano i figli nelle scuole cattoliche è stata emanata dalla sezione locale del MUI di Tegal e non a livello nazionale. La delegazione, tuttavia, riceve periodicamente relazioni e aggiornamenti sulle discriminazioni e gli attacchi contro le minoranze religiose, tra cui i cristiani, che di solito riguardano i problemi incontrati per ottenere le autorizzazioni per la costruzione dei luoghi di culto.

La Costituzione del 1945 stabilisce che ogni cittadino è tenuto a seguire l'insegnamento di base e che il governo deve coprire i relativi costi. L'istruzione è la seconda priorità del piano di sviluppo nazionale a medio termine 2010-2014 e il governo si è fermamente impegnato a garantire pari opportunità a tutti i bambini indonesiani. Nell'ultimo decennio si è registrato un forte aumento delle iscrizioni a tutti i livelli e si è quasi raggiunto l'obiettivo dell'istruzione primaria universale. In collaborazione con il ministero dell'Istruzione e della cultura e con il ministero degli Affari religiosi, l'UE contribuisce all'effettiva attuazione di tali strategie attraverso il «Programma di sostegno al settore dell'istruzione», comprendente un sostegno al bilancio del settore e una struttura che agevola il lavoro di analisi per la definizione di politiche basate su dati concreti.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007080/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Pupils banned from attending Catholic schools in Indonesia

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) recently issued a fatwa against Muslim families in the Java region who send their children to Catholic schools. Two schools run by the Catholic Church in Tegal and Pemalang in particular face closure as they have refused to implement the decree making the study of Islam a mandatory part of the curriculum.

The two schools have opened their doors to students from all faiths for years, enabling thousands of young Indonesians to exercise their right to education.

Articles 14 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the right to education and non-discrimination respectively, stipulate that parents are free to ensure that education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions and prohibit all discrimination on the grounds of religion, personal beliefs and political opinions.

The MUI has launched similar campaigns against women's fashions, in an effort to ban women from wearing close-fitting trousers and mini skirts, the right to vote and flag-raising ceremonies.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative state whether it is aware of any new decrees issued by the MUI?

What measures does it intend to take to ensure that all Indonesian pupils can exercise their right to education?

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

(16 August 2013)

The Delegation of the European Union does not systematically follow new fatwas issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI). While fatwas carry some weight with many Indonesian Muslims they are not legally binding and often simply ignored. The Delegation understands that the fatwa against Muslim families in the Java region who send their children to Catholic schools was issued by the local MUI branch in Tegal, not the national MUI. The Delegation, however, does receive regular reports and updates about discrimination or attacks against religious minorities, including Christians, usually with regard to difficulties in obtaining permits for the establishment of places of worship.

The 1945 Constitution states that ‘each citizen is obligated to attend basic education and the Government is obligated to fund it’. Education is the second priority in the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2010-14, and the Government of Indonesia is highly committed to the provision of equal opportunity to all Indonesian children. Enrolment has significantly increased at all levels in the last decade, with universal primary education almost achieved. In collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the EU supports effective implementation of these strategies through the ‘Education Sector Support Programme’, consisting of a sector budget support and a facility to support analytical work for evidence-based policy development.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007081/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Sfruttamento minorile in Bangladesh

Il Bangladesh Child Right Forum stima siano 7,4 milioni i bambini bangladesi costretti a lavorare fin da piccoli per contribuire al mantenimento delle proprie famiglie, divenendo vittime di abusi e torture nel 17 % dei casi.

Considerando che, in età compresa tra i 5 e i 10 anni, molti di questi minori già lavorano per 16 ore al giorno, svolgendo mansioni in luoghi quali fabbriche, campagne e abitazioni di privati, con evidente violazione dell'articolo 32 CEDU, il quale fa divieto di sfruttare il lavoro minorile e impone la protezione dei giovani sul luogo dove svolgono la loro attività;

Sottolineando poi che il Bangladesh si è impegnato a sradicare il fenomeno dello sfruttamento del lavoro minorile entro il 2015 e ha ricevuto fondi UE per il proprio sviluppo, in particolare per dare impulso all'economia e vincere la malnutrizione, prerequisiti fondamentali per garantire l'istruzione delle giovani generazioni;

Osservando infine i dati UNESCO dello scorso anno, secondo i quali l'abbandono scolastico in Bangladesh tocca 8 milioni di giovani e l'analfabetismo interessa 44 milioni di persone su 164 milioni di cittadini;

Si chiede alla Commissione:

di divulgare i dati inerenti ai suoi ultimi studi sull'abbandono scolastico e sullo sfruttamento della manodopera minorile in Asia, e in particolare nello stato del Bangladesh;

di rendere noti gli ultimi sviluppi della cooperazione allo sviluppo attuata dall'Unione europea in Stati terzi, con riguardo alle tematiche della cultura e dell'istruzione.

Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione

(16 agosto 2013)

L'UE è impegnata a perseguire entro il 2016 l'obiettivo di eliminare le forme peggiori di lavoro minorile (116) e l'obiettivo di sviluppo del millennio (MDG) 2 consistente nell'ottenere l'universalizzazione dell'istruzione primaria entro il 2015. La Commissione continua instancabilmente ad operare contro tutte le forme peggiori di lavoro minorile (117).

La Commissione non produce dati suoi sui tassi di abbandono scolastico o sul lavoro minorile a livello mondiale ma si basa sulle cifre e sulle stime di organizzazioni internazionali come la Banca mondiale e gli organismi delle Nazioni Unite, tra cui l'OIL (118).

L'istruzione è uno dei principali elementi della cooperazione dell'UE con l'Asia, in cui nove documenti di strategia nazionale (DSN) sono incentrati sul settore dell'istruzione, per un importo totale di 820 milioni di euro. Tali azioni hanno contribuito ad avvicinare gli obiettivi MDG 2, con tassi particolarmente elevati nella regione, in cui l'88 % dei bambini nelle corrispondenti fasce di età frequentano le scuole elementari. Sono tuttavia necessari miglioramenti qualitativi, soprattutto nel campo del tasso di abbandono scolastico, ancora troppo elevato.

Il contributo dell'UE al settore dell'istruzione nell'ambito del DSN 2007-2013 Bangladesh è pari a 112,6 milioni di euro (il 28 % del DSN totale). Il Bangladesh ha incrementato l'accesso all'istruzione e le iscrizioni anche per le minori, ma la sua qualità e lo sviluppo delle competenze rimangono deboli. La Commissione intende incrementare il sostegno nel settore per migliorare il dialogo sull'attuazione delle politiche in materia a tutti i livelli, consolidare i risultati ottenuti e migliorare l'impatto. Gli interventi per il periodo 2014-2020 possono concentrarsi sull'istruzione primaria e secondaria, sull'alfabetizzazione dei giovani e degli adulti, sullo sviluppo delle competenze e delle competenze per la vita.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007081/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Child exploitation in Bangladesh

The Bangladesh Child Rights Forum has estimated that 7.4 million Bangladeshi children are forced to work from an early age to help support their families, becoming victims of abuse and torture in 17% of all cases.

Between the ages of five and ten, many of these children already work 16 hours a day, performing tasks in places such as factories, the countryside and private homes, in clear breach of Article 32 ECHR, which prohibits the exploitation of child labour and requires young people to be protected at their place of work.

Bangladesh has undertaken to eradicate child labour by 2015 and has received EU funding for its development, in particular to boost the economy and to overcome malnutrition, which are vital prerequisites for ensuring the education of the younger generations.

Looking at last year's data from Unesco, according to which nearly 8 million young people drop out of school early in Bangladesh and 44 million people out of a population of 164 million are illiterate, can the Commission:

disclose the data from its latest studies on school drop-out rates and the exploitation of child labour in Asia, and particularly in the state of Bangladesh;

provide information on the latest developments in EU development cooperation in third countries, with regard to culture and education?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(16 August 2013)

The EU is committed to the 2016 target for elimination of the worst forms of child labour (119) and to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 2 relating to achieving universal primary education by 2015. The Commission continues to campaign tirelessly against all forms of child labour (120).

The Commission does not produce its own data on school drop-out rates or global child labour but relies on figures and estimates from international organisations such as the World Bank and UN bodies, including the ILO (121).

Education is a major component of the EU Cooperation with Asia, where nine Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) have education as a focal sector, for a total amount of EUR 820 million. This has supported achievement of MDG 2 targets, which are overall high in the region, with 88% of primary school aged children enrolled in schools. However, there are still challenges in quality and remaining high drop-out rates.

The EU contribution to the education sector within the Bangladesh CSP 2007-2013 amounted to EUR 112.6 million (28% of total CSP). Bangladesh has boosted access and enrolments including for girls, however quality of education and skills development remain weak. The Commission intends to enhance support in this sector to improve focused policy dialogue at all levels, consolidate achievements and improve impact. Interventions for 2014-2020 may focus on primary and secondary education, youth and adult literacy, skills and life skills development.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007082/13

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(18 de junho de 2013)

Assunto: Taxas sobre transações financeiras

Considerando o seguinte:

O BCE teme que a taxa sobre as transações financeiras prejudique o crédito na periferia. O francês Christian Noyer, do Banco Central Europeu, receia que as empresas e os bancos saiam a perder com a taxa e questiona se o encaixe fiscal será o previsto por Bruxelas;

Pergunta-se:

Que estudos existem sobre a cobrança desta taxa?

Concorda com a posição assumida pelo BCE?

Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão

(31 de julho de 2013)

1.

A Comissão publicou em setembro de 2011 uma avaliação de impacto exaustiva que acompanha a proposta original de 2011 (SEC (2011) 1102 final e os seus anexos) e publicou outra análise técnica sob a forma de notas explicativas no seu sítio Web em maio de 2012. Além disso, no âmbito da preparação da proposta de diretiva que aplica uma cooperação reforçada no domínio do ITF, de fevereiro de 2013, os serviços da Comissão empreenderam uma análise adicional (SWD (2013) 28) para analisar mais de perto as opções políticas em apreço no contexto da cooperação reforçada. Para além destes documentos, existe um número considerável de estudos e documentos de investigação em matéria de impostos sobre as transações financeiras disponíveis na literatura económica.

2.

A Comissão não partilha a posição expressa pelo Senhor Deputado e está convicta de que as estimativas de receitas para o ITF são bastante prudentes, tendo em conta os vários estudos e os números indicados pelos participantes do setor financeiro.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007082/13

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Financial transaction tax

The European Central Bank (ECB) fears that the financial transaction tax might adversely affect credit on the periphery. Christian Noyer of the ECB is concerned that the tax will cause companies and banks to lose out and doubts that it will generate the level of tax revenue predicted by Brussels.

What studies have been done on this tax?

Does the Commission agree with the ECB’s position?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

1.

The Commission has published in September 2011 a full impact assessment accompanying the original proposal of 2011 (SEC(2011) 1102 final and its annexes) and has subsequently published further technical analysis in the form of explanatory notes on its website in May 2012. Moreover, in preparing the proposal for a directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of FTT of February 2013, the Commission’s services have undertaken additional analysis (SWD(2013) 28) to look closer at the policy options at hand in the context of enhanced cooperation. Besides these documents, there is a significant number of studies and research papers about financial transaction taxes available in the economic literature.

2.

The Commission does not share the position quoted by the Honourable Member and believes that the revenue estimates for the FTT are rather conservative having in mind various studies and the numbers indicated by the financial industry participants.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007083/13

à la Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: Demande concernant le statut légal de la salvia divinorum

La salvia divinorum est une plante de la famille des lamiaceae, connue pour ses effets psychotropes puissants. En effet, celle‐ci contient un composant psychoactif, la salvinorine A, qui peut mener, lors de sa consommation par un usager, à une forte altération de la perception, à des hallucinations voire à des pertes de conscience.

En dépit de ses qualités psychotropes puissantes et dangereuses, la salvia divinorum est loin de faire l'objet d'une interdiction complète dans l'Union européenne. La salvia divinorum devient de plus en plus attrayante en ce qu'elle n'apparaît souvent dans aucun texte de loi. Ainsi, de nombreux usagers de drogues douces illégales comme le cannabis se dirigent désormais vers la salvia divinorum.

1.

La Commission entend‐elle harmoniser la position européenne quant à l'usage non prescrit de cette plante?

2.

La Commission envisage‐t‐elle, au vu du danger que peut représenter cette plante pour l'usager, de réglementer la possession, la vente, la production et l'importation de ce psychotrope?

3.

À l'heure où une grande partie des consommateurs de cette plante se fournissent directement via Internet, la Commission entend‐elle mieux réglementer la vente en ligne de salvia divinorum?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(31 juillet 2013)

Salvia divinorum (ou Salvia) est une plante psychotrope qui peut provoquer des effets dissociatifs — une sensation de détachement du réel et de sortie de son propre corps — ainsi que des hallucinations. On dispose de peu d'informations sur le degré d'utilisation de Salvia divinorum dans l'Union européenne. Des rapports relatifs aux saisies indiquent que les graines et les feuilles séchées de Salvia divinorum peuvent aisément être obtenues auprès d'opérateurs sur l'internet et dans des boutiques spécialisées, dans certains États membres. La Salvinorine — le principal principe psychoactif de ces feuilles — ne semble pas être disponible sur le marché mais des informations concernant les procédures d'isolation sont disponibles sur l'internet.

Salvia divinorum et la salvinorine ne figurant dans aucune des listes des Conventions des Nations unies sur les drogues, elles ne sont pas placées sous contrôle au niveau international. Elles font néanmoins l'objet d'une surveillance dans le cadre de la législation sur les drogues et les médicaments dans certains États membres de l'UE.

La décision 2005/387/JAI (122) du Conseil relative à l'échange d'informations, à l'évaluation des risques et au contrôle des nouvelles substances psychoactives définit le cadre juridique permettant de prendre des mesures à l'égard de ces substances dans l'UE. Grâce à cet instrument, le Conseil peut décider d'appliquer des mesures de contrôle à une substance dans l'ensemble des pays de l'Union européenne, à partir d'une proposition de la Commission et à la suite d'une analyse des risques posés par la substance, analyse effectués par le comité scientifique de l'Observatoire européen des drogues et des toxicomanies (OEDT). De plus, un rapport préparé conjointement par l'OEDT et Europol permet de disposer de premières informations sur les risques potentiels associés à la substance en question et, de décider en conséquence si une analyse des risques s'avère nécessaire.

Les informations échangées à ce jour sur Salvia divinorum au moyen du mécanisme d'échange rapide d'informations n'ont pas justifié l'élaboration d'un rapport conjoint ni d'une analyse des risques associés à cette substance.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007083/13

to the Commission

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Request concerning the legal status of salvia divinorum

Salvia divinorum is a member of the mint family known for its powerful psychoactive effects. It contains a psychoactive substance, salvinorin A, which can, when consumed, have a significant mind‐altering effect and cause hallucinations and even loss of consciousness.

Despite its powerful and dangerous psychoactive characteristics, salvia divinorum has for some reason not been outlawed throughout the Union. The fact that there are virtually no laws covering the substance is one reason for its increasing popularity. Many users of illegal soft drugs such as cannabis are now switching to salvia divinorum.

1.

Does the Commission intend to harmonise the EU position on the non‐prescribed use of salvia divinorum?

2.

Given that salvia divinorum can be harmful to users, does the Commission plan to regulate the possession, sale, production and import of this psychoactive substance?

3.

At a time when many salvia divinorum users are purchasing the plant directly via theInternet, does the Commission intend to ensure that online sales of this product are betterregulated?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

Salvia divinorum (or Salvia) is a psychoactive plant which can induce dissociative effects — feelings of detachment from the environment and from one’s own body — and hallucinations. There is limited information on the extent of use of Salvia divinorum in the EU. Reports on seizures indicate that seeds and dried leaves of Salvia divinorum are easily available from Internet suppliers and specialised shops in certain Member States. Salvinorin, the main psychoactive ingredient of the leaves, does not appear to be offered on the market but information about procedures for its isolation is available on the Internet.

Salvia Divinorum and Salvinorin are not listed in any of the schedules of the United Nations Conventions on Drugs and are, therefore, not controlled at international level. However, they are controlled under drugs legislation or medicines legislation in certain EU Member States.

Council Decision 2005/387/JHA (123) on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances provides the legal framework for addressing such substances in the EU. Under this instrument, the Council may decide to subject a substance to control across the EU, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, following a risk assessment of the substance conducted by the Scientific Committee of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). A joint report from the EMCDDA and Europol provides initial information about the potential risks associated with the substance and whether, as a consequence, a risk assessment is necessary.

The information shared so far on Salvia Divinorum through the mechanism for rapid exchange of information has not justified the launch of a joint report and risk assessment on the substance.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007084/13

à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 juin 2013)

Objet: VP/HR — Liberté de la presse au Mali

La liberté de la presse est actuellement largement menacée au Mali, et ce, notamment, à la suite des événements ayant frappé le pays au courant de l'année 2012. Ainsi, le Mali a chuté de 74 places dans le classement de «Reporters sans frontières» concernant la liberté de la presse dans le monde et arrive à la 99e position sur les 179 pays analysés. Le putsch militaire à Bamako le 22 mars, puis la prise du Nord du pays par les indépendantistes touaregs et des groupes islamistes armés, ont exposé les médias du Nord à la censure et aux menaces.

Face à cette réalité désolante, il importe d'agir pour rétablir ce qui est l'un des piliers démocratiques les plus importants. Alors que le Mali était présenté comme un exemple de réussite concernant les droits d'expression et de la presse en Afrique, les événements ont mené à la création d'un climat d'insécurité pour les journalistes, qu'ils soient maliens ou étrangers. Les exactions se multiplient et de nombreux médias ont dû arrêter toutes leurs diffusions.

Face à ces nouveaux enjeux, le SEAE entend-il renforcer son soutien à la liberté de la presse dans le monde, et en particulier au Mali, afin de respecter les engagements pris?

Réponse donnée par Mme Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission

(2 septembre 2013)

À la suite du coup d'État du 22 mars 2012 et de l'occupation du nord du Mali par des groupes terroristes en 2012, les libertés publiques et la liberté d'expression, en particulier, ont été de plus en plus limitées et leurs défenseurs victimes de mesures d'intimidation, notamment dans le nord du Mali.

En dépit des importants progrès politiques réalisés depuis le début des opérations militaires internationales au début du mois de janvier au Mali, les restrictions officielles ou officieuses de la liberté d'expression n'ont pas toutes été levées. L'état d'urgence a effectivement été décrété jusqu'au 6 juillet et l'ancienne junte continuerait de jouer un rôle négatif insidieux sur la politique locale et la société malienne à tous les niveaux. Les médias privés du Mali ont lancé une grève en mars après l'arrestation de Boukary Daou, directeur de publication du quotidien Le Républicain — l'un des journaux les plus populaires à Bamako — et son incarcération pendant plus d'un mois pour avoir publié une lettre dénonçant les mauvaises conditions des soldats combattant les terroristes dans le nord.

Dans ce contexte, l'UE a entrepris des démarches à haut niveau pour demander des éclaircissements et s'assurer que les droits fondamentaux sont garantis de manière appropriée. Cet objectif s'inscrit également dans le cadre du dialogue politique entre l'Union européenne et le Mali et de la stratégie poursuivie par l'Union dans le domaine des Droits de l'homme au Mali. En outre, la Commission européenne a accru le niveau de l'aide apportée par l'UE aux médias locaux par l'intermédiaire de la Fondation Hirondelle et de l'Union des radios et télévisions libres du Mali (dans le cadre de la prévention des conflits et de la réconciliation).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007084/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Freedom of the press in Mali

Freedom of the press is under enormous threat in Mali, especially following events which hit the country during the course of 2012. As a result, Mali has fallen 74 places in the reporters Without Borders press freedom index and is now 99th out of the 179 countries listed. The military coup in Bamako on 22 March, followed by the takeover of the north of the country by Tuareg secessionists and armed Islamic groups, has exposed the media in the north to censorship and threat.

In the face of this bleak situation, action needs to be taken to restore what is one of the most important democratic pillars. Where Mali was held up as an example of success in terms of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Africa, these events have resulted in a climate of insecurity for both Malian and foreign journalists. Reprisals are increasing and numerous stations have had to stop broadcasting.

Faced with this new challenge, does the EEAS intend to step up its support for freedom of the press in the world, and in Mali in particular, in keeping with the commitments made?

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

(2 September 2013)

As a consequence of the coup d'état of 22 March 2012 and the occupation of the north of Mali by terrorist groups in 2012, public liberties and the freedom of speech in particular have been increasingly restricted and their defenders intimidated, in particular in the north of Mali.

Despite the important political progress made since international military operations started in early January in Mali, official or unofficial restrictions on the freedom of speech have not all been lifted. State of emergency was indeed declared till 6 July and the former junta continues reportedly to play an insidious negative role on local politics and the Malian society across the board. Mali's private media launched a strike in March after editor Boukary Daou of Le Républicain — one of the most popular newspapers in Bamako — was arrested and detained for more than one month for publishing a letter about poor conditions of soldiers fighting terrorists in the north.

In this context, the EU has undertaken high level demarches to request clarification and ensure that fundamental rights are protected as appropriate. This objective is also part of the political dialogue between the EU and Mali and the EU Human Rights Strategy for Mali. In addition, the European Commission has enhanced the level of EU support to local medias through Fondation Hirondelle and Union des Radios et Télévisions Libres du Mali (in the field of conflict prevention and reconciliation).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007085/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Contrabbando di resti di tigri, elefanti e rinoceronti tra Nepal e Cina

È notizia recente il sequestro di svariati kili di ossa di leopardo, denti di tigre e zanne di elefante a Tinkar, sul confine occidentale tra Cina e Nepal. Si tratta di materiale considerato un bene di lusso dal mercato orientale, impiegato oltretutto nella medicina tradizionale asiatica.

Le forze dell'ordine hanno arrestato gli esecutori materiali di tale traffico, ma non i loro mandanti, che restano sotto la protezione degli uomini politici locali.

Inoltre, l'Unione europea riconosce negli animali esseri meritevoli di protezione e, sul piano internazionale, una delle fonti normative principali è la Convenzione sul commercio internazionale delle specie minacciate di estinzione, del 3 marzo 1973, che riconosce quali specie a rischio anche la panthera tigris, il leopardus pardalis e molte altre.

Infine, la scoperta dei reperti è stata effettuata dalle autorità di polizia nepalesi, mentre quelle cinesi non si sono ancora espresse al riguardo.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione far sapere:

se sia a conoscenza dell'accaduto e di altri episodi simili e

come intenda intervenire per sensibilizzare i paesi terzi alla tutela dell'ambiente e alla salvaguardia delle specie a rischio?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(8 agosto 2013)

La Commissione viene regolarmente informata sui sequestri di prodotti della flora e della fauna selvatiche effettuati dalle dogane delle diverse parti della CITES, inclusi i sequestri che avvengono in Cina e Nepal.

L’Unione europea non è competente a intervenire direttamente nelle questioni bilaterali a cui fa riferimento l’onorevole parlamentare, ma segue da vicino l’evoluzione del traffico illecito in fauna selvatica a livello mondiale, in particolare per quanto riguarda tigri, elefanti e rinoceronti.

L’UE è fortemente impegnata nella lotta contro il traffico illecito di specie selvatiche e nel corso della 16a riunione della convenzione sul commercio internazionale delle specie a rischio (CITES), tenutasi nel marzo 2013, ha svolto un ruolo di primo piano per l’adozione di una serie di raccomandazioni riguardo ad azioni concrete e di largo respiro contro il traffico illecito di specie selvatiche e per la sensibilizzazione dei paesi terzi riguardo la protezione delle specie a rischio. L’attuazione delle raccomandazioni sarà riesaminata nella riunione del comitato permanente della CITES che si terrà a luglio 2014.

L’UE è anche il principale donatore (con 1,7 milioni di euro) di fondi destinati all’International Consortium against Wildlife Crime (Consorzio internazionale contro i crimini sulla flora e la fauna selvatiche), che riunisce l’Interpol, l’Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite contro la droga e il crimine (UNODC), l’Organizzazione mondiale delle dogane, la CITES e la Banca mondiale. Il mandato di questo organismo interistituzionale, istituito nel 2010, è di contrastare il traffico illecito di specie selvatiche anche mediante azioni di sensibilizzazione riguardo a questo tema.

Recentemente, inoltre, la Commissione e l’amministrazione forestale dello Stato cinese hanno convenuto di intensificare la cooperazione per migliorare la sostenibilità del commercio globale delle specie di fauna e flora selvatiche e per combattere il loro commercio illegale.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007085/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Trafficking of the body parts of tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses between Nepal and China

News has recently emerged of the seizure of many kilos of leopard bones, tiger teeth and elephant tusks at Tinkar, on the western border between China and Nepal. These are considered to be luxury goods on the Oriental market and are used mainly in traditional Asian medicine.

The police have arrested the actual smugglers, but not the instigators, who remain under the protection of local politicians.

The European Union recognises animals as deserving of protection and, at international level, one of the main legal standards is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, of 3 March 1973, which recognises Panthera tigris, Leopardus pardalis and many other species as endangered.

While these body parts were discovered by the Nepalese police, the Chinese police have not yet commented.

1.

Can the Commission state whether it is aware of the occurrence of similar episodes, and

2.

how it intends to intervene to raise awareness in third countries of the need to protect the environment and safeguard endangered species?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

The Commission is regularly made aware of seizures of wildlife products by customs from several CITES Parties including in China and Nepal.

The European Union is not competent to intervene directly in the bilateral issues referred to by the Honourable Member but is following closely the evolution of wildlife trafficking globally, in particular illegal trade in tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses.

The EU is very committed to the fight against wildlife trafficking and played a leading role in the adoption, at the 16th meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in March 2013, of a series of recommendations calling for comprehensive and concrete actions against wildlife trafficking, including on awareness-raising in third countries on the need to protect endangered species. The implementation of those recommendations will be reviewed at the CITES Standing Committee meeting in July 2014.

The EU is also the major donor (EUR 1.7 million) to the ‘International Consortium against Wildlife Crime’ which brings together Interpol, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Customs Organisation, CITES and the World Bank. The mandate of this inter-agency body created in 2010 is to tackle wildlife trafficking including by raising awareness to this issue.

The Commission and the State Forestry Administration of China also agreed recently that they will intensify their cooperation to improve the sustainability of global trade in wild fauna and flora and to tackle illegal wildlife trade.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007086/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Esecuzioni senza previo processo in Siria; il caso di Aleppo

L'Osservatorio Siriano per i diritti umani ha denunciato che il 9 giugno scorso ad Aleppo un venditore di caffè appena quattordicenne è stato condannato a morte da due jihadisti perché, nell'atto di negare loro un caffè gratis, avrebbe detto «anche Maometto in persona avrebbe compiuto il buon gesto di pagare», rendendosi con ciò colpevole di blasfemia. L'esecuzione è stata compiuta sulla pubblica piazza, sotto lo sguardo dei genitori del ragazzo.

Considerando che questo è solo l'ultimo episodio di una lunga serie di intimidazioni e violenze, molte delle quali rivolte contro donne e bambini, «soggetti deboli», e nei confronti di persone di fede diversa da quella musulmana;

Osservando inoltre che la maggior parte delle zone siriane sotto il controllo dei ribelli pullula di tribunali islamici improvvisati, privi di qualsiasi legittimazione e spesso ancorati al fondamentalismo di matrice jihadista;

Considerando inoltre che a norma dell'articolo 47, comma 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea «Ogni individuo ha diritto a che la sua causa sia esaminata equamente, pubblicamente ed entro un termine ragionevole da un giudice indipendente e imparziale, precostituito per legge. Ogni individuo ha la facoltà di farsi consigliare, difendere e rappresentare»;

Si chiede alla Commissione:

se sia a conoscenza di quanto avvenuto ad Aleppo e di altri episodi simili;

come intenda tutelare concretamente i diritti dei minori coinvolti nella guerra in Siria.

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

(10 settembre 2013)

L'UE nutre profonda preoccupazione per le informazioni e le segnalazioni relative all'aumento degli atti di intimidazione e violenza nei confronti delle persone vulnerabili, come le donne e i bambini, per motivi di religione o di credo, e condanna fermamente tali atti.

L'UE esorta costantemente tutte le parti in conflitto a rispettare pienamente il diritto umanitario internazionale e la normativa sui diritti umani. Tutti i responsabili di atrocità e di violazioni ed abusi in materia di diritti umani devono rispondere dei loro atti. L'UE ribadisce che simili violazioni non devono restare impunite e ricorda che il Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite può adire in qualunque momento la Corte penale internazionale in merito alla situazione in Siria. Inoltre, l'UE invita nuovamente la Siria a garantire alla commissione d'inchiesta dell'ONU l'accesso pieno e illimitato in tutto il paese.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007086/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Executions without trial in Syria; the case of Aleppo

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that a coffee seller, aged just 14, was condemned to death by two Jihadists on 9 June in Aleppo because, in refusing to give them free coffee, he said ‘Muhammad himself would have done the right thing and paid’, and was thus guilty of blasphemy. The execution was carried out in the public square, in front of the boy's parents.

This is only the latest in a long series of episodes of intimidation and violence, many of which have been committed against women and children, ‘vulnerable individuals’, and people of a religion other than Islam.

Most areas in Syria under rebel control are teeming with ad hoc Islamic courts, devoid of any legitimacy and often anchored in Jihadi fundamentalism.

Under Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ‘Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented’;

1.

can the Commission state whether it is aware of what occurred in Aleppo and other similar episodes, and

2.

what concrete measures it intends to implement in order to safeguard the rights of children caught up in the war in Syria?

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

(10 September 2013)

The EU is deeply concerned by the news and alleged reports on increasing acts of intimidation and violence against vulnerable people, women, children and people on the grounds of religion or belief and strongly condemn them.

The EU continues to urge all parties in the conflict to fully respect intrenational humanitarian law and human rights law. All those responsible for atrocities and human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable. It also reaffirms that there should be no impunity for any such violations and recalls that the UN Security Council can refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court, at any time The EU also reiterates its call on Syria to allow the UN Commission of Inquiry, full and unfettered access throughtout the country.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007087/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Inasprimento della repressione nei confronti dei mezzi di informazione iraniani

A causa delle imminenti elezioni politiche, il governo di Teheran ha disposto il blocco di tutti i mezzi di informazione alternativi alla tv di stato e l'arresto immediato dei giornalisti sospettati di violare questo provvedimento. Sono già state chiuse le redazioni dei giornali riformisti Aseman, Mehrnameh e Tajrobeh, mentre a fine maggio si è avuto l'arresto del direttore del periodico Baztab Emrooz, colpevole di aver pubblicato le prove dei brogli elettorali che portarono al potere Ahmadinejad nel 2009.

Considerando che l'intento di Teheran è di evitare il riproporsi di scontri come quelli che caratterizzarono l'Onda Verde nel 2009, ma che queste misure non tutelano la pubblica sicurezza, in quanto contravvengono al fondamentale diritto di espressione di cui all'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, ed in particolare al comma 2 che sancisce che «La libertà dei media e il loro pluralismo sono rispettati»;

Sottolineando poi l'importanza della sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo Fatullayev/Azerbaigian, in particolare nella parte in cui si riconosce il fondamento della libertà di espressione intesa non solo come manifestazione di idee «accolte con favore (…) inoffensive od indifferenti» ma anche di quelle affermazioni «che disturbino, sconvolgano od inquietino» uno Stato o una parte della popolazione, in virtù di principi quali il pluralismo, la tolleranza e l'apertura mentale, senza i quali non può esistere una società democratica.

Si chiede all'Alto Rappresentante, Catherine Ashton:

quale atteggiamento intenda assumere l'Unione a fronte degli sviluppi elettorali in Iran;

quali azioni voglia intraprendere per dissuadere le autorità iraniane dal continuare nell'attuazione di tali politiche sui mezzi di informazione.

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

(17 settembre 2013)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha rilasciato numerose dichiarazioni sull'importanza della libertà dei mezzi di comunicazione in Iran. La dichiarazione rilasciata più recentemente risale al 31 gennaio 2013 e riguarda l'ondata di arresti di giornalisti e di redattori dei giornali. Con tale dichiarazione l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha sollecitato le autorità iraniane a investigare a fondo su quei casi e a chiarire quali accuse sono state mosse contro i giornalisti.

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente continua a esortare l'Iran a rispettare il diritto della libertà di espressione, in conformità con gli obblighi internazionali in materia di diritti umani.

Il presidente eletto, Hassan Rohani, si è impegnato ad essere più ricettivo rispetto alle preoccupazioni della comunità sulla situazione dei diritti umani nel paese. Ci auguriamo che il presidente Rohani manterrà questo impegno. L'UE seguirà strettamente i relativi sviluppi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007087/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Harsher repression of the media in Iran

In view of the imminent elections, the government in Tehran has ordered the blocking of all media outlets other than state TV and the arrest of all journalists suspected of violating this measure. The newsrooms of reformist newspapers Aseman, Mehrnameh and Tajrobeh have already been closed, while at the end of May the editor of the periodical Baztab Emrooz was arrested after having published proof of the election rigging that brought Ahmadinejad to power in 2009.

Considering that Tehran's intention is to prevent the recurrence of clashes like the ones that characterised the Green Movement of 2009, but that these measures do not ensure public security as they violate the fundamental right of expression, as stipulated in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular paragraph 2, which states that ‘The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected’;

Underlining the importance of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Fatullayev/Azerbaijan case, particularly where it recognises freedom of expression as the right to express ideas ‘that are favourably received (…) or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference’ but also to make statements ‘that offend, shock or disturb’ the State or any sector of the population, in line with the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there can be no democratic society.

Could the Vice-President/High Representative state:

What attitude the Union intends to take in the face of these electoral developments in Iran.

What measures she intends to take to dissuade the Iranian authorities from continuing to implement such policies in respect of the media.

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

(17 September 2013)

The HR/VP has issued several statements on the importance of free media in Iran. The most recent statement was issued on 31 January 2013 on the wave of arrests of journalists and news editors. She urged the Iranian authorities to thoroughly investigate these cases and clarify the charges that have been brought against the journalists.

The HR/VP continues to call on Iran to respect the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with its international human rights obligations.

President-elect, Hassan Rohani, has pledged that he will be more receptive to the concerns of the international community over the human rights situation in the country. We hope that Mr Rohani will live up to this pledge. The EU will closely follow any developments in this regard.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007088/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Incursione di estremisti alla conferenza di pace fra musulmani e cristiani a Surabaya

È notizia confermata da più fonti che, nel pomeriggio dello scorso 11 giugno, militanti del Fronte di difesa islamico (FPI) hanno effettuato un blitz nella diocesi di Surabaya, sull'isola di Jakarta, per creare scompiglio all'incontro interreligioso tra cristiani e musulmani, volto a realizzare la convivenza pacifica tra le due fedi. Nei giorni prima dell'incontro, le forze di polizia locali avrebbero cercato di dissuadere gli organizzatori dal realizzare l'evento. Poi, durante le incursioni degli estremisti, si sono astenute dall'intervenire, salvo poi trattenere alcuni partecipanti cristiani per interrogarli.

Considerando che il governo di Jakarta impone un rigoroso controllo su ogni manifestazione pubblica, al punto che si dà la necessità di ottenere sempre una previa autorizzazione all'organizzazione degli incontri religiosi;

osservando altresì come le autorizzazioni all'incontro interreligioso di Surabaya, seppur concesse a tempo debito, siano state ritirate poco prima dell'inizio del convegno —come testimonia il relatore cristiano ortodosso Noorsena;

sottolineando infine che nessun provvedimento è stato preso nei confronti di chi ha causato gli scontri, tanto che questi soggetti hanno potuto fare ritorno a casa subito dopo mentre gli organizzatori e i partecipanti all'incontro sono stati costretti a subire un fermo di polizia;

può la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante precisare quanto segue:

Intende fare pressione sul governo di Jakarta affinché riveda le sue posizioni restrittive nei confronti della libertà di pensiero?

Dispone essa di dati e studi recenti riguardanti la situazione vissuta dai cristiani sull'isola?

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

(16 agosto 2013)

La libertà di espressione e di credo è un tema ricorrente del dialogo annuale sui diritti umani tra l'UE e l'Indonesia. La delegazione dell'Unione europea a Giacarta è a conoscenza dei fatti di Surabaya, la cui gravità ha raggiunto un livello mai associato in precedenza a un evento interconfessionale. Stando alle informazioni di cui dispone la delegazione, più che essere rivolta ai cristiani in quanto tali, in questo caso specifico la collera degli estremisti è stata scatenata dalla presenza di Ulil Abshar Abdalla, un intellettuale liberale musulmano fondatore della Rete islamica liberale.

La delegazione riceve periodicamente relazioni e aggiornamenti sulle discriminazioni e gli attacchi contro le minoranze religiose, tra cui i cristiani, che di solito riguardano le difficoltà incontrate per ottenere le autorizzazioni per la costruzione dei luoghi di culto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007088/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR Extremist raid disrupts the peace conference between Muslims and Christians in Surabaya

Several sources have reported that, on the afternoon of 11 June, militants from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) launched a raid in the Diocese of Surabaya, on the island of Java, to disrupt the interfaith meeting between Christians and Muslims, the goal of which was to promote peaceful coexistence between the two faiths. In the days leading up to the meetings, the local police forces had apparently sought to dissuade the organisers from holding the event. Then, during the extremists' raid, the police took no action apart from detaining some Christian participants for questioning.

The Indonesian Government imposes strict control over all public demonstrations; to such an extent that prior authorisation must always be obtained when organising religious meetings.

Although the permits for the interfaith meeting in Surabaya had been issued beforehand, they were cancelled just before the meeting started — according to Noorsena, an orthodox Christian who spoke at the meeting;

No action was taken against the instigators of the clashes and they were able to return home immediately, whereas the organisers and participants were placed in police custody;

1.

can the Vice-President/High Representative

state whether it intends to put pressure on the Indonesian Government for it to reconsider its repressive stance regarding freedom of thought, and

2.

does it have any recent data and studies concerning the experiences of Christians on the island?

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

(16 August 2013)

Freedom of expression or belief is a regular topic at the annual EU-Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue. The Delegation of the European Union in Jakarta is aware of the incident in Surabaya which appears to be the first time an inter-faith event is targeted in this manner. The Delegation understands that, in this particular instance, the extremists' ire was directed more against the presence of Ulil Abshar Abdalla, a liberal Muslim intellectual, founder of the Liberal Islam Network rather than Christians per se.

The Delegation receives regular reports and updates about discrimination or attacks against religious minorities, including Christians, usually with regard to problems obtaining permits for the establishment of places of worship.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007089/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — «Raid antiterroristico» in Uzbekistan contro una cristiana di 76 anni con problemi di salute

Alcune settimane fa; le forze di polizia uzbeke hanno effettuato un raid antiterroristico nella casa di un'anziana signora di Guliston, di fede protestante e da tempo affetta dal morbo di Parkinson. Nell'incursione hanno trovato una decina di libri religiosi, tra cui la Bibbia, dei cd di musica sacra e alcune videocassette anch'esse di carattere religioso. Tutto è stato sequestrato e distrutto.

Alla donna è stata inflitta una multa pari a circa 800.000 soms — dieci volte il salario minimo previsto per i lavoratori — e che questo la costringerebbe a non spendere alcunché per almeno otto mesi, dal momento che la sua pensione è pari ad un ottavo di quella somma.

Inoltre l'Uzbekistan considera la detenzione di libri sacri e di altro materiale religioso cristiano un crimine penalmente perseguibile, nonostante la dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo riconosca agli articoli 17 e 18 che «Ogni individuo ha il diritto ad avere una proprietà sua personale o in comune con altri. Nessun individuo potrà essere arbitrariamente privato della sua proprietà» e che «Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione; tale diritto include la libertà di cambiare di religione o di credo, e la libertà di manifestare, isolatamente o in comune, e sia in pubblico che in privato, la propria religione o il proprio credo».

Alla luce di quanto sopra esposto, può la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante rendere noto se l'Unione europea intende avviare un dialogo con l'Uzbekistan per discutere questo e di altri casi analoghi?

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

(20 agosto 2013)

L'attuazione, spesso rigorosa, della legislazione in materia di libertà di religione in Uzbekistan, e in particolare il divieto assoluto di qualsiasi forma di attività di «proselitismo», cui fa riferimento l'onorevole deputato, è stata affrontata ripetutamente durante il dialogo annuale fra l'UE e l'Uzbekistan sui diritti umani. I diritti umani, compreso quello fondamentale della libertà di religione e di credo, sono un elemento essenziale dell'azione esterna dell'Unione europea e un caposaldo della sua politica estera.

Inoltre, le delegazioni dell'UE monitorano il livello di libertà di religione e di credo e intervengono in proposito, ove possibile, su base locale, mentre in ambito internazionale l'UE ricorre a impegni multilaterali per rafforzare il consenso sulle norme in materia di libertà di religione e di credo e contro l'intolleranza e la violenza di stampo religioso.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007089/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — ‘Anti-terror raid’ in Uzbekistan against a 76-year-old Christian woman in poor health

A few weeks ago, Uzbek police carried out an anti-terror raid on the house of an elderly Protestant lady in Guliston, who has suffered for many years from Parkinson's disease. During the raid, they found about ten religious books, including the Bible, ten religious music CDs and some videos, which were also religious in nature. Everything was seized and destroyed.

The lady received a fine of around USZ 800 000 — ten times the minimum wage for workers — which would force her to spend nothing for at least eight months, since her pension is one-eighth of this sum.

Furthermore, Uzbekistan considers keeping religious books and other Christian material a criminal offence, despite the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Articles 17 and 18 that ‘Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property’ and that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief’.

In view of the above, can the Vice-President/High Representative state whether the European Union intends to open a dialogue with Uzbekistan to discuss this and other similar cases?

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

(20 August 2013)

The often rigorous implementation of the Uzbek legislation on religious freedom, and in particular its very strict ban on any sort of ‘proselytising’ activities, to which the honourable Member or Parliament refers to, has been repeatedly raised during the annual Human Rights dialogue between the EU and Uzbekistan. Human Rights, including the fundamental right of freedom of religion and belief (FoRB), constitute the silver thread that runs through all of our external action and a gold standard of our foreign policy.

In addition, EU Delegations are monitoring the state of freedom of religion and belief and locally engage on such issues whenever possible, while in international fora the EU has recourse to multilateral engagement in order to gather consensus on FoRB standards and against religious intolerance and violence.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007090/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Sterilizzazioni coattive in India. Il caso di New Delhi

Diversi studi statistici convergono nell'affermare che, solo nel 2012, in India si sarebbero avuti circa 4 milioni e mezzo di casi di sterilizzazioni forzate sulle donne, in applicazione della legge sul controllo delle nascite. In molte circostanze, i funzionari incaricati dal Governo di attuare la politica di controllo demografico convincono le donne con l'inganno, offrendo loro pochi euro e senza specificare che, dopo l'operazione, non potranno più avere figli.

Considerando che il governo indiano prevede la costruzione, nei prossimi anni, di 12mila nuovi campi medici specializzati nella sterilizzazione delle donne e che, già oggi, sono circa 650mila le ragazze costrette a sottoporsi all'intervento nell'arco dei dodici mesi.

Osservando inoltre come l'India esegua da sola il 37 % di tutte le sterilizzazioni femminili mondiali, superando anche la Cina che si attesta a quota 34 %.

Considerando infine che queste pratiche, in quanto coattive, violano apertamente la dignità della persona umana e tutti i diritti fondamentali che ne sono corollario, in primis il diritto alla vita familiare di cui all'art.7 CEDU.

Si chiede alla Commissione:

se abbia intrapreso un confronto serio e costruttivo, su questa tematica, con il governo indiano;

se sia a conoscenza di nuove politiche repressive nei confronti della maternità femminile, attuate da altri Paesi?

Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione

(8 agosto 2013)

1)

In conformità all’attuale politica del governo dell’India, e come confermato dal ministero della Salute e del benessere familiare, in India non sono presenti né programmi di pianificazione familiare coercitivi né obiettivi di sterilizzazione. Secondo quanto rilevato dalla delegazione dell’UE in India, i metodi di pianificazione familiare, quali la posticipazione della prima gravidanza, il distanziamento delle gravidanze o la sterilizzazione, sono applicati sulla base di consulenze e di scelte informate e volontarie.

Questi aspetti sono stati discussi sistematicamente e apertamente dalla Commissione durante le missioni congiunte di verifica del programma per la Salute riproduttiva e infantile (National Reproductive and Child Health Programme, RCH) sostenuto dall’UE.

Il governo dell’India, di fatto, si oppone alla sterilizzazione forzata, ha eliminato gli obiettivi della pianificazione familiare e ha delineato orientamenti per migliorare la qualità dell’assistenza. Tuttavia è stato constatato che, in alcuni luoghi, la sterilizzazione viene effettuata senza un’adeguata consulenza o un consenso informato. Il governo indiano si sta adoperando affinché gli operatori sanitari rispondano di tali pratiche scorrette.

2)

La Commissione ha seguito i dibattiti, le politiche e le pratiche in tale ambito, in particolare in Cina, in Corea del Sud e nei paesi dell’

Associazione dell’Asia meridionale per la cooperazione regionale e ha cercato di trarre insegnamento dalle prassi seguite in altri paesi, senza peraltro giungere a conclusioni affrettate quanto alla loro applicabilità in India o alla loro influenza su tale paese. Attualmente, la Commissione non è a conoscenza di politiche coercitive per la pianificazione familiare, fatta eccezione per la politica cinese del figlio unico. Secondo le delegazioni UE, le politiche di pianificazione familiare nei paesi che hanno accordi di cooperazione con l’UE avvengono su base volontaria.

La Commissione rimanda inoltre l’onorevole parlamentare alle risposte date alle interrogazione scritte E-005190/2013, E-004800/2013 e E-005235/2012 (124).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007090/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Forced sterilisations in India — The case of New Delhi

Several statistical studies all reach the same conclusion that around 4.5 million women underwent forced sterilisation in India in 2012 alone, in implementation of a birth control law. In many cases, officials tasked by the government with implementing population control policy trick women into undergoing the procedure, offering them the equivalent of a few euros without telling them that, after the operation, they will no longer be able to have children.

The Indian Government is planning to construct 12 000 new medical centres specialising in female sterilisation in the coming years and around 650 000 girls are currently forced to undergo sterilisation every year.

India alone accounts for 37% of all female sterilisations worldwide, which is more than even China, which accounts for 34%.

Finally, as these sterilisations are compulsory, they are a clear violation of human dignity and all associated fundamental rights, primarily the right to family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

1.

Has the Commission held a frank and constructive discussion on this issue with the Indian Government?

2.

Is it aware of any new policies implemented by other countries to stop women having children?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2013)

1.

As per the Government of India's policy today and confirmation from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, there are neither coercive family planning schemes nor targets for sterilization in India. Family planning methods, such as delay of first birth, spacing, or sterilization are taking place on the basis of counselling and voluntary and informed decision making processes which have been observed by the EU delegation in India.

These issues have been systematically and openly discussed by the Commission during the joint review missions of the EU-supported National Reproductive and Child Health Programme.

The Government of India in fact opposes forced sterilisation, and has removed targets for family planning and developed guidelines for improving quality of care. Nonetheless, there is evidence that in some places, sterilisation does occur without proper counselling or informed consent. The Government of India is seeking to bring health providers to account for malpractice.

2.

The Commission has been following debates, policies and practices particularly in China, South Korean and South Asian Association Regional Cooperation countries. The Commission has been attentive to learning from other countries yet not drawing conclusions too fast about potential applicability in or influence on India. At the moment, the Commission is not aware of any coercive family planning policies apart from China’s one child policy. According to EU delegations, family planning policies are voluntary in the countries where the EU has cooperation.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the answers to previous Written Questions E-005190/2013, E-004800/2013 and E-005235/2012 (125).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007091/13

alla Commissione

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Violazioni della libertà religiosa in Cina

A inizio giugno, un'altra monaca tibetana si è data fuoco nel Sichuan per protestare contro l'occupazione cinese e la mancanza di libertà religiosa. Le autorità locali, subito dopo il gesto, hanno oscurato internet ed interrotto le linee telefoniche.

Considerando che si tratta del centoventesimo caso di immolazione di un religioso buddista tibetano contro la Cina e che quest'ultima, ancora oggi, non dà segno di volersi aprire al riconoscimento e alla tutela degli abitanti della regione.

Osservando altresì come l'atteggiamento cinese violi sia il contenuto della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo che la Carta CEDU, in particolar modo l'art. 10 c. 1 per il quale «Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione. Tale diritto include (…) la libertà di manifestare la propria religione o la propria convinzione individualmente o collettivamente, in pubblico o in privato, mediante il culto, l'insegnamento, le pratiche e l'osservanza dei riti».

Sottolineando infine che i controlli delle autorità cinesi si sono fatti più consistenti soprattutto con riferimento ai raduni dei fedeli, come dimostra la task force impiegata per controllare il monastero di Nyatso lo scorso 10 giugno, in occasione dell'assemblea tra i religiosi dei cinquanta monasteri circostanti.

Si chiede alla Commissione:

quali sforzi abbia finora compiuto l'UE per esortare la Cina a mantenere un atteggiamento in linea con le previsioni a tutela della libertà di espressione e di coscienza;

quali passi intenderà porre in atto qualora continui la violazione dei diritti umani del governo cinese nei confronti dei monaci e delle monache buddiste?

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

(20 agosto 2013)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente esprime profonda preoccupazione per la serie inquietante di autoimmolazioni in Tibet. L'UE ha invitato ripetutamente le autorità cinesi ad astenersi dal ricorso alla forza e a consentire ai tibetani di professare la loro religione, usare la loro lingua e seguire le loro tradizioni culturali, affrontando le cause all'origine di questi gesti. L'Unione europea ha sollevato l'argomento ripetutamente in seno al Consiglio dell'ONU sui diritti umani, all'Assemblea generale dell'ONU e, di recente, in occasione del dialogo UE-Cina sui diritti umani del 25 giugno 2013. L'UE continuerà a esprimere alle autorità cinesi le proprie preoccupazioni in tutte le occasioni e a tutti i livelli opportuni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007091/13

to the Commission

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Violation of religious freedoms in China

In early June, another Tibetan nun set fire to herself in Sichuan to protest against the Chinese occupation and the lack of religious freedom. Immediately afterwards, the local authorities shut down the Internet and blocked the telephone lines.

Considering that this is the one hundred and twentieth case of self-immolation by a Tibetan Buddhist monk or nun in protest against China and that, even today, the Chinese show no signs of being willing to recognise and protect the inhabitants of the region.

Considering, furthermore, that the Chinese attitude violates the content of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ECHR, in particular Article 9, paragraph 1, which states that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom (…), either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance’.

Finally, in view of the fact that the Chinese authorities are exercising ever-greater control, especially over religious assemblies, as demonstrated by the task force deployed to inspect the Nyatso Monastery on 10 June, during the gathering of monks from fifty surrounding monasteries.

1.

Can the Commission state what efforts the EU has made so far to urge China to bring its attitude in line with the provisions safeguarding freedom of expression and conscience, and

2.

What measures it intends to implement should the Chinese Government continue to violate the human rights of Buddhist monks and nuns?

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

(20 August 2013)

The High Represenative/Vice-President is deeply concerned at the distressing series of self-immolations in the Tibetan areas. The EU has repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to refrain from the use of force, to allow the Tibetan people to exercise their religious, linguistic and cultural rights and to address the root causes of the self-immolations. The EU has raised the subject repeatedly at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly and very recently at the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue on 25 June 2013. The EU will continue to express its concerns to the Chinese authorities at all appropriate opportunities and levels.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007092/13

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Accesso ai vaccini nei paesi in via di sviluppo

Un recente progetto finanziato dall'Unione europea, Auditec, su cui sta lavorando il prof. Rino Rappuoli, sta cercando di porre le basi conoscitive per generare vaccini innovativi, basti pensare a quello contro la meningite da meningicocco, che ancora colpisce numerose persone in Africa e in altri paesi in via di sviluppo. Il meningicocco B, il cui vaccino sarà presto disponibile in Italia, causa ogni anno circa 50 000 morti in Europa, mentre ancora nei paesi in via di sviluppo muoiono ogni anno 2,5 milioni di bambini a causa di diarrea infantile e di polmonite da pneumococco, poiché privi di vaccini che in Europa sono invece largamente utilizzati. Entro il 2020, sostiene il prof. Alberto Mantovani, l'immunizzazione contro virus e batteri salverà 2,5 milioni di persone, tuttavia le fasce più povere della popolazione mondiale, quelle cui i governi non riescono a garantire misure sanitarie adeguate, non avranno accesso ai vaccini.

Può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

È essa in grado di presentare i dati del lavoro di Aditec?

È essa in grado di presentare una stima dell'impatto futuro dei nuovi vaccini finanziati dall'UE?

Non ritiene di dover mettere in pratica delle misure di cooperazione infantile tese a garantire vaccini elementari ai bambini dei paesi in via di sviluppo?

Riesce a stimare l'impatto del vaccino contro il meningicocco B?

Quali misure di coordinamento adotta a livello internazionale per identificare e contenere le nuove malattie che si stanno diffondendo, come ad esempio il virus H7N9 comparso recentemente in Cina?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(6 agosto 2013)

1.

Il progetto è iniziato un anno e mezzo fa e tutti i dati pubblici (prevalentemente pubblicazioni) possono essere consultati sul sito web del progetto

1.

Il progetto è iniziato un anno e mezzo fa e tutti i dati pubblici (prevalentemente pubblicazioni) possono essere consultati sul sito web del progetto

 (126)

2.

L'impatto di un

«nuovo» vaccino non può essere stimato senza disporre di dati comprovati sull'efficacia, la sicurezza e il contesto nel quale tali vaccini saranno utilizzati.

3.

Migliorare la salute dei bambini è una delle priorità della cooperazione dell'UE allo sviluppo. L'UE sostiene i paesi partner nel loro sforzo di rafforzare i rispettivi sistemi sanitari nazionali mediante gli aiuti bilaterali. L'UE investe anche in iniziative globali come l'Alleanza mondiale per i vaccini e l'immunizzazione (GAVI), il cui scopo è incrementare l'accesso ai vaccini, compresi quelli contro la meningite, nei paesi poveri.

4.

Nel quadro del progetto ADITEC, è prematuro interrogarsi sull'impatto di un nuovo vaccino contro il meningococco B dal momento che i primi dati sono attesi per il 2016.

5.

La legislazione dell'UE sulle malattie trasmissibili, oltre al regolamento sanitario internazionale dell'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità, garantisce il coordinamento della sorveglianza e delle misure di risposta relative alle malattie trasmissibili esistenti ed emergenti, comprese quelle che possono causare pandemie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007092/13

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Access to vaccines in developing countries

A recent project funded by the European Union, Auditec, which Professor Rino Rappuoli is working on, is seeking to build a knowledge base for creating innovative vaccines, such as the vaccine against meningococcal meningitis, which still affects many people in Africa and in other developing countries. Meningococcus B, the vaccine for which will soon be available in Italy, is responsible for around 50 000 deaths in Europe every year, while in developing countries 2.5 million children still die each year due to infantile diarrhoea and pneumococcal pneumonia, since they do not have access to vaccines that are widely used in Europe. By 2020, according to Professor Alberto Mantovani, immunisation against viruses and bacteria will save 2.5 million lives. However, the poorest sections of the world’s population, those whose governments are unable to guarantee adequate health services, will not have access to vaccines.

1.

Can the Commission present any data from the Aditec project?

2.

Can it estimate what impact new vaccines funded by the EU will have in the future?

3.

Does it not think it should implement childhood cooperation measures to ensure basic vaccines for children in developing countries?

4.

Can it estimate what impact the meningococcus B vaccine will have?

5.

What international coordination measures is it taking to identify and contain new diseases that are being spread, such as the H7N9 virus, of which there was a recent outbreak in China?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2013)

1.

The project started 1.5 years ago and all public data (mainly publications) can be found on the project website

1.

The project started 1.5 years ago and all public data (mainly publications) can be found on the project website

 (127)

2.

The impact of

‘new’ vaccine cannot be estimated without any evidence-based data on efficacy, safety and context in which these vaccines will be used.

3.

Improving child health is one of the priorities of EU development cooperation. The EU supports partner countries to strengthen their overall health system with bilateral aid. The EU also invests in global initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI) that aims to increase access to vaccines in poor countries, including those against meningitis.

4.

In the frame of the ADITEC project, it is premature to speculate on the impact of a new meningococcus B vaccine since first data are expected in 2016.

5.

The EU legislation on communicable diseases, as well as the World Health Organisation's International Health Regulations, provide surveillance and response coordination of existing and emerging communicable diseases, including those with the potential to cause pandemics.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007097/13

alla Commissione

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)

(18 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: Trasferimento di risorse destinate al progetto del «terzo valico» Genova — Milano

Il 15 Giugno 2013 il Consiglio dei ministri del governo italiano ha approvato un decreto legge recanti misure urgenti in materia di crescita e denominato «decreto fare». Tra le altre misure il decreto prevede lo stanziamento di risorse per una serie di progetti infrastrutturali attraverso l'istituzione di un fondo di 2 030 milioni di euro per il quadriennio 2013-2017 per consentire la continuità dei cantieri in corso o per l'avvio di nuovi lavori.

Il reperimento delle risorse necessarie all'istituzione di tale fondo avviene attraverso il trasferimento, definito temporaneo, di risorse precedentemente destinate ad altre opere, tra cui il tratto del «terzo valico» Genova — Milano.

Considerando che il tratto del «terzo valico» Genova — Milano è parte determinante di uno dei corridoi previsti dal regolamento per la rete transeuropea dei trasporti e che lo spostamento, anche temporaneo, di risorse potrebbe causare un ritardo consistente nella realizzazione dell'opera.

Può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

Simili provvedimenti predisposti dal governo italiano possono essere ritenuti in contrasto con il progetto e le tempistiche previste per la realizzazione della rete transeuropea dei trasporti?

Se e come intende intervenire per garantire la tempestiva realizzazione di una delle scelte strategiche della mobilità in Europa?

Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione

(2 agosto 2013)

La Commissione ha preso debitamente atto della serie di investimenti effettuati dal governo italiano. Il potenziale impatto del trasferimento di risorse citato dall'onorevole deputato dipenderà dai futuri finanziamenti che dovranno essere messi a disposizione.

Nel 2011, nella prospettiva di sostituire le norme vigenti in materia, la Commissione ha proposto un nuovo regolamento sugli orientamenti dell'Unione per lo sviluppo della rete transeuropea dei trasporti.

In base a tale proposta (proposta della Commissione relativa a un regolamento sul meccanismo per collegare l'Europa), attualmente sottoposta alla procedura legislativa ordinaria, l'intera rotta Genova-Rotterdam sarebbe inclusa nel Corridoio della rete centrale n. 6. Come per gli altri corridoi previsti, sarà necessaria una pianificazione comune dei lavori. I particolari di questo iter sono attualmente al vaglio del legislatore.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007097/13

to the Commission

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Transfer of resources intended for the Genoa-Milan ‘Third Crossing’ project

On 15 June 2013, the Italian Council of Ministers approved a decree law containing urgent measures for growth known as the decreto fare (action decree). Among other measures, the decree provides for resources to be allocated to a series of infrastructure projects by establishing a fund of EUR 2 030 million for the four-year period 2013-2017, allowing current projects to continue and new ones to be launched.

The resources needed to establish this fund will come from an allegedly temporary transfer of resources previously earmarked for other projects, including the ‘third crossing’ between Genoa and Milan.

The Genoa-Milan ‘third crossing’ is a key part of one of the corridors envisaged by the regulation for the Trans-European Transport Network and the transfer of resources, albeit temporary, could result in a major delay in the completion of the work.

— Does the Commission believe that similar measures taken by the Italian Government can be deemed to conflict with the project and time frames set for completion of the Trans-European Transport Network, and

— does it intend to intervene in order to ensure prompt implementation of one of the strategic decisions for mobility in Europe, and if so how?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2013)

The Commission took good note of the concentration of investments undertaken by the Italian Government. The potential impact of the reallocation of commitments quoted by the Honourable Member will depend on future funding to be made available.

In 2011, the Commission has proposed a new Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, with a view to replacing the existing rules in the area.

According to the proposal (which refers to the Commission's proposal on a regulation on the Connecting Europe Facility) currently undergoing the ordinary legislative procedure, the whole Genova-Rotterdam route would be included in the Rhine-Alpine Core Network Corridor. As for the other corridors envisaged, common planning work will need to take place in this regard. Details of this process are currently under discussion by the legislator.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007918/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(3 juillet 2013)

Objet: Aide financière à l'Égypte

«La Commission et le Service européen pour l'action extérieure (SEAE) ne se sont pas assurés que les autorités égyptiennes remédient aux graves faiblesses en matière de GFP [gestion des finances publiques]», a indiqué la Cour des comptes européenne (CCE) dans un communiqué.

L'audit réalisé était centré sur la GFP et la lutte contre la corruption d'une part, et sur les Droits de l'homme et la démocratie d'autre part.

«Le manque de transparence du budget, l'inefficacité de la fonction d'audit et la corruption endémique démontrent ces graves faiblesses. La Commission et le SEAE n'ont pas réagi à l'absence de progrès en prenant des mesures décisives afin de garantir l'obligation de rendre compte des importants volumes de fonds de l'UE qui ont continué d'être versés directement aux autorités égyptiennes», peut-on lire dans le communiqué.

Le rapport critique le manque de progrès des interventions de l'Union en Égypte dans le domaine des Droits de l'homme et de la démocratie.

«Le principal programme en matière de Droits de l'homme a, dans une large mesure, été un échec», indique la Cour. «Il a débuté lentement et a pâti de l'attitude négative des autorités égyptiennes. La Commission et le SEAE n'ont pas employé les moyens financiers et politiques dont ils disposaient pour briser cette résistance.»

«Certains éléments du programme ont dû être totalement abandonnés. Les fonds acheminés par l'intermédiaire des organisations de la société civile (OSC) n'étaient pas suffisants pour faire une différence perceptible», précise la Cour.

1.

La Commission peut-elle s'expliquer en détails sur les conclusions du rapport?

2.

L'Union européenne ne doit-elle pas conditionner son soutien à l'Égypte? Or elle n'a suspendu son aide financière ni quand Morsi s'est doté des pleins pouvoirs en novembre 2012, ni lorsque 43 employés d'ONG ont été condamnés à la prison…

3.

Un

«changement radical» dans la gestion de l'aide financière européenne à l'Égypte ne serait-il pas des plus opportuns?

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

(3 septembre 2013)

La Commission/La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante se félicitent de l'examen par la Cour des comptes des programmes d'aide de l'UE. Toutes les informations et explications nécessaires ont été fournies oralement et par écrit à la Cour des comptes lors de la préparation de son rapport spécial sur l'Égypte.

La Commission/La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante ont reconnu le bien-fondé des observations de la Cour ainsi que d'un grand nombre de ses recommandations, en particulier celles visant à améliorer l'efficacité du dialogue politique de l'UE sur la gouvernance et à renforcer la gestion de l'instrument d'appui budgétaire en Égypte.

La Commission/La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante tiennent à souligner que l'UE a pu, au fil des années, établir un dialogue et une coopération concrète avec l'Égypte sur les questions sensibles de la gouvernance, de la démocratie et des Droits de l'homme.

Dans le contexte particulier du «printemps arabe» de 2011, la Commission/La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante ont entrepris un réexamen de la politique européenne de voisinage, en mettant l'accent sur une approche incitative de notre dialogue politique et de notre aide.

Les priorités de l'UE sont de stimuler le développement social et économique inclusif et de mettre en place une démocratie durable et solide en Égypte. L'UE accorde une place importante au soutien de la société civile et est en contact permanent avec les représentants de cette dernière. Le respect de l'État de droit, des droits humains et des droits de la femme, ainsi que les minorités occupent une place centrale dans notre politique et notre aide en faveur de l'Égypte.

Les décaissements financiers auxquels la Commission a procédé dépendent entièrement des progrès réalisés en matière de réformes et du plein respect de certaines conditions. En outre, pour ce qui concerne l'aide supplémentaire apportée dans le cadre du programme Spring, des conditions sans équivoque ont été fixées en matière de réformes et de démocratie. Par conséquent, aucune nouvelle opération d'appui budgétaire pour l'Égypte n'a été décidée depuis le mois d'août 2011.

Plus de détails sont fournis en annexe.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007098/13

aan de Commissie

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

(18 juni 2013)

Betreft: Vervolgvragen (2) subsidieverlening aan Egypte

Vandaag maakte de Europese Rekenkamer bekend (128) dat zij zware kritiek heeft op de besteding van 1 miljard euro EU-steun voor Egypte. „Het is volstrekt onduidelijk of het geld efficiënt en rechtmatig is besteed”, aldus de Rekenkamer. Het is zelfs zo ernstig dat de Rekenkamer „… simpelweg niet weet hoe het geld is besteed, dus ook niet hoe fout”. Het is een „zwart gat waarin het miljard is  terechtgekomen”. In dat kader de volgende vervolgvragen:

Volgens de EU was het merendeel (600 miljoen) van de subsidies bestemd voor zorg, onderwijs en transport. Kan de Commissie aangeven aan welke projecten dit geld PRECIES is besteed? Wie waren de ontvangers? Wie droeg de eindverantwoording qua toezicht op de juiste besteding van deze gedoneerde belastinggelden?

Het geld werd rechtstreeks aan het Egyptische ministerie van Financiën overgemaakt. Kan de Commissie aangeven op welke wijze het ministerie verantwoording heeft afgelegd over de besteding van deze gelden? Graag ontvangt de PVV Eurofractie hiervan schriftelijke bewijzen.

De Raad antwoordde mij op eerdere schriftelijke vragen dat „de voorzitter van de Europese Raad (de heer Van Rompuy) verwees naar de totale financiële inspanning die onder voorwaarden ter beschikking wordt gesteld via verschillende financiële mechanismen waarover de Commissie en financiële instellingen (zoals de EIB en EBRD) beschikken.” Kan de Commissie aangeven op welk moment de heer Van Rompuy permissie heeft verkregen van de Commissie om specifieke financiële uitspraken namens de Commissie en haar „financiële instellingen” te doen richting Egypte?

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat het een dwaasheid is geweest om zoveel geld ter beschikking te stellen aan het land Egypte terwijl de rechtsstaat daar de laatste maanden zienderogen afkalft en de mensenrechten hieronder ernstig lijden?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007109/13

aan de Commissie

Peter van Dalen (ECR)

(18 juni 2013)

Betreft: Europese Rekenkamer oordeelt vernietigend over EU-hulp aan Egypte

Op 18 juni 2013 publiceerde de Europese Rekenkamer een verslag over de EU-steun aan Egypte in de periode vóór en na de opstand van januari 2011. De conclusie van het verslag is vernietigend: de steun was „goed bedoeld, maar ondoeltreffend”. De Rekenkamer concludeert onder andere dat

— „de voorzichtige, zachte aanpak niet werkte”;

— de Commissie de enige donor is die Egypte rechtstreekse begrotingssteun verleent, maar dat „een gebrek aan begrotingstransparantie, een ondoeltreffende controlefunctie en wijdverbreide corruptie” de impact van deze steun ondermijnden;

— de Commissie „te weinig aandacht besteedt aan de rechten van vrouwen en minderheden”, terwijl hun situatie nog verslechterd is ten opzichte van de periode-Moebarak. „De christenen hebben het zwaarst te lijden onder het geweld.”

De Rekenkamer vermeldt dat de Commissie en de EDEO zo goed als alle aanbevelingen van de Rekenkamer hebben aanvaard.

1.

Kan de Commissie aangeven welke aanbevelingen zij wel en welke aanbevelingen zij niet heeft aanvaard?

2.

Kan de Commissie aangeven welke beleidsveranderingen zij concreet gaat doorvoeren naar aanleiding van het verslag van de Rekenkamer?

3.

Kan de Commissie aangeven waarom zij als enige donor rechtstreekse begrotingshulp aan Egypte heeft verstrekt? Is de Commissie het met mij eens dat deze vorm van hulp onmiddellijk moet worden stopgezet, aangezien de geconstateerde problemen zoals het gebrek aan transparantie en controle en wijdverbreide corruptie zeker niet van de ene op de andere dag zullen verdwijnen?

4.

Kan de Commissie concreet aangeven hoe zij opvolging gaat geven aan de conclusies betreffende de verslechterende situatie van vrouwen en minderheden? Hoe gaat de Commissie werken aan de verbetering van de situatie van de christenen, gegeven het feit dat haar beleid hierin tot nu toe heeft gefaald?

5.

Indien de Commissie van mening is dat de hulp aan Egypte moet worden voortgezet, kan zij aangeven onder welke voorwaarden deze hulp in de toekomst zal worden verstrekt en hoe de naleving van deze voorwaarden zal worden gecontroleerd?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007124/13

aan de Commissie

Thijs Berman (S&D)

(19 juni 2013)

Betreft: Samenwerking van de EU met Egypte op het gebied van goed bestuur

Op 18 juni 2013 publiceerde de Europese Rekenkamer een speciaal verslag (nr. 4) over de samenwerking van de EU met Egypte op het gebied van goed bestuur. Dit verslag bevatte enkele zeer kritische opmerkingen van de Europese Rekenkamer over de manier waarop circa 1 miljard EUR aan hulpgelden zijn besteed.

Volgens het verslag was een in het kader van het Europees nabuurschaps‐ en partnerschapsinstrument (ENPI) uitgevoerd programma inzake mensenrechten en het maatschappelijk middenveld niet gebaseerd op ervaringen uit het verleden, terwijl het ten uitvoer werd gelegd door, onder meer, aan het Mubarak-regime gelieerde organisaties. De Commissie antwoordde slechts dat het te vroeg was om de benadering te veranderen door lessen uit het verleden hierin te integreren. Is de Commissie bezig de manier waarop zij haar programma's ontwerpt te verbeteren, zodat hierbij rekening kan worden gehouden met lessen uit het verleden?

Bij een aantal projecten van maatschappelijke organisaties is het niet gelukt de doelstellingen te verwezenlijken als gevolg van bemoeienis van of het ontbreken van overeenstemming met de Egyptische autoriteiten. Zo moest in april 2012 een in het kader van het Europees nabuurschaps‐ en partnerschapsinstrument opgezet programma van een maatschappelijke organisatie worden geannuleerd. Hoewel democratie en mensenrechten beleidsprioriteiten van de EU zijn, is er slechts in beperkte mate financiering beschikbaar gesteld in het kader van andere financieringsinstrumenten, zoals het Europees instrument voor democratie en mensenrechten, waarvoor geen nauwe samenwerking met en toestemming van de Egyptische autoriteiten zou zijn vereist. Waarom heeft de Commissie niet meer financieringsmiddelen beschikbaar gesteld via deze kanalen?

De Europese Rekenkamer heeft erop gewezen dat de Commissie geen inventarisatie heeft gemaakt van Egyptische ngo's. In antwoord hierop verklaarde de Commissie dat deze inventarisatie in 2013 zou plaatsvinden. Waarom gebeurt dit pas in zo'n laat stadium?

Waarom heeft de Commissie er niet toe besloten gevolg te geven aan haar scherpe kritiek ten aanzien van mensenrechtenschendingen door de hulp, al was het maar gedeeltelijk of tijdelijk, op te schorten?

De Commissie heeft de Egyptische autoriteiten niet gevraagd een plan voor het beheer van de overheidsfinanciën op te stellen, ofschoon 60 % van de EU-bijstand wordt verstrekt door middel van sectorale begrotingssteun. Waarom heeft de Commissie het bestaan van sectorale begrotingssteun, die over het algemeen veel eenvoudiger te controleren is, niet aangegrepen om het ontbreken van een plan voor het beheer van de overheidsfinanciën aan de orde te stellen?

De Europese Rekenkamer uitte eveneens kritiek op het feit dat de Commissie geen duidelijke criteria heeft vastgesteld voor de hervorming van het beheer van de overheidsfinanciën. Waarom heeft de Commissie vastgehouden aan haar „dynamische” benadering hoewel er volgens de Europese Rekenkamer duidelijke benchmarks nodig waren? En waarom bleef de Commissie begrotingssteun verstrekken  terwijl de Egyptische autoriteiten niet bereid waren de hervorming van de overheidsfinanciën op te nemen in de agenda van de informele economische dialoog?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007261/13

aan de Commissie

Philip Claeys (NI)

(20 juni 2013)

Betreft: Onwetendheid over besteding van EU-middelen in Egypte

De Europese Rekenkamer heeft zware kritiek op de besteding van 1 miljard euro aan steun voor Egypte, tussen 2007 en 2013. Niemand weet hoe het geld besteed is, laat staan of het efficiënt en rechtmatig besteed is.

De Rekenkamer vermeldt o.m. dat projecten voor meer democratie en mensenrechten weinig succesvol waren, mede door de onwil van de Egyptische autoriteiten.

De problemen zijn naar verluidt nog erger geworden sinds de islamisten aan de macht kwamen.

Waarom is het verlenen van steun niet gebonden aan voorwaarden, waarvan de naleving grondig en regelmatig gecontroleerd wordt? Komen er nieuwe procedures die de transparantie moeten verhogen?

Zal de Commissie alsnog opheldering vragen over de besteding van de middelen?

Overweegt de Commissie een deel van de middelen  terug te vorderen indien er geen bevredigende uitleg komt over de besteding van het geld? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Het rapport van de Rekenkamer handelde specifiek over Egypte. Acht de Commissie de situatie wat betreft de onduidelijkheid over de besteding van EU-middelen beter in landen als Tunesië of Libië? In hoeverre zijn er daar verschillen met Egypte?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-008768/13

aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)

Bastiaan Belder (EFD)

(17 juli 2013)

Betreft: VP/HR — Verslag van de Europese Rekenkamer over de besteding van financiële steun van de EU aan Egypte

Deelt de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger de mening dat het onwenselijk is dat steun aan landen met gebrek aan verantwoording niet gekoppeld is aan voorwaarden ten aanzien van bestedingsdoeleinden, wettigheid, regelmatigheid, doeltreffendheid en doelmatigheid, zoals in het geval van Egypte?

Zo ja, op welke wijze en  termijn wil de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger deze onverantwoorde aanpak omzetten in een benadering met robuuste voorwaarden en verantwoordingsplicht, te beginnen met de casus Egypte?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(3 september 2013)

De Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger verwelkomen het toezicht van de Rekenkamer op de bijstandsprogramma’s van de EU. Toen de Rekenkamer haar speciaal verslag over Egypte opstelde, heeft zij van de Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger alle mogelijke informatie en uitleg gekregen, zowel mondeling als schriftelijk.

De opmerkingen van de Rekenkamer en veel van haar aanbevelingen zijn door de Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger aanvaard. Met name geldt dat voor de aanbevelingen om de effectiviteit van de beleidsdialoog van de EU op bestuursgebied te vergroten en die om het beheer van de begrotingssteun voor Egypte te versterken.

De Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger benadrukken dat de EU erin is geslaagd om in de loop der jaren met Egypte een dialoog en concrete samenwerking tot stand te brengen over gevoelige onderwerpen als bestuur, democratie en mensenrechten.

De Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger zijn, met name tegen de achtergrond van de „Arabische lente” van 2011, begonnen met een herziening van het Europees nabuurschapsbeleid, waarbij zij de nadruk leggen op een stimulerende aanpak van beleidsdialoog en bijstand.

De EU wil primair een inclusieve sociale en economische ontwikkeling bevorderen en in Egypte een duurzame en diepgaande democratie tot stand brengen. Steun voor het maatschappelijk middenveld staat hoog op de agenda van de EU. Zij is voortdurend in dialoog met maatschappelijke organisaties. De rechtsstaat, de mensenrechten en de rechten van vrouwen en minderheden vormen de kern van ons beleid en onze bijstand.

De Commissie eist bij haar uitbetalingen dat vooruitgang is geboekt met de hervormingen en dat de voorwaarden strikt zijn nageleefd. Voor aanvullende steun via het Spring-programma zijn bovendien duidelijke voorwaarden gesteld met betrekking tot hervorming en democratie. Er is sinds augustus 2011 dan ook geen nieuwe begrotingssteun voor Egypte meer vastgesteld.

Nadere details zijn in de bijlage vermeld.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007098/13

to the Commission

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

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Follow-up questions concerning subsidies granted to Egypt (2)

The European Court of Auditors announced today (129) that it has deep misgivings about the spending of EUR 1 billion in EU subsidies for Egypt. ‘It is totally unclear whether the money is being spent efficiently and legally’, the Court of Auditors said. The situation is so serious that the Court of Auditors ‘simply does not know how the money is being spent, so it does not know if it is being spent wrongly’. It is a ‘black hole into which this billion euros has fallen’. Could the Commission therefore please answer these follow-up questions:

According to the EU, the majority of the subsidies (EUR 600 million) was intended for care, education and transport. Can the Commission state PRECISELY which projects this money was spent on? Who were the recipients? Who bore ultimate supervisory responsibility for the correct spending of this donation of taxpayers’ money?

The money was transferred directly to the Egyptian Finance Ministry. Can the Commission state in what way the ministry was held accountable for the spending of these sums? The Dutch Party for Freedom in the European Parliament would like to see written evidence.

In response to one of my earlier questions (E-001277/2013), the Council said that ‘the President of the European Council (Mr Van Rompuy) was referring to the total financial effort (grants and loans) being made available, subject to conditionality, through different financial mechanisms at the disposal of the Commission and financial institutions (such as the EIB and EBRD)’. Can the Commission say when it gave Mr Van Rompuy permission to make specific financial pronouncements concerning Egypt on behalf of the Commission and the ‘financial institutions’?

Does the Commission agree with the Dutch Party for Freedom that it was foolish to make so much money available to Egypt while the rule of law has clearly been crumbling there in recent months and human rights are suffering grievously as a result?

Question for written answer E-007109/13

to the Commission

Peter van Dalen (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: European Court of Auditors' damning assessment of EU aid to Egypt

On 18 June 2013, the European Court of Auditors published a report on the EU aid supplied to Egypt in the periods before and after the Uprising of January 2011. The conclusion reached in the report is damning: the support was ‘well-intentioned but ineffective’. The Court of Auditors concludes, among other things, that

‘the “softly softly” approach has not worked’;

— the Commission is the only donor providing direct budget support to Egypt, but that ‘lack of budgetary transparency, an ineffective audit function and endemic corruption’ undermined the effect of this support;

— the Commission ‘does not give sufficient attention to women’s and minorities’ rights’, while their situation is even worse than during the Mubarak rule. ‘The Christians are suffering the brunt of the violence.’

The Court of Auditors reports that the Commission and the EEAS have accepted virtually all the Court’s recommendations.

1.

Can the Commission specify which recommendations it has accepted and which it has not?

2.

Can the Commission indicate what specific policy changes it will implement in response to the Court’s report?

3.

Can the Commission indicate why it is the only donor providing direct budget support to Egypt? Does the Commission agree with me that this form of aid must be stopped immediately, seeing that the problems identified, such as a lack of transparency and control and endemic corruption, are surely not going to disappear overnight?

4.

Can the Commission specify what actions it is going to take following the conclusions regarding the deteriorating situation of women and minorities? What is the Commission going to do to improve the situation of the Christians, given that its policy in this respect has failed so far?

5.

If the Commission believes that the aid to Egypt should be continued, can it indicate the conditions under which this aid will be provided in future and how compliance with these conditions will be verified?

Question for written answer E-007124/13

to the Commission

Thijs Berman (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: EU cooperation with Egypt in the field of governance

On 18 June 2013, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) published a special report (No 4) on ‘EU cooperation with Egypt in the field of governance’. In this report, the ECA made several highly critical observations on the way in which approximately EUR 1 billion in aid had been spent.

The report stated that a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) programme on human rights and civil society had not been based on lessons learned and that it had been implemented by, among others, organisations linked to the Mubarak regime. The Commission merely replied that it was too early to change the approach by incorporating lessons learned. Is the Commission improving the way in which it designs its programmes, such that lessons learned will be taken on board?

A number of civil society organisation (CSO) projects have not achieved their objectives due to interference by or lack of agreement with Egyptian authorities. For example, in April 2012, a CSO programme under ENPI had to be cancelled. Even though democracy and human rights are EU policy priorities, very limited funding has been made available under other financial instruments, such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which would not require strong cooperation and agreement from the Egyptian authorities. Why has the Commission not made more funding available through those channels?

The ECA has highlighted the fact that the Commission has not carried out a mapping exercise of Egyptian NGOs. In its reply, the Commission said that the mapping was to take place in 2013. Why is this being done at such a late stage?

Why did the Commission not decide to follow up on its severe criticisms of human rights violations with a suspension of aid, even partially and/or temporarily?

The Commission has not asked the Egyptian authorities to establish a public finance management (PFM) plan, even though 60% of the EU’s assistance is channelled through sectoral budget support (SBS). Why has the Commission not used the existence of SBS, which is, in general, much easier to control, so as to address the lack of a PFM?

The ECA also criticised the fact that the Commission did not establish clear criteria for PFM reform. Why did the Commission stick to its ‘dynamic’ approach even though clear benchmarks were needed according to the ECA? Furthermore, why did the Commission continue with the disbursement of budget support even though the Egyptian authorities did not want to put PFM reform on the agenda of the Informal Economic Dialogue?

Question for written answer E-007261/13

to the Commission

Philip Claeys (NI)

(20 June 2013)

Subject: Lack of information about the use made of EU funding in Egypt

The Court of Auditors has strongly criticised the use made of EUR 1 bn in aid to Egypt between 2007 and 2013. No one knows how the money was spent, let alone whether it was used efficiently and lawfully.

The Court of Auditors states, inter alia, that projects to promote democracy and human rights were not very successful, partly because the Egyptian authorities were not wholeheartedly in favour of them.

The problems have apparently become even worse since the Islamists came to power.

Why is the provision of aid not subject to conditions, compliance with which is monitored thoroughly and regularly? Will new procedures be instituted to increase transparency?

Will the Commission now seek information about the use made of the funding?

Will the Commission recover part of the funding unless a satisfactory account is given of the use made of it? If not, why not?

The Court of Auditors’ report dealt specifically with Egypt. Does the Commission consider the situation to be any better in such countries as Tunisia or Libya as regards the lack of clarity as to how EU funds have been used? To what extent do differences exist there in comparison with Egypt?

Question for written answer E-007646/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(27 June 2013)

Subject: EU aid to Egypt

A recent report from the European Court of Auditors has found that the Egyptian government has demonstrated little interest in EU programmes aimed at fostering civil society and protecting the rights of women and minorities. Given that the EU has supplied almost EUR 1 billion in aid to Egypt over the past seven years, what is the Commission doing to address this issue?

Question for written answer E-007918/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(3 July 2013)

Subject: Financial support to Egypt

In a press release, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) stated that ‘the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) [had] failed to ensure that the Egyptian authorities tackled major weaknesses in PFM [Public Finance Management]’.

The audit focused on PFM and the fight against corruption on the one hand, and human rights and democracy on the other hand.

‘Lack of budgetary transparency, an ineffective audit function and endemic corruption were all examples of these undermining weaknesses. The Commission and the EEAS did not react to the lack of progress by taking decisive action to ensure accountability for considerable EU funds, which continued to be paid directly to the Egyptian Authorities’, continued the press release.

The report is critical of the lack of progress made despite EU support in Egypt in the areas of human rights and democracy.

According to the Court of Auditors, ‘the main human rights programme was largely unsuccessful. It was slow to commence and was hindered by the negative attitude of the Egyptian authorities. The Commission and the EEAS did not use the financial and political leverage at their disposal to counteract this intransigence.’

‘Some elements of the programme had to be dropped completely. Funds channelled through Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) were not sufficient to make a discernible difference’, specified the Court of Auditors.

1.

What is the Commission’s analysis of the report’s conclusions in detail?

2.

Should conditions be attached to Union support in Egypt? Aid was not even suspended when Morsi assumed plenary powers in November 2012 or when 43 NGO workers were put behind bars.

3.

Would it not be fitting to effect a

‘radical change’ in the way in which European financial aid to Egypt is managed?

Question for written answer P-008768/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Bastiaan Belder (EFD)

(17 July 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Report by the Court of Auditors on the use made of EU financial assistance to Egypt

Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that it is undesirable that — as in the case of Egypt — support to countries which do not adequately account for the use made of funding should not be subject to any conditions regarding the purposes for which it is used and the lawfulness, regularity, effectiveness and efficiency of the expenditure?

If so, how and when will the Vice-President/High Representative abandon this irresponsible approach and introduce robust conditionality and accountability, starting with Egypt?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2013)

The Commission/HR welcomes the scrutiny by the Court of Auditors of EU assistance programmes. During the preparation of its special report on Egypt, all possible information and explanations both in writing and orally have been provided to the Court.

The Court’s observations and many of its recommendations have been accepted by the Commission/HR. In particular, those aiming at improving the effectiveness of EU policy dialogue on governance and at strengthening the management of the Budget Support (BS) instrument in Egypt.

The Commission/HR, would like to emphasise that the EU has been able to establish over the years a dialogue and concrete cooperation with Egypt on the sensitive issues of governance, democracy and human rights.

In particular against the background of the ‘Arab Awakening’ in spring 2011, the Commission/HR initiated a review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, putting the focus on an incentive based approach in our policy dialogue and assistance.

The EU’s priority is to stimulate the inclusive social and economic development and to build a sustainable and deep democracy in Egypt. Support to Civil Society is high on the EU agenda, as the EU is engaging in a constant dialogue with Civil Society representatives. Respect of rule of law, human and women’s rights and minorities are at the core of our policy and assistance.

The Commission has made financial disbursements which depend entirely on progress in reforms and the unequivocal fulfilment of conditions. Moreover, for additional support under the SPRING programme unequivocal conditionalities were established linked to reforms and democracy. Thus, no new BS operation has been decided for Egypt since August 2011.

More detail is provided in the annex.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007099/13

do Komisji

Konrad Szymański (ECR)

(18 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Sytuacja producentów gipsu w UE

Przemysł budowlany jest jednym ze strategicznych sektorów gospodarki UE, od którego zależy dalszy rozwój gospodarczy wielu sektorów (np. infrastruktury). W szczególności specyficzna jest sytuacja producentów gipsu, gdyż ponad połowa światowej produkcji gipsu przypada na UE. Przemysł ten zatrudnia ponad 14 000 osób i liczy około 3 miliony lokalnych, małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw.

Przedstawiciele producentów gipsu szacują, że koszty związane z wprowadzeniem systemu ETS mogą sięgnąć nawet 25 % ich zysków. W związku z tym, może mieć miejsce ucieczka tego przemysłu poza granice UE.

Czy Komisja zamierza podjąć decyzję o uwzględnieniu przemysłu gipsowego na liście sektorów narażonych na ryzyko przeniesienia produkcji poza UE (carbon leakage list)? Jeśli tak, kiedy taka decyzja zostanie podjęta?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji

(30 lipca 2013 r.)

Sektory „produkcja gipsu” oraz „produkcja wyrobów z gipsu dla budownictwa” (kody NACE 2653 i 2662) zostały poddane ponownej ocenie pod kątem wpisania ich do wykazu sektorów i podsektorów uważanych za narażone na znaczące ryzyko ucieczki emisji objętego decyzją 2010/2/UE. Sprawozdanie analityczne wykazało, że sektory te spełniają kryteria określone w art. 10a dyrektywy 2003/87/WE.

Decyzja Komisji w sprawie aktualizacji wykazu sektorów i podsektorów uważanych za narażone na znaczące ryzyko ucieczki emisji musi zostać przyjęta przez Parlament Europejski i Radę w drodze procedury regulacyjnej połączonej z kontrolą. Dnia 10 lipca 2013 r. Komitet ds. Zmian Klimatu pozytywnie zaopiniował wniosek Komisji o wpisanie ww. sektorów do wykazu sektorów i podsektorów uważanych za narażone na znaczące ryzyko ucieczki emisji. W przypadku zatwierdzenia projektu decyzji ww. sektory będą uprawnione do otrzymania dodatkowych bezpłatnych przydziałów w 2014 r.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007099/13

to the Commission

Konrad Szymański (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Situation facing gypsum producers in the EU

The construction industry is one of the EU’s strategic economic sectors, and the continued development of many other sectors (e.g. infrastructure) is dependent upon it. The situation facing gypsum producers is of particular importance, as more than half of the world’s gypsum is produced in the EU. This industry employs over 14 000 people and over 3 million local SMEs are reliant upon it.

Representatives of gypsum producers estimate that the costs associated with the introduction of the Emissions Trading System could consume up to 25% of their profits. This could possibly lead to the industry moving outside the EU.

Does the Commission intend to adopt a decision on including the gypsum industry on the list of sectors exposed to the risk of carbon leakage outside the EU? If so, when will such a description be adopted?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2013)

The sectors ‘Manufacture of plaster’ and ‘Manufacture of plaster products for construction purposes’ (NACE codes 2653 and 2662, respectively) have been reassessed with a view to adding these sectors to the list of sectors and subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage covered by Decision 2010/2/EU. The sectors concerned demonstrated, in an analytical report, that they satisfy the criteria set out in Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC.

The Commission Decision to amend the carbon leakage list is to be adopted through the regulatory procedure with scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council. The Climate Change Committee on 10 July 2013 gave a favourable opinion to the Commission's proposal to add the concerned sectors to the carbon leakage list. If the draft Decision is accepted in the process, the sectors in question will be eligible to receive additional free allowances in 2014.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007100/13

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Caballos en la fiesta del Rocío en Andalucía

Cada año y tras la fiesta del Rocío en Andalucía, se repite la misma triste imagen: varios cadáveres de caballos son abandonados tras el fin de los festejos. Las cifras hablan por sí solas: 25 caballos muertos en 2008, 23 en 2009, 11 en 2011, 23 en 2013.

Unos mueren de agotamiento por las largas caminatas, otros de sed, otros por falta de descanso o por la falta de experiencia de los caballistas. Los caballos son considerados como un elemento más del festejo y no como un ser vivo al que hay que respetar.

La asociaciones protectoras de animales defienden que todo ello podría evitarse estableciendo un exhaustivo control durante el camino, estableciendo paradas cada ciertos kilómetros, previendo controles del estado de los animales tanto a la salida como a la entrada de la romería, así como evitando las competiciones de caballos.

Todas estas acciones vulneran la Ley 11/2003, de 24 de noviembre, de Protección de los Animales. Pero es necesaria una aplicación efectiva de la misma y, a su vez, que se elabore una normativa más estricta de la Unión Europea que ayude a evitar estas actuaciones y proteger a los animales utilizados en festejos populares.

Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, cabe formular las siguientes preguntas.

1.

¿Prevé la Comisión elaborar algún tipo de reglamento o directiva para proteger a los animales empleados en tales festividades?

2.

¿Se podría establecer una alternativa al uso de dichos animales?

Respuesta del Sr. Mr Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(31 de julio de 2013)

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-004702/2013 (130).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007100/13

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Horses at the Fiesta del Rocío in Andalusia

Every year, after the Fiesta del Rocío in Andalusia, we see the same sad image of abandoned dead horses. The figures speak for themselves: 25 horses died in 2008, 23 in 2009, 11 in 2011, and 23 in 2013.

Some die of exhaustion from the long walks, others of thirst, and others due to lack of rest or the inexperience of the riders. The horses are considered to be just another part of the festival and not living beings that must be respected.

Animal rights associations argue that all of this could be avoided by carrying out thorough checks along the way, establishing stopping points every few kilometres, checking the condition of the animals when they start and finish the pilgrimage and banning competitions involving horses.

All these actions are in breach of Law 11/2003 of 24 November on the protection of animals. However, this law must be applied effectively and stricter EU regulations must be drawn up to help to prevent these actions and protect the animals used in popular festivals.

1.

Does the Commission intend to draw up a regulation or directive to protect the animals used in these festivities?

2.

Could an alternative to using these animals be found?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-004702/2013 (131).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007101/13

an die Kommission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Expertengruppe PRISM

Kommissionsmitglied Cecilia Malmström hat während einer Rede am 14. Juni 2013 angekündigt, eine Expertengruppe einzusetzen, die sich mit dem US-Überwachungsprogramm PRISM auseinandersetzen soll.

1.

Wann wird die Expertengruppe eingesetzt?

2.

Wie lange wird die Expertengruppe bestehen?

3.

Wer sind die Mitglieder der Expertengruppe?

4.

Wer hat auf welcher Grundlage entschieden, wer die Mitglieder der Expertengruppe sind?

Antwort von Viviane Reding im Namen der Kommission

(2. September 2013)

Die erste Sitzung der Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe EU-USA fand am 22. und 23. Juli 2013 in Brüssel statt, eine zweite folgt im September.

Den Vorsitz für die EU führt die Kommission gemeinsam mit der EU-Ratspräsidentschaft. Vertreten wird die EU in der Gruppe durch die Kommission, die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft, den Koordinator für die Terrorismusbekämpfung, den Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst, ein Mitglied der Arbeitsgruppe gemäß Artikel 29 und höchstens zehn Experten aus den Mitgliedstaaten. Die Kommission wird dem Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat im Oktober Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Arbeit der Gruppe erstatten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007101/13

to the Commission

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: PRISM expert group

In a speech on 14 June 2013, Commissioner Malmström announced that an expert group would be set up to examine the US surveillance programme PRISM.

1.

When will the expert group be set up?

2.

How long will the expert group remain in place?

3.

Who are the members of the expert group?

4.

Who decided who the members of the expert group would be and on what basis?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 September 2013)

The ad-hoc EU-US working group held its first meeting on 22-23 July 2013 in Brussels and will hold a second one in September.

The EU side is co-chaired by the Commission and the Presidency. The EU side is composed of the Commission, the Presidency, the Counter-terrorism Coordinator, EEAS, a member of the article 29 Working Group and up to ten Member State experts. The Commission will report about the findings of the group to the European Parliament and the Council in October.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007102/13

an die Kommission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Öffentliche Mittel fließen in Legebatterien in der Türkei, der Ukraine und China

Die Europäische Bank für Wiederaufbau und Entwicklung (EBRD), aber auch Export-Kreditagenturen von einigen EU-Staaten sowie die Weltbank finanzieren Medienberichten und einem Bericht des österreichischen Tierschutz-Bündnisses zufolge landwirtschaftliche Unternehmen außerhalb der EU, für die Tierschutz ein Fremdwort ist. Demnach fließen hunderte Millionen von öffentlichen Mitteln der EU vor allem in Legebatterien oder enge Kastenstände für Schweine in die Ukraine, die Türkei und nach China. Auch Deutschland unterstützt den Export von Käfigsystemen in Drittstaaten, obwohl Käfighaltung von Legehennen in Deutschland genauso wie in Österreich verboten ist.

1.

Wie hoch sind die europäischen Gelder, die unter dem Deckmantel Entwicklungshilfe in solche Fabriken und landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe außerhalb der EU fließen?

2.

Wie hoch sind die österreichischen Gelder, die in landwirtschaftliche Unternehmen außerhalb der EU fließen?

3.

Gefährden die daraus resultierenden Billigimporte aus solchen Drittstaaten wie etwa Eier aus Käfigtierhaltung nicht unsere heimische Landwirtschaft und die Existenz unserer Bauern?

4.

Die Österreichische Kontrollbank hat zwar keinerlei Legebatterie-Finanzierungen vergeben, aber Schweinestalleinrichtungen in der Ukraine finanziert. Entsprechen diese Ställe überhaupt den EU-Normen?

5.

Wäre eine Aufnahme von Tierschutzstandards in die Kreditvergabepolitik der Weltbank nicht vernünftig? Wie beurteilt die Kommission dies?

6.

EU-Tierschutzstandards sollten Mindestkriterium sein, so fordern Tierschützer. Wie beurteilt die Kommission diese Forderungen?

7.

Welche Maßnahmen wird die Kommission nun auf EU-Ebene und im Hinblick auf die Weltbank im Sinne von nachhaltiger und fortschrittlicher Tierschutzpolitik treffen, auch um hier die Glaubwürdigkeit der EU sowie die heimischen Landwirtschaftsstandards zu schützen?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(29. August 2013)

Die EU-Entwicklungshilfe konzentriert sich auf Kleinbauern, die sich in der Regel in frühen Stadien der Intensivierung befinden. Ziel unserer Interventionen ist eine nachhaltige Intensivierung (gemäß der Definition der GD AGRI und DEVCO), die den Tierschutz berücksichtigt. Bei jeglichen künftigen Diskussionen über dieses Thema mit EU-Institutionen oder internationalen Einrichtungen sollte sichergestellt sein, dass eine rasche Auszahlung der Kredite nicht den EU-Tierschutzvorschriften zuwiderläuft und den EU-Landwirten nicht schadet. Hinsichtlich der Tätigkeit der Europäischen Bank für Wiederaufbau und Entwicklung (EBWE) in diesem Bereich verweist die Kommission den Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-007559/2013 (132).

Fragen zu den österreichischen Geldern und Einzelheiten der mit diesen Geldern finanzierten Produktionssysteme sollte der Herrn Abgeordnete an die zuständigen österreichischen Behörden richten.

Zum Thema Billigimporte ist zu sagen, dass Eier aus der Ukraine und aus der Türkei eingeführt werden dürfen, allerdings nur in der Güteklasse B. Das bedeutet, dass sie nicht als Konsumeier vermarktet, sondern nur weiterverarbeitet werden dürfen. Schweinefleisch und Schweinefleischerzeugnisse für den menschlichen Verzehr dürfen derzeit aus keinem dieser Länder in die EU eingeführt werden. Die Importe von Eiern und Schweinefleisch aus Drittländern machen derzeit weniger als 1 % des gesamten EU-Verbrauchs aus. Die EU ist bei beiden Produkten Netto-Exporteur.

Hinsichtlich der Anwendung von EU-Rechtsvorschriften in Drittländern verweist die Kommission den Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antworten auf die schriftlichen Anfragen E-10734/2012 (1) und E‐4842/2013 (1).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007102/13

to the Commission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Public funds being poured into laying batteries in Turkey, Ukraine and China

According to media reports and a report by the Austrian Animal Welfare Alliance, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) along with export credit agencies from some EU Member States and the World Bank are funding agricultural holdings outside the EU for which animal welfare is an alien concept. It is claimed that hundreds of millions in EU public funds are being poured, in particular, into laying batteries or cramped crate stalls for pigs in Ukraine, Turkey and China. Germany is also supporting the export of cage systems to third countries, although the keeping of laying hens in cages is prohibited in Germany, just as it is in Austria.

1.

How much in the way of European funds is being poured into these sorts of factories and agricultural holdings outside the EU under the guise of development aid?

2.

How much in the way of Austrian funds is being poured into agricultural holdings outside the EU?

3.

Do the resulting cheap imports from these third countries, such as eggs from caged animals, not threaten our domestic agriculture and the livelihoods of our farmers?

4.

Although the

Österreichische Kontrollbank

has not funded any laying batteries, it has funded the fitting out of pig housing in Ukraine. Does this housing actually meet EU standards?

5.

Would it not make sense to include animal welfare standards in the World Bank’s loan policies? What is the Commission’s view on this?

6.

Supporters of animal welfare are demanding that EU animal welfare standards be considered a minimum criterion. What is the Commission’s opinion of these demands?

7.

What steps will the Commission now take at EU level and in relation to the World Bank with a view to pursuing a sustainable and modern animal welfare policy in order also to safeguard the credibility of the EU and domestic agricultural standards?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2013)

EU development assistance focuses on smallholders, generally at early stages of intensification. Sustainable intensification, as defined by DG AGRI and DG DEVCO, drives our interventions and includes animal welfare. Any future discussions on these issues with other EU or international institutions should ensure that a balance between quick down payments of the credit is not conflicting with EU rules on animal welfare and is not detrimental to EU farmers With regard to the activity of the EBRD in this area, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐007559/2013 (133).

Regarding Austrian funds and the particulars of the production systems financed by such funds, the Commission would advise the Honourable Member to contact the relevant Austrian authorities.

On the issue of cheap imports, eggs are authorised for import from Ukraine and Turkey but only as ‘class B’ eggs. This means that they cannot be marketed as table eggs but can only be used for processing. Pork and derived meat products for human consumption are currently not authorised for import into the EU from either of these countries. For eggs as well as for pork, imports from all third countries currently count for less than 1% of the total EU consumption. For both products the EU is a net exporter.

With regard to the application of EU legislation in third countries the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-10734/20121 and E‐4842/20131.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007103/13

an die Kommission

Norbert Neuser (S&D) und Udo Bullmann (S&D)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Schutz der Bevölkerung gegen den unerträglichen Bahnlärm

Der Deutsche Bundesrat hat sich am 7.6.2013 auf Initiative der Bundesländer Rheinland-Pfalz und Hessen in einem einmütigen Votum dafür ausgesprochen, dass die EU-Kommission und die Bundesregierung mehr zum Schutz der Bevölkerung gegen den unerträglichen Bahnlärm — insbesondere im Mittelrheintal — unternehmen müssen.

In der Entschließung des Deutschen Bundesrates wird die EU-Kommission aufgefordert, europaweit für ältere Güterzüge ähnliche Lärmgrenzwerte einzuführen, wie sie für neue Güterwaggons gelten.

Vor diesem Hintergrund fragen wir die Kommission:

Plant die Kommission die Einführung ähnlicher Lärmgrenzwerte für ältere Güterwagen, wie sie bereits für die neuen Güterwagen gelten?

Wenn ja, bis wann will die Kommission zum Schutz der Bevölkerung diese Lärmgrenzwerte einführen?

Kann durch die jetzt genehmigte Zulassung der neuen LL-Bremssohlen dieser Prozess beschleunigt werden?

Plant die Kommission gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedsländern ein lärmabhängiges Preissystem, um Anreize zu setzen, früh auf leise Bremsen umzurüsten?

Ist die Kommission bereit, zur Umrüstung der Güterwagen auf leise Bremssysteme mit entsprechender finanzieller Hilfe diese Umrüstung zu unterstützen?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(2. August 2013)

Die Kommissionsdienststellen haben unlängst zu der Folgenabschätzung über eine Minderung der von Güterwagen in der Europäischen Union ausgehenden Lärmemissionen eine unterstützende Studie in Auftrag gegeben. Außerdem findet derzeit eine öffentliche Konsultation statt, die noch bis zum 3. Oktober dauern wird und über folgenden Link zugänglich ist: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/2013-railnoise_en.htm.

In der Studie wird u. a. die Option geprüft, die für neue Wagen geltenden Lärmgrenzwerte auf sämtliche in der EU verkehrenden Wagen auszuweiten. Bis zum Abschluss der Folgenabschätzung kann die Kommission den Ergebnissen jedoch nicht vorgreifen, weder was die bevorzugte Option noch was den eventuellen Einführungstermin einer Maßnahme betrifft.

Mit der Zulassung der neuen LL-Bremssohlen im Juni dieses Jahres wurde bereits ein erster Schritt unternommen, durch den sich die Aussichten auf eine raschere Verringerung des Schienenlärms in der EU verbessern.

Die Richtlinie 2012/34/EU bietet die Möglichkeit, abgestufte Trassenentgelte in Abhängigkeit von den Lärmemissionen der Wagen zu erheben. Die Kommission erwägt, aufgrund dieser Richtlinie bis 2015 eine Durchführungsmaßnahme vorzuschlagen, mit der die Bedingungen für eine solche lärmabhängige Abstufung für diejenigen Mitgliedstaaten, die entsprechende Regelungen bereits eingeführt haben oder einführen werden, harmonisiert werden sollen.

Der Vorschlag zur Schaffung der Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ (KOM(2011)665/3 (134)) sieht die Möglichkeit vor, dass die EU die Umrüstung der Bestandsgüterwagen mit bis zu 20 % der förderfähigen Kosten finanziell unterstützt. Ferner wird auch bei einer der Optionen, die im Rahmen der vorgenannten unterstützenden Studie zu untersuchen sind, zugrunde gelegt, dass zusätzliche öffentliche Gelder für die Umrüstung bereitgestellt werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007103/13

to the Commission

Norbert Neuser (S&D) and Udo Bullmann (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Protecting the public from intolerable rail traffic noise

On the initiative of the federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hessen, the German Bundesrat agreed in a unanimous vote on 7 June 2013 that the European Commission and the Federal Government must to do more to protect the public against the intolerable noise from rail traffic, particularly in the central Rhine valley.

The decision of the German Bundesrat calls on the Commission to introduce noise limits throughout Europe for older freight trains similar to those that apply to new freight wagons.

1.

Is the Commission planning to introduce noise limits for older freight wagons similar to those that already apply to new freight wagons?

2.

If so, by what date does it intend to introduce these noise limits in order to protect the public?

3.

Can this process be speeded up by authorising the new LL brake blocks, use of which has now been approved?

4.

Is the Commission, together with the Member States, planning a noise-based pricing system in order to establish incentives to switch to quiet brakes at an early juncture?

5.

Is it prepared to support this switch to quiet braking systems on freight wagons with appropriate financial assistance?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2013)

The Commission services have recently launched an impact assessment support study on the reduction of noise generated by railway freight wagons in use in the European Union. A public consultation is moreover ongoing and will last until 3 October and is available through the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/2013-railnoise_en.htm

Extending currently applicable noise limits from new wagons to all wagons circulating in the EU is one of the options being assessed in the study. However, until the impact assessment process is finalised, the Commission cannot anticipate its outcome neither regarding the preferred option nor the date of eventual introduction of a measure.

Authorisation of new LL brake blocks, which took place in June this year, is a positive development that increases the chances for quicker reduction of railway noise in the EU.

Directive 2012/34/EU provides for a possibility to differentiate infrastructure charges in respect of the noise levels of wagons. Under this directive, the Commission is considering proposing, by 2015, an implementing measure harmonising conditions for such noise differentiation for those Member States which introduced or will introduce relevant schemes.

The proposal for the Connecting Europe Facility (COM(2011)665/3 (135)) provides for a possibility for the EU to co-fund retrofitting of existing freight wagons by up to 20% of eligible costs. Moreover, one of the options to be analysed within the support study referred to above assumes additional public subsidies for retrofitting.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007104/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 Ιουνίου 2013)

Θέμα: Επιστροφές αιτούντων άσυλο στην Μάλτα, την περίοδο 2010 έως σήμερα

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή αναφορικά με τον αριθμό των αιτούντων άσυλο που επεστράφησαν από άλλα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ στην Μάλτα, με βάση τα οριζόμενα από τον κανονισμό Δουβλίνο ΙΙ, κατά την περίοδο 2010 έως σήμερα;

Απάντηση της κ. Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(1 Αυγούστου 2013)

Σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία της Eurostat, κατά την περίοδο 2010-2012, 442 άτομα μεταφέρθηκαν στη Μάλτα από τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ και τις χώρες που είναι συνδεδεμένες με το κεκτημένο του Δουβλίνου (Νορβηγία, Ισλανδία, Ελβετία και Λιχτενστάιν), 222 άτομα το 2010, 142 άτομα το 2011 και 78 άτομα το 2012.

Τα ανωτέρω στοιχεία συγκεντρώθηκαν με βάση πληροφορίες που διαβίβασαν κράτη μέλη και χώρες που είναι συνδεδεμένες με το κεκτημένο του Δουβλίνου. Τα ζητηθέντα δεδομένα δεν έχουν διαβιβαστεί από όλα τα εν λόγω κράτη για όλα τα έτη, και η Eurostat δεν έχει ολοκληρώσει την επεξεργασία του συνόλου των πληροφοριών που υποβλήθηκαν.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007104/13

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Return of asylum-seekers to Malta since 2010

Can the Commission state how many asylum-seekers have been returned from other EU Member States to Malta, on the basis of the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, since 2010?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2013)

According to Eurostat data, 442 persons were transferred during the period 2010-2012 to Malta from the EU Member States and the countries associated to the Dublin acquis (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) 222 persons in 2010, 142 persons in 2011 and 78 persons in 2012.

The above compilation of data was made on the basis of information provided by Member States and the countries associated to the Dublin acquis. Not all of these States provided the required data for a certain year, and not all the information received has been fully processed by Eurostat.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007105/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 Ιουνίου 2013)

Θέμα: Εξάλειψη διοικητικών επιβαρύνσεων για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Πράξη για τις Μικρές Επιχειρήσεις (Small Business Act — SBA) απέβλεπε μεταξύ άλλων, στον εκσυγχρονισμό και στην απλούστευση της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, με στόχο την μείωση των διοικητικών επιβαρύνσεων που οφείλονται στη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ κατά 25% έως το 2012.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Επετεύχθη ο στόχος της μείωσης κατά 25% των διοικητικών επιβαρύνσεων στη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις;

Διαθέτει πρόσφατα συγκριτικά στοιχεία μεταξύ των κρατών μελών για το διοικητικό κόστος και τον χρόνο που απαιτείται για την ίδρυση μιας επιχείρησης; Ποια η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας;

Απάντηση του κ. Tajani εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(9 Αυγούστου 2013)

Το πρόγραμμα δράσης για τη μείωση κατά 25% του διοικητικού φόρτου για τις επιχειρήσεις που οφείλεται στη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ δρομολογήθηκε από την Επιτροπή και έγινε αποδεκτό από το Συμβούλιο το 2007 (136).

H τελική έκθεση σχετικά με τα αποτελέσματα δημοσιεύτηκε το Δεκέμβριο του 2012 (137). Στο πλαίσιο αυτού του προγράμματος, εγκρίθηκαν μέτρα σε επίπεδο ΕΕ τα οποία κατέληξαν σε ετήσια εξοικονόμηση 30,8 δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ για τις επιχειρήσεις. Το ποσό αυτό αντιστοιχεί σε μείωση κατά 25% του υφιστάμενου διοικητικού φόρτου που οφείλεται στη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ, που εκτιμήθηκε στα 123,8 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ. Μια επιπλέον μείωση κατά 5,5% του φόρτου, που θα επέφερε συνολικά το ποσοστό του 30,5%, θα μπορούσε να επιτευχθεί, αν εγκριθούν από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο τα συμπληρωματικά μέτρα που πρότεινε η Επιτροπή.

Τα πιο πρόσφατα συγκριτικά στοιχεία για τα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά το διοικητικό κόστος και τον χρόνο που χρειάζεται η εκκίνηση μιας νέας εταιρείας διατίθενται στον δικτυακό τόπο:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/start-up-procedures/progress-2012/index_en.htm για χάρτη όλων των πληροφοριών ειδικά για κάθε χώρα.

Οι πιο πρόσφατες πληροφορίες, από το έτος 2012, δείχνουν ότι στην Ελλάδα χρειάζονται κατά μέσο όρο 5 ημέρες και κοστίζει 910 ευρώ· ο ευρωπαϊκός μέσος όρος είναι 5,4 ημέρες με κόστος 372 ευρώ, σε σύγκριση με τον στόχο που είναι τρεις ημέρες και 100 ευρώ. Αυτός ο στόχος προτάθηκε στην Ανασκόπηση του Small Business Act (SBA) (138) και επικυρώθηκε στα συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με την Ανασκόπηση του SBA (139).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007105/13

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Eliminating administrative burdens for SMEs

The European Small Business Act (SBA) was intended, inter alia, to modernise and simplify EU legislation for SMEs in order to reduce administrative burdens arising from EU legislation by 25% by 2012.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Has the goal of a 25% reduction of administrative burdens in EU legislation for SMEs been achieved?

Does it have any recent comparative data concerning Member States regarding the administrative costs and the time needed to start up a business? How does Greece fare in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2013)

The Action Programme for reducing by 25% the administrative burdens on business stemming from EU legislation was launched by the Commission and endorsed by the Council in 2007 (140).

A final report on the results was published in December 2012 (141). Under this programme, measures resulting in annual savings of EUR 30.8 billion for businesses have been adopted at EU level. This represents a 25% reduction in existing administrative burdens stemming from EU legislation, which have been estimated at EUR 123.8 billion. Another 5.5% of burden reduction, which would bring the total to 30.5%, could be achieved if the additional measures already proposed by the Commission are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.

The latest comparative data for Member States regarding the administrative costs and the time needed to start up a company may be found on:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/start-up-procedures/progress-2012/index_en.htm for chart of all country-specific info.

The latest information, as of 2012, shows that in Greece it takes on average 5 days and costs EUR 910; the European average is 5.4 days with costs of EUR 372, by comparison to the target of 3 days and EUR 100. This target was proposed in the SBA Review (142) and confirmed in the Council Conclusion on the Review of the SBA (143).

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007107/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)

(18 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – obozy pracy przymusowej w Chinach

Chiński system laojiao, czyli reedukacji przez pracę, został wprowadzony w latach pięćdziesiątych XX w. przez komunistyczny rząd Chin w celu utrzymania stabilności w chaotycznym okresie po rewolucji. Pół wieku po tych wydarzeniach system ten nadal istnieje. W ramach niego policja i państwowe służby bezpieczeństwa mogą przetrzymywać „przestępców” aż do czterech lat bez procesu sądowego. Zgodnie z pierwotnym założeniem, laojiao miał służyć reedukacji złodziei i prostytutek, jednak zdaniem wielu ugrupowań system ten służy również „reedukacji” działaczy politycznych. Według Amnesty International jest to sposób zamknięcia ust opozycjonistom i uciszenia tych, którzy obrażają rząd.

Jakie informacje na temat laojiao w Chinach może przedstawić Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych (ESDZ)?

Czy ESDZ jest świadoma, że obozy pracy przymusowej podważają podstawowe prawa Chińczyków?

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji/Wysoka Przedstawiciel poruszała tę sprawę w rozmowach z rządem Chin?

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

(20 sierpnia 2013 r.)

ESDZ wie o istnieniu w Chinach obozów pracy przymusowej i podziela obawę Szanownego Pana Posła. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wielokrotnie wzywała rząd chiński do zreformowania systemu reedukacji przez pracę (RTL). Temat ten poruszany jest regularnie w ramach dialogu dotyczącego praw człowieka, którego ostatnia sesja miała miejsce dnia 25 czerwca w Guiyang, prowincji Guizhou w Chinach.

W świetle oświadczeń władz Chin wydanych w bieżącym roku o planach reformy systemu Laogai i nieskazywania obywateli na odbycie kary w obozach pracy od końca 2013 r., ESDZ będzie zwracać się do chińskich partnerów o dostarczenie więcej informacji i nadal będzie monitorować zmiany w tej dziedzinie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007107/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Forced labour camps in China

The Chinese system of laojiao, or ‘re-education through labour’, was introduced in the 1950s by the Communist Party Government to maintain stability after the chaotic post-revolution days. Half a century later, the system is still in place. It allows the police and other state security agents to detain ‘offenders’ for up to four years without trial. Laojiao was originally designed for thieves and prostitutes, but many rights groups believe that the system is also used for political activists. According to Amnesty International, ‘it is a way to silence dissent and keep those quiet that offend the government’.

What information can the External Action Service (EEAS) provide about laojiao in China?

Is the EEAS aware that these forced labour camps undermine the basic rights of the Chinese people?

Has the Vice-President/High Representative raised the issue with the Chinese Government?

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

(20 August 2013)

The EEAS is aware of the existence of forced labour camps in China and shares the Honorable Member's concern. The High Representative/Vice-President has repeatedly called on the Chinese Government to adopt reforms to its Re-education through Labour (RTL) system. The issue is raised regularly in the framework of the Human Rights Dialogue, the last session of which took place on 25 June in Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.

In view of Chinese government officials' statements from earlier this year, expressing the intent to reform the Laogai system and no longer sentence citizens to imprisonment in labour camps from the end of 2013, the EEAS will continue to ask its Chinese interlocutors to provide further details and will keep monitoring developments in this field.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007108/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)

(18 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – niski poziom bezpieczeństwa w chińskich zakładach pracy

Niedawno w chińskim zakładzie przetwórstwa drobiu podczas zmiany pracowniczej wybuchł pożar, w wyniku którego śmierć poniosło 119 z obecnych w środku 350 osób. Na podstawie przeprowadzonego śledztwa stwierdzono, że duża liczba ofiar to wynik braku dobrych planów ewakuacyjnych. Wiele wyjść z zakładu przetwórstwa drobiu było zamkniętych, aby powstrzymać pracowników od wychodzenia na przerwy – otwarte były tylko jedne drzwi. Pracownicy tratowali się wzajemnie, usiłując ujść z życiem. Właściciel i kierownicy zakładu przebywają w areszcie policyjnym. Przedstawicielka organizacji Asia Monitor Resource Centre stwierdziła jednak, że za zapewnienie otwartych wyjść odpowiadają urzędnicy ds. bezpieczeństwa na lokalnym szczeblu rządowym. Według niej urzędnicy rzadko kontrolują zakłady pracy pod względem bezpieczeństwa.

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel poruszyła tę kwestię z Chinami?

Jakie jest stanowisko Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych (ESDZ) w tej sprawie?

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

(21 sierpnia 2013 r.)

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca ma świadomość niskiego poziomu bezpieczeństwa w chińskich zakładach pracy i podziela niepokój Szanownego Pana Posła. ESDZ regularnie podnosi kwestię bezpieczeństwa w miejscu pracy w ramach kompleksowego partnerstwa strategicznego UE-Chiny, w tym w ramach dialogu między UE a Chinami dotyczącego praw człowieka. Ponadto Komisja prowadzi z Chinami zorganizowany dialog w sprawie polityki zatrudnienia i polityki społecznej, zorganizowany dialog na temat pracy, zatrudnienia i spraw społecznych, a także – z chińską administracją państwową do spraw bezpieczeństwa pracy – dialog polityczny i współpracę w dziedzinie ochrony zdrowia i bezpieczeństwa w miejscu pracy. Wszystkie te dialogi zostały w przeszłości uwzględnione w dialogach wysokiego szczebla. W 2011 r. Komisja przyjęła konkretny projekt dotyczący współpracy w dziedzinie zdrowia i bezpieczeństwa w miejscu pracy, poruszający kwestie polityki, inspekcji i szkolenia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007108/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Poor workplace safety in China

A fire recently occurred at a Chinese poultry processing plant which started during a shift change when there were 350 workers inside, 119 of whom died. Following investigations, it was found that the huge number of casualties arose due to the absence of a good workplace safety plan. Many of the exits in the poultry plant had been closed to stop the workers from taking breaks and only one door was open. Workers trampled over each other trying to survive. The owner and managers are in police custody. However, a representative of the Asia Monitor Resource Centre stated that ensuring unlocked exits is the responsibility of the safety officials at local government level. She said they rarely bother to check the safety of workplaces.

Has the Vice-President/High Representative raised this issue with China?

What is the position of the European External Action Service (EEAS) on the matter?

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

(21 August 2013)

The HR/VP is aware of poor workplace safety in China and shares the Honourable Member's concern. The EEAS regularly raises workplace safety within the extensive framework of the EU-China Strategic Partnership, including in the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue. Furthermore, the Commission maintains with China a structured Dialogue on Employment and Social Policies, a structured Dialogue on Labour, Employment and Social Affairs, and — with the Chinese State Administration for Work Safety — a Policy Dialogue and Cooperation in Health and Safety at Work, all of which have in the past fed into high level dialogues. Finally, the Commission adopted in 2011 a specific cooperation project on Occupational Health and Safety addressing policy, inspection and training aspects.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení P-007110/13

Komisi

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(18. června 2013)

Předmět: Předváděcí prodejní akce a používání nekalých a agresivních obchodních praktik

Na 72 % předváděcích prodejních akcí, které kontrolovala v roce 2012 Česká obchodní inspekce, národní kontrolní a dozorový orgán, bylo zjištěno porušení obecně závazných právních předpisů na ochranu spotřebitele vycházejících z evropské legislativy. Převážnou část zjištěných porušení představovalo prokázané používání některé z forem nekalých obchodních praktik k manipulaci a ovládnutí účastníků těchto akcí, a také agresivních obchodních praktik, tedy zvlášť závažného porušování spotřebitelských práv spotřebitelů, v tomto případě zejména seniorů. Výsledky dosavadních kontrol z roku 2013 tento trend dlouhodobého porušování práv spotřebitelů ze strany organizátorů těchto akcí dále potvrzují.

Evropské spotřebitelské centrum ČR, spolufinancované Evropskou komisí, nedávno informovalo, že organizátoři předváděcích akcí navíc začali vozit svoje zákazníky do zahraničí na poznávací zájezdy spojené s prodejem zboží. Neznalost prostředí i jazyka a nátlak v cizím prostředí umocňuje zranitelnost zúčastněných spotřebitelů a ti tak nejsou schopni odolat nekalým obchodním praktikám, kterým jsou vystaveni. Po zemích EU dokonce prodejci začali zájezdy směřovat mimo země Evropské unie, např. do Turecka.

1.

Jakými informacemi disponuje Komise ohledně fenoménu předváděcích prodejních akcí?

2.

Zaznamenává v této souvislosti Komise podněty ze strany spotřebitelů či národních dozorových orgánů jednotlivých členských států?

3.

Jsou tyto předváděcí prodejní akce rozšířené a podobně problematické i v jiných státech EU?

4.

Jaké kroky hodlá Komise podniknout k posílení prosazování práva, aby nedocházelo k uplatňování nekalých obchodních praktik v oblasti cestovního ruchu?

Ve sdělení, které se týká uplatňování směrnice o nekalých obchodních praktikách, Komise informuje o záměru uspořádat v roce 2013 osvětovou kampaň v EU o právech spotřebitelů, včetně směrnice o nekalých obchodních praktikách.

5.

Jakým způsobem bude tato kampaň probíhat a zaměří se také na problematiku předváděcích akcí?

Odpověď Viviane Redingové jménem Komise

(2. srpna 2013)

Komise si je vědoma skutečnosti, že fenomén předváděcích prodejních akcí je v Evropě velmi rozšířen.

Směrnice 2005/29/ES (144), jež zakazuje obchodníkům používat klamavé a agresivní obchodní praktiky vůči spotřebitelům, už zajišťuje zvláštní ochranu těm spotřebitelům, kteří jsou obzvláště zranitelní z důvodu svého věku či důvěřivosti. A navíc, směrnice 85/577/EHS (145) uděluje spotřebitelům právo zrušit ve lhůtě alespoň sedmi dnů smlouvu, kterou uzavřeli v průběhu zájezdu organizovaného obchodníkem. Tato směrnice bude od června 2014 nahrazena směrnicí 2011/83/EU (146), která ochranu spotřebitelů v této oblasti posiluje.

Jak si jsou vážení páni jistě vědomi, sdělení týkající se uplatňování směrnice 2005/29/ES (147) a průvodní zpráva k němu (148), které byly přijaty 14. března 2013, vymezují hlavní oblasti, v nichž je třeba zintenzivnit prosazování práva, a to včetně odvětví cestovního ruchu a dopravy. Evropská spotřebitelská centra skutečně hlásí častý výskyt agresivních praktik v oblasti dočasného užívání ubytovacích zařízení (tzv. timeshare). Agresivní praktiky se používají zejména při podomním prodeji a při jiných prodejích mimo obchodní prostory.

V zájmu účinného prosazování práva byly vymezeny tyto prioritní činnosti: pořádání tematických seminářů ve spolupráci s vnitrostátními orgány prosazování práva, aktualizace pokynů k provádění směrnice 2005/29/ES a vytvoření konkrétních ukazatelů prosazování práva pro oblast nekalých obchodních praktik.

V současnosti se kromě toho připravuje celoevropská osvětová kampaň v úzké spolupráci se zúčastněnými stranami, včetně podniků a sdružení spotřebitelů, jejímž cílem je zvýšit celkovou informovanost o právech spotřebitelů a možnostech prosazování práva v různých oblastech.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007110/13

to the Commission

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Sales events and the use of unfair and aggressive trade practices

Violations of EU consumer protection laws were uncovered at 72% of the sales events inspected by the Czech Trade Inspection Authority (the national inspection and supervision body) in 2012. Most of the violations involved clear‐cut cases of unfair and aggressive trade practices being used to manipulate and overwhelm event attendees. As such, they represented particularly serious violations of consumer rights — particularly those of senior citizens. This long‐term trend of consumers’ rights being violated by sales event organisers is further borne out by the results of inspections carried out so far in 2013.

Moreover, the Czech Republic’s European Consumer Centre, which is co‐financed by the Commission, recently said that sales event organisers had started to take their customers abroad on sales‐related trips. The participants’ lack of familiarity with the language and their surroundings in a foreign environment makes them more vulnerable, and they are unable to resist the unfair trade practices to which they are exposed. Besides EU Member States, salespeople have started to take customers to non‐EU destinations — such as Turkey — for such sales trips.

1.

What information does the Commission have on the phenomenon of sales events?

2.

Is the Commission taking note of the concerns of consumers and of national inspectionbodies in the Member States?

3.

Are such sales events as widespread and problematic in other EU Member States?

4.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to strengthen enforcement of the law inorder to put an end to such dishonest trade practices in the tourism sector?

In its communication on the implementation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Commission states its intention of organising an EU‐wide awareness‐raising campaign on consumer rights, including the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

5.

How will this campaign be organised, and will it tackle the issue of sales events?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2013)

The Commission is aware that the phenomenon of sales events is widespread in Europe.

Directive 2005/29/EC (149) which prohibits traders from engaging in misleading and aggressive commercial practices towards consumers already offers specific protection to consumers who are particularly vulnerable because of their age or credulity. Furthermore, Directive 85/577/EEC (150) provides consumers with the right of withdrawal, during a minimum of seven days, from contracts concluded by consumers during excursions organised by traders. This directive will be replaced as from June 2014 by Directive 2011/83/EU (151), which reinforces the consumer protection in this area.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the communication on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC (152) and its accompanying Report (153) adopted on 14 March 2013 identify key areas where enforcement should be stepped up, including the travel and tourism sector. Indeed, European Consumer Centres reported frequent aggressive practices in the timeshare sector. Besides, aggressive practices occur mainly in doorstep selling and other off-premises sales.

In order to make enforcement more effective, priorities for action include organising thematic workshops with national enforcers, updating the Guidance on the implementation of Directive 2005/29/EC and developing enforcement indicators specific to the area of unfair commercial practices.

Furthermore, the EU-wide awareness raising campaign is currently being prepared, in close cooperation with stakeholders, including businesses and consumer associations, with a view to increase the overall knowledge of both consumer rights and enforcement options on a wide range of areas.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007111/13

an die Kommission

Paul Rübig (PPE)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Weitergabe von Rahmenrezepturen

Die parlamentarische Anfrage betrifft die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1223/2009 vom 30. November 2009 über kosmetische Mittel.

Aus Artikel 4 der gegenständlichen Verordnung ist nicht klar ersichtlich, unter welchen Umständen der Händler bzw. der Hersteller die „verantwortliche Person“ darstellt.

Gemäß Artikel 13 Absatz 1 Buchstabe h der Verordnung hat die verantwortliche Person der Kommission auf elektronischem Wege die Rahmenrezeptur bekannt zu geben, um bei schwierigen Vorkommnissen eine rasche und geeignete medizinische Behandlung zu ermöglichen.

Daraus kann sich folgende Problematik ergeben: Bei derartigen Rezepturen handelt es sich häufig um Betriebsgeheimnisse. Falls der Händler als die „verantwortliche Person“ gilt, ist der Hersteller gezwungen, seine geheimen Rezepturen an den Händler weiterzugeben. Obwohl es sich dabei nur um die Verpflichtung handelt, Rahmenrezepturen und somit keine exakten prozentuellen Angaben bekannt zu geben, wird der Händler zumeist in der Lage sein, anhand der Rahmenrezeptur das kosmetische Produkt selbst herzustellen. Hieraus würde sich insbesondere für kleinere Unternehmen, deren Existenz großteils von der Geheimhaltung ihrer speziellen Rezepturen abhängt, ein enormer finanzieller Nachteil ergeben.

Ich bitte um Aufklärung folgender Fragen:

Unter welchen Umständen ist der Händler bzw. der Hersteller die „verantwortliche Person“?

War es von der Kommission beabsichtigt, dass Hersteller somit oftmals gezwungen sind, ihre geheimen Rezepturen weiterzugeben?

Bejahendenfalls, welche Schritte gedenkt die Kommission zu unternehmen, um den Schutz der betroffenen Hersteller zu gewährleisten?

Antwort von Herrn Mimica im Namen der Kommission

(7. August 2013)

Gemäß Artikel 4 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1223/2009 über kosmetische Mittel (154) ist die verantwortliche Person für ein innerhalb der Gemeinschaft hergestelltes kosmetisches Mittel der Hersteller, während für ein importiertes kosmetisches Mittel der Importeur die verantwortliche Person ist. Der Händler ist nur dann die verantwortliche Person, wenn er ein kosmetisches Mittel unter seinem eigenen Namen und seiner eigenen Marke in Verkehr bringt oder ein Produkt, das sich bereits in Verkehr befindet, so ändert, dass die Einhaltung der geltenden Anforderungen berührt sein kann (155).

Die Kommission möchte gewährleisten, dass kosmetische Mittel, die in der EU in Verkehr gebracht werden, sicher sind. Die Rahmenrezeptur kosmetischer Mittel enthält wichtige Informationen, die es den Giftnotrufzentralen erlauben, Leben zu retten, wenn schnelle und gezielte medizinische Hilfe erforderlich ist. Daher müssen alle verantwortlichen Personen diese Informationen bereitstellen, wenn sie ihre Produkte melden. Weiterhin müssen sie gewährleisten, dass die von ihnen in Verkehr gebrachten kosmetischen Mittel sicher sind, und müssen daher im Interesse einer effektiven Marktüberwachung eine Produktinformationsdatei einschließlich der Sicherheitsbewertung für das Produkt für die zuständigen Behörden bereithalten. Wenn ein Händler die verantwortliche Person ist, muss er über all diese Informationen verfügen, um die Anforderungen der Kosmetikverordnung erfüllen zu können.

Hersteller können die sensiblen betriebsinternen Informationen, die sie den verantwortlichen Personen für ihre Produkte zur Verfügung stellen, vertraglich durch zivilrechtliche Vertraulichkeitsklauseln schützen lassen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007111/13

to the Commission

Paul Rübig (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Communication of frame formulations

This parliamentary question concerns Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products.

It is not clear from Article 4 of this regulation under what circumstances the distributor or the manufacturer represents the ‘responsible person’.

In accordance with Article 13(1)(h) of the regulation, the responsible person must inform the Commission, by electronic means, of the frame formulation in order to allow for prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties.

This may give rise the following problem. These types of formulations are often trade secrets. If the distributor is classed as the ‘responsible person’, manufacturers will be forced to disclose their secret formulation to the distributor. Although the obligation only concerns disclosure of the frame formulation and therefore not the exact percentages, distributors will in most cases be able to manufacture the cosmetic product themselves using the frame formulation. This would result in an enormous financial disadvantage for smaller undertakings in particular, whose existence is largely dependent on their special formulations remaining secret.

I would ask for clarification of the following:

Under what circumstances is the distributor or manufacturer the ‘responsible person’?

Was it the Commission’s intention for manufacturers to often be forced to disclose their secret formulations?

If so, what steps does it intend to take to ensure the protection of the manufacturers concerned?

Answer given by Mr Mimica on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2013)

According to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products (156), the manufacturers are the responsible persons for cosmetic products manufactured in the EU, while importers are responsible persons for cosmetic products imported in the EU. Distributors only become responsible persons if they place a cosmetic product on the market under their name or trademark or modify a product already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable requirements may be affected (157).

It was the Commission's intention to ensure that cosmetic products placed on the EU market are safe. The frame formulation of cosmetic products is an important piece of information that allows anti-poison centres to save lives when prompt and appropriate medical treatment is necessary. This is why all responsible persons must disclose this information when notifying their products. They must also ensure that the cosmetic products they place on the market are safe, and, to that end, they must keep a product information file, including the safety assessment of the product, readily available to competent authorities for market surveillance purposes. Distributors that have become responsible persons must have all this information in order to comply with the requirements of the Cosmetics Regulation.

Manufacturers can protect the sensitive commercial information they communicate to the responsible persons for their products through confidentiality clauses included in contracts of civil law.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007112/13

an die Kommission

Evelyn Regner (S&D) und Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(18. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Datenerfassung in Duty-Free-Bereichen von Flughäfen

Bei einem Kauf von Waren im Duty-Free-Bereich einiger, aber nicht aller Flughäfen wird beim Bezahlen oft der Boarding Pass erfragt und gescannt.

1.

Ist der Kommission bekannt, auf welcher Grundlage dies geschieht? Wenn ja, was ist diese Grundlage?

2.

Ist der Kommission bekannt, welche Daten dabei gespeichert werden? Wenn ja, welche Daten sind dies?

3.

Ist der Kommission bekannt, wie lange diese Daten gespeichert werden, wer Zugriff auf diese Daten hat und welche Zwecke sie erfüllen?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(21. August 2013)

Das EU-Recht (158) sieht die Befreiung von Verbrauchsteuern auf Waren vor, die von Reisenden, die sich in ein Drittland (oder Drittgebiet) begeben, in Tax-free-Verkaufsstellen in EU-Flughäfen gekauft werden.

1.

Die Tax-free-Verkaufsstellen in Flughäfen erfassen und verarbeiten Daten, einschließlich personenbezogener Daten, um zu prüfen, ob ihre Kunden Anspruch auf diese Befreiung haben. Die Reisenden müssen daher im Besitz eines Reisedokuments sein, aus dem ersichtlich ist, dass der Bestimmungsflughafen in einem Drittland oder Drittgebiet liegt.

2.

Wie die Daten der Reisenden erfasst werden, ist von Mitgliedstaat zu Mitgliedstaat unterschiedlich

2.

Wie die Daten der Reisenden erfasst werden, ist von Mitgliedstaat zu Mitgliedstaat unterschiedlich

 (159)

3.

Die Kommission hält die Verarbeitung der Daten für rechtmäßig, da die Mitgliedstaaten nach dem EU-Recht die erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen müssen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Befreiung von der Verbrauchsteuer so angewandt wird, dass Steuerhinterziehung und ‐umgehung oder Missbrauch ausgeschlossen sind.

Soweit personenbezogene Daten verarbeitet werden, findet die Datenschutzrichtlinie 95/46/EG (160) Anwendung, wonach personenbezogene Daten nicht länger gespeichert werden dürfen, als für den angegebenen Zweck erforderlich. Die Erfassung der Daten sollte verhältnismäßig und somit auf das unbedingt erforderliche Maß begrenzt sein (Datenminimierung).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007112/13

to the Commission

Evelyn Regner (S&D) and Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Data collection in duty-free zones of airports

When buying goods at duty-free zones in some but not all airports, the purchaser is asked to produce his or her boarding card and then the boarding card is scanned.

1.

Does the Commission know the reason for this? If so, what is that reason?

2.

Does the Commission know which data are saved during this process? If so, which data?

3.

Does the Commission know how long this data is retained, who has access to it and what purpose does it serve?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2013)

EC law (161) allows for the exemption of excise duties for purchases made in duty-free shops at EU airports by passengers travelling to third countries (or territories).

1.

Duty-free shops at airports collect and process data, including personal data, to verify whether their customers are eligible for this exemption. Travellers have to hold a transport document, stating that the final destination is an airport situated in a third territory or country.

2.

The practice on collecting of passenger data varies between Member States

2.

The practice on collecting of passenger data varies between Member States

 (162)

3.

The Commission considers that the processing of data is legitimate as EC law requires Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that the excise duty exemption is applied in such a way as to prevent any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse.

Where personal data are processed, the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (163) provides that personal data must not be kept for longer than is necessary for a specified purpose. The data collection should be proportionate and therefore also limited to what is strictly necessary (data minimisation).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007113/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 Ιουνίου 2013)

Θέμα: Έρευνα OLAF για τον αυτοκινητόδρομο Κόρινθος-Τρίπολη-Καλαμάτα & τον κλάδο Λεύκτρο-Σπάρτη

Πρόσφατα κοινοποιήθηκε στην Επιτροπή Δημοσιονομικού Ελέγχου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου αναφορά Κίνησης Πολιτών, στην οποία καταγγέλλεται ότι, για τον οδικό άξονα «Κόρινθος-Τρίπολη-Καλαμάτα & κλάδος Λεύκτρο-Σπάρτη», υπάρχει «σωρεία οικονομικών παραβάσεων που έχουν τελεσθεί στο έργο και οδήγησαν την OLAF στη διερεύνηση του θέματος για απάτη και διαφθορά».

Έγγραφο της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας που επισυνάπτεται στην εν λόγω καταγγελία, αναφέρει, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι «σχετικά με την καταγγελία για απάτη, το Παράρτημα Έρευνας Απάτης της ΕΤΕπ ενημέρωσε την OLAF, η οποία και ξεκίνησε έρευνα για την υπόθεση. Το Παράρτημα Έρευνας Απάτης της ΕΤΕπ συνεργάζεται με την έρευνα που διεξάγει η OLAF».

Κατόπιν έρευνάς μας, διαπιστώσαμε επίσης ότι, η εν λόγω καταγγελία αφορούσε σε πολύμηνη εσκεμμένη καθυστέρηση να εγκριθεί η τροποποίηση των περιβαλλοντικών όρων του έργου εκ μέρους των Δημόσιων Υπηρεσιών, εξ αιτίας της οποίας προκλήθηκε αναβολή της ημερομηνίας παράδοσής του αλλά και ενεργοποίηση της ρήτρας υπέρ του παραχωρησιούχου για αποζημιώσεις 68 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ από το ελληνικό κράτος.

Με δεδομένα τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι γνωρίζει για τη συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση; Η αιφνίδια διακοπή των εργασιών από το Νοέμβριο του 2012 μέχρι και σήμερα, σχετίζεται με τη διερεύνηση των καταγγελιών;

Τι συνέπειες θα υπάρξουν σε περίπτωση που οι καταγγελίες αυτές αποδειχθούν βάσιμες;

Απάντηση του κ. Šemeta εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Αυγούστου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή επιβεβαιώνει ότι Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Καταπολέμησης της Απάτης (OLAF) ξεκίνησε έρευνα την 1η Φεβρουαρίου 2012 όσον αφορά τα θέματα στα οποία αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με το δάνειο της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων (ΕΤΕ). Η OLAF συνεργάζεται στενά με τις αρμόδιες αρχές και βρίσκεται σε επαφή με την ΕΤΕ. Δεδομένου ότι συνεχίζεται η έρευνα της OLAF, δεν μπορούν να γίνουν περισσότερα σχόλια προς το παρόν.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007113/13

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: OLAF investigation into the Corinth-Tripoli-Kalamata freeway & the Leuktro-Sparta branch expressway

The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control recently received a petition from a citizens’ initiative alleging that, in respect of the road axis ‘Corinth-Tripoli-Kalamata & the Leuktro-Sparta expressway branch’, a ‘large number of financial irregularities had occurred, prompting OLAF to investigate whether fraud and corruption were involved.’

A document of the European Investment Bank which was attached to this complaint states, inter alia, that ‘in respect of the complaint about fraud, the EIB’s Fraud Investigations Division has provided information to OLAF, which has launched an investigation into the case. EIB’s Fraud Investigations Division is cooperating with the investigation conducted by OLAF’.

Our investigation also found that this complaint involved a plan to deliberately delay approval of the amended environmental conditions of the project by the Public Services over many months, resulting in the postponement of the date of delivery of the project. This would have activated the clause in favour of the concession holder who would have been entitled to compensation from the Greek State to the tune of EUR 68 million.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

What does it know about this case? Is the sudden suspension of work since November 2012 linked to the investigation of the complaints?

What consequences will there be if these allegations prove to be well-founded?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2013)

The Commission can confirm that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has opened an investigation on 1 February 2012 into the matters referred to by the Honourable Member in relation to the European Investment Bank (EIB) loan. OLAF is cooperating closely with the relevant Greek authorities and has liaised with the EIB. As the OLAF investigation is ongoing, no further comments can be made at this stage.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007114/13

to the Commission

Julie Girling (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Invasive alien species

The GB Non-Native Species Secretariat, the UK body responsible for helping to coordinate the approach to invasive non-native species in Great Britain, has issued an alert for the Quagga Mussel, Dreissena bugensis rostriformis.

The Quagga Mussel is a highly invasive non-native species that can significantly alter whole ecosystems by filtering out large quantities of nutrients. It is also a serious biofouling risk, blocking pipes and smothering boat hulls and other structures.

Although this species has not yet been found in Great Britain, given its spread through Europe to the Netherlands and Germany it is expected to arrive soon, quite possibly in my own constituency.

Can the Commission advise whether its legislative proposals on invasive alien species will establish a similar alert system to that developed in the UK, and advise by when we can expect these proposals to be published?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2013)

The Commission is working intensively on a legislative proposal on invasive alien species which is scheduled for adoption after the summer break. The Commission is considering proposing measures for the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, of which the quagga mussel is an example. The Commission also considers an early warning and rapid response system for new invasions of invasive alien species of Union concern, coupled with a system for the exchange of information between Member States to ensure swift and coordinated action, as well as provisions on the management of invasive alien species already established in the EU territory.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007115/13

to the Commission

Marta Andreasen (ECR)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: TransEuropa Ferries BV

TransEuropa Ferries BV of Ostende, Belgium commenced bankruptcy proceedings in April 2013.

Among its other debts is an amount of about GBP 3.3 million due to a local authority in the UK, Thanet District Council, in respect of unpaid port fees.

The outstanding amount was allowed to accumulate over a period of approximately three years following discussions in early 2010 intended to keep the company in business.

To put this amount into context, it is greater than the council’s entire operating costs for the Port of Ramsgate for the financial year 2011/12.

There may have been a similar arrangement between TransEuropa and the Port of Ostende.

Is the Commission aware of these arrangements?

Have they breached state aid rules?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2013)

The Commission is not aware of the arrangements described between Thanet District Council and TransEuropa Ferries BV. The Commission also has no information on any similar arrangement that may have existed between TransEuropa and the Port of Ostende. Neither the British nor the Belgian authorities have notified (164) the European Commission of any aid to the company. Therefore it is difficult for the Commission to assess whether any such arrangements breached state aid rules.

The Commission observes that any creditor, whether in the private or public sector, may negotiate with their debtors when they consider it is in their interests to do so, and such behaviour does not necessarily involve state aid.

The Commission further observes that even if the arrangements described were to be deemed state aid incompatible with the Treaty, then bankruptcy proceedings leading to termination of the company's economic activities and its deregistration from the commercial register would make recovery of any such aid unlikely.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007116/13

aan de Commissie

Philip Claeys (NI)

(18 juni 2013)

Betreft: Economische sancties tegen kritisch geachte ondernemers in Turkije

De Turkse premier Erdoğan schrikt er niet voor  terug ondernemingen aan te vallen die door mensen geleid worden die hij te kritisch voor zijn beleid acht. Zo riep hij onlangs op tot een boycot van het bedrijf Boyner, en zei hij in het openbaar dat „onze wraak groot zal zijn” tegenover een andere onderneming, de Garantie-Bank. De aandelen van beide ondernemingen kenden als gevolg van deze publieke verklaringen een sterke daling op de beurs (Die Welt, 11 juni 2013).

Is de Commissie bekend met de feiten?

Acht de Commissie dit alles in overeenstemming met de criteria van Kopenhagen?

Welke gevolgen heeft dit voor het toetredingsproces?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(5 september 2013)

De Commissie kent de uitspraken waarnaar het geachte Parlementslid verwijst.

De Commissie onderzoekt de door Turkije geboekte vooruitgang met betrekking tot de criteria van Kopenhagen in haar jaarlijkse voortgangsverslagen. Het voortgangsverslag over 2013 zal verschijnen op 16 oktober 2013.

Daarnaast is nadere betrokkenheid bij Turkije belangrijk in het kader van het EU-toetredingsproces, onder andere met betrekking tot hoofdstuk 23 (Justitieel stelsel en grondrechten). De vooruitgang met betrekking tot dit hoofdstuk is cruciaal voor de hervormingsinspanningen van Turkije.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007116/13

to the Commission

Philip Claeys (NI)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Economic sanctions in Turkey against entrepreneurs perceived as critical

Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan does not shy away from attacking companies led by people whom he sees as too critical of his policies. Thus, he recently called for a boycott of the Boyner company, and he said in public that ‘our revenge will be great’ with regard to another company, Garanti Bank. As a result of these public statements, the two companies’ shares crashed on the stock exchange (Die Welt, 11 June 2013).

Are these facts known to the Commission?

Is all this, in the Commission’s opinion, compatible with the Copenhagen criteria?

What implications will this have for the accession process?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2013)

The Commission is aware of the statements referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission examines progress made by Turkey towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria in its annual Progress Reports. The 2013 Progress Report will be published on 16 October 2013.

In addition, further engagement with Turkey is important within the framework of the EU accession process, including on Chapter 23 — Judiciary and fundamental rights. Progress on this chapter is fundamental to Turkey's reform efforts.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007132/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 giugno 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Repressioni turche e candidature europee

Stando alle testimonianze di cittadini turchi, da alcuni mesi il governo sta lavorando con la massima discrezione per rimuovere scritte e sigle recanti la dicitura «Repubblica di Turchia» in vari edifici pubblici, dagli ospedali, ai tribunali e alle scuole. Ennesimo segno che la politica di Erdogan è poco in linea con quella spinta occidentale e anche modernizzatrice che fu del padre della patria Atatürk. Del resto anche le misure repressive messe in atto dal governo e dalla polizia durante le proteste di Gezi Park hanno poco a che vedere con l'occidente e dimostrano una certa mancanza di spirito democratico da parte di Erdogan, che pare poco avvezzo a ricevere critiche e utilizza sistemi di sicurezza pericolosi per i cittadini: numerose testimonianze hanno parlato di gas lacrimogeni nocivi lanciati dagli elicotteri a bassa quota o di additivi chimici nell'acqua degli idranti usati per disperdere la folla, mentre sono note le violenze ai danni dei cittadini, ma anche a rappresentanti della stampa internazionale e a chiunque in Turchia, medici e avvocati compresi, cerchi di aiutare con la propria professionalità i manifestanti.

Alla luce di quanto sopra il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante:

Come giudica, considerando il fatto che la Repubblica turca è candidata all'adesione all'UE, l'atteggiamento del Premier Erdogan che ha più volte dichiarato di non riconoscere l'autorità del Parlamento europeo?

Non ritiene doveroso, a fronte della candidatura della Turchia, di richiedere al governo turco una relazione chiara e un'indagine su quanto sta avvenendo in questi giorni a Istanbul e in altre città, con la possibilità di verifica da parte di osservatori europei?

È in possesso di informazioni certe su quante persone siano state ferite o siano morte in seguito agli scontri?

Quali iniziative diplomatiche sta prendendo relativamente a quanto accade in Turchia?

Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione

(9 agosto 2013)

La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole parlamentare alle risposte fornite alle precedenti interrogazioni scritte E-006193/2013, E-006403/201, E-006871/2013, P-006302/2013, E‐006922/2013, E-007265/2013, E-007260/2013, E-007036/2013, E-007238/2013, E‐006378/2013, E-006390/2013, E-006507/2013, E-006891/2013, E-006721/2013, E‐007023/2013 e E-007093/2013 (165).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007117/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(18 juni 2013)

Betreft: Turkse politie doet invallen bij media en onderzoekt restricties sociale media

Het Turkse AK‐regime draait de Turkse vrije media de duimschroeven nog verder aan. Op dinsdag 18 juni hebben Turkse veiligheidsfunctionarissen en politieagenten invallen gedaan bij de krant Atilim en het persbureau Etkin (166). Dezelfde dag werd verder bekend dat de Turkse regering een onderzoek is gestart om het gebruik van sociale media in te perken (167).

1.

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat het volstrekt onacceptabel is dat de Turkse politie dergelijke invallen pleegt bij de Turkse media? Zo neen, waarom niet?

2.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het volstrekt absurd is dat de Turkse regering nu de sociale media de schuld geven van de protesten tegen het AK‐regime? Zo neen, waarom niet?

3.

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat de mediavrijheid en de vrijheid van meningsuiting in Turkije ernstig onder druk staan door het intimiderende optreden van de Turkse regering? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het autoritaire en ondemocratische optreden van de Turkse regering volstrekt onacceptabel zijn en dat de toetredingsonderhandelingen met Turkije onmiddellijk moeten worden gestaakt? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(9 augustus 2013)

De Commissie verwijst het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoorden op de schriftelijke vragen E‐006193/2013, E‐006403/201, E‐006871/2013, P‐006302/2013, E‐006922/2013, E‐007265/2013, E‐007260/2013, E‐007036/2013, E‐007238/2013, E‐006378/2013, E‐006390/2013, E‐006507/2013, E‐006891/2013, E‐006721/2013, E‐007023/2013 en E‐007093/2013 (168).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007117/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Turkish police raid media outlets and look into introducing restrictions on social media

The Turkish AK regime is tightening the screws on the Turkish free media even more. On Tuesday 18 June, Turkish security officials and police officers raided the Atilim newspaper and the Etkin news agency (169). It emerged the same day that the Turkish Government had launched an inquiry to restrict the use of social media (170).

1 Does the Commission agree with the PVV that such raids by the Turkish police on the Turkish media are totally unacceptable? If not, why not?

2.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it is totally absurd that the Turkish Government is now blaming the social media for the protests against the AK regime? If not, why not?

3.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that freedom of the media and freedom of expression in Turkey are under serious threat because of the intimidating actions of the Turkish government? If not, why not?

4.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that the Turkish government’s authoritarian and undemocratic actions are totally unacceptable and that the accession negotiations with Turkey should be terminated immediately? If not, why not?

Question for written answer E-007132/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Turkish repression and EU candidacy

According to eyewitness reports from Turkish citizens, for some months the government has been working very discreetly to remove documents and other items bearing the words ‘Republic of Turkey’ from various public buildings including hospitals, courts and schools. This is yet another sign that Prime Minister Erdoğan’s policy has little in common with the westernising and modernising policies of Atatürk, the republic’s founder. Moreover, the repressive acts of the government and the police during the Gezi Park protests have little to do with the West and show a certain lack of democratic spirit on the part of Mr Erdoğan, who seems unaccustomed to taking criticism and uses security systems that are dangerous to the population: numerous eyewitnesses have spoken of harmful tear gas dropped from low-flying helicopters and of chemical additives in the water taken from hydrants to disperse crowds. It is common knowledge that violence is being done not only to Turkish citizens, but also to representatives of the international press and to anyone in Turkey — including doctors and lawyers — who tries to give professional help to the demonstrators.

1.

Bearing in mind that the Republic of Turkey is a candidate for accession to the EU, how does the Vice-President/High Representative view the behaviour of Prime Minister Erdoğan, who has said on many occasions that he does not recognise the authority of the European Parliament?

2.

In view of Turkey’s candidacy, does she not consider it right to ask the Turkish Government for a clear report and an investigation into what has happened recently in Istanbul and other cities, with the possibility of verification by EU observers?

3.

Does she have any reliable information about how many people have been injured or killed as a result of the clashes?

4.

What diplomatic initiatives is she taking in relation to events in Turkey?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to previous Written Questions E-006193/2013, E-006403/201, E-006871/2013, P-006302/2013, E-006922/2013, E-007265/2013, E-007260/2013, E-007036/2013, E-007238/2013, E-006378/2013, E-006390/2013, E-006507/2013, E-006891/2013, E-006721/2013, E-007023/2013, E-007093/2013 (171).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-007118/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)

(18 Ιουνίου 2013)

Θέμα: Κατάργηση της μεθόδου ψαρέματος γρι-γρι

Μια επικερδής μέθοδος ψαρέματος είναι το γρι-γρι. Η προώθηση όμως της εν λόγω μεθόδου έχει πολλαπλές αρνητικές επιπτώσεις. Αρχικά εξανεμίζει το ήδη πενιχρό εισόδημα των ψαράδων, ενώ σε πολλές περιπτώσεις τους στέλνει ακόμη και στην ανεργία. Επίσης αρνητικές συνέπειες έχει και στο περιβάλλον καθώς η μέθοδος γρι-γρι είναι μαζική και μη επιλεκτική, με αποτέλεσμα να εξαφανίζει πολύ γρήγορα μεγάλες ποσότητες ψαριών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Δεδομένης της πολιτικής της ΕΕ για προστασία και αειφόρο ανάπτυξη των θαλάσσιών μας περιοχών καθώς και της πολιτικής προτεραιότητας για την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας, δεν θα έπρεπε η μέθοδος γρι-γρι να απαγορευτεί;

Απάντηση της κ. Δαμανάκη εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(31 Ιουλίου 2013)

Τα γρι-γρι χρησιμοποιούνται ευρέως από σκάφη πολύ διαφορετικών μεγεθών, από βάρκες ανοικτού τύπου και κανό έως μεγάλα ποντοπόρα πλοία. Χρησιμοποιούνται για την αλίευση ποικιλίας ειδών στα οποία συμπεριλαμβάνονται μικρά πελαγικά είδη, όπως η ρέγγα, το σκουμπρί και ο γαύρος, καθώς και άκρως μεταναστευτικά είδη, όπως ο τόνος.

Σε σύγκριση με την πλειονότητα των άλλων τεχνικών αλιείας, η αλιεία με γρι-γρι δεν θεωρείται επιβλαβής για τους φυσικούς πόρους ή το περιβάλλον, εκτός από περιπτώσεις στις οποίες τα γρι-γρι χρησιμοποιούνται για την αλίευση ειδών που απλώς δεν μπορούν να αντέξουν την αλιευτική πίεση για τους πληθυσμούς τους (π.χ. τόνος). Σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις, επιβάλλεται η λήψη αυστηρών μέτρων ελέγχου.

Ως επί το πλείστον, οι απορρίψεις είναι γενικώς χαμηλές στην αλιεία με γρι-γρι και η ελαφρά κατασκευή αυτών των αλιευτικών εργαλείων συνεπάγεται περιορισμένη ή και καμία επίπτωση στον θαλάσσιο πυθμένα. Τα σκάφη γρι-γρι ευθύνονται για πολύ λιγότερες εκπομπές CO2 από τα σκάφη που χρησιμοποιούν συρόμενα εργαλεία, όπως οι τράτες. Δεν έχουν περιέλθει σε γνώση της Επιτροπής αποδεικτικά στοιχεία τα οποία να υποδηλώνουν ότι η αλιεία με γρι-γρι εκτοπίζει τους αλιείς που χρησιμοποιούν άλλα εργαλεία και οδηγεί σε ανεργία.

Ο κύριος αντίκτυπος των γρι-γρι που αναφέρθηκε σε πρόσφατη μελέτη που χρηματοδοτήθηκε από την ΕΕ είναι η τυχαία σύλληψη δελφινιών σε ορισμένα είδη αλιείας. Εντούτοις, αναπτύχθηκαν ειδικές τεχνικές, — τα δίχτυα τύπου Medina με μικρά μάτια και η τεχνική βύθισης που επιτρέπουν στα περικυκλωμένα δελφίνια να διαφεύγουν ζωντανά. Οι τεχνικές αυτές χρησιμοποιούνται σήμερα ευρέως και έχουν σχεδόν εξαλείψει πλήρως την παρεμπίπτουσα αλίευση δελφινιών με τον συγκεκριμένο τύπο αλιείας.

Με την προϋπόθεση ότι τα γρι-γρι χρησιμοποιούνται με υπεύθυνο τρόπο, η Επιτροπή δεν κατανοεί για ποιο λόγο πρέπει να απαγορευθεί η χρήση τους.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007118/13

to the Commission

Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Banning purse-seine fishing

Purse-seine fishing is a lucrative fishing method. However, encouraging this method has many adverse effects. In particular, it erodes fishermen’s already meager income and in many cases results in them becoming unemployed. It also has a negative impact on the environment, since purse-seine fishing is an indiscriminate, mass fishing method and thus eliminates large quantities of fish very rapidly.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Given the EU's policy regarding the protection and sustainable development of our marine areas and its political priority to fight unemployment, does it not agree that purse seine fishing should be banned?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2013)

Purse seines are widely used by a large range of vessel sizes, ranging from open boats and canoes up to large ocean going vessels. They are used to target a variety of species including small pelagic species such as herring, mackerel and anchovy as well as highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna.

Compared to most other fishing techniques purse seining, is not considered harmful to natural resources or the environment except in situations when they are used to target species that simply can’t take the fishing pressure on their populations (e.g. Bluefin tuna). In such circumstances there is a need to ensure stringent control measures.

For the most part, discards are generally low in purse seine fisheries and the light constructions of such gears means there is little or no impact on the seabed. Purse seine vessels also have much less CO2 emissions than vessels deploying towed gears such as trawls. There is no evidence known to the Commission to suggest purse seine fisheries displace fishermen using other gears leading to unemployment.

The main impact of purse seines reported in a recent EU funded study, is the incidental capture of dolphins in some fisheries. However, special techniques have been developed — the Medina panel and ‘back down’ operation — which allow encircled dolphins to escape alive. These techniques are now widely used and have almost totally eliminated dolphin bycatch in these fisheries.

Provided purse seines are used responsibly, the Commission sees no reason why their use should be banned.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-007119/13

do Komisji

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

(18 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Ocena projektu „Port Lotniczy w Gdańsku – budowa drugiego terminalu pasażerskiego wraz z infrastrukturą oraz rozbudowa i modernizacja infrastuktury lotniskowej i portowej”

Zgodnie z otrzymaną przez Zarząd Spółki PL Gdańsk w dniu 18 marca 2013 r. wiadomością od Komisji prace nad oceną projektu 2010PL161PR022 zostały wstrzymane m.in. w związku z badaniem zasadności udzielenia pomocy publicznej dla lotniska Gdynia-Kosakowo. W moim przekonaniu decyzja ta jest nieuzasadniona, ponieważ oba te lotniska są projektami o innym przeznaczeniu i powinny być rozpatrywane niezależnie. Wobec tego, decyzja o wstrzymaniu procesu oceny projektu i uzależnienie jej od działań związanych z inwestycją w Gdyni, jest dla mnie niezrozumiała.

Prace nad rozbudową drugiego terminalu pasażerskiego Rębiechowa zakończyły się ponad rok temu, natomiast kompletny wniosek o potwierdzenie wkładu finansowego został złożony przez MRR w dniu 30 sierpnia 2010 r. Oczekiwanie na ocenę tego projektu trwa już zatem 3 lata. Dodatkowo, Zarząd Spółki PL Gdańsk już od wielu miesięcy nie jest proszony o wyjaśnienia związane z projektem, gdyż wszystkie wątpliwości zostały rozwiane w przeciągu dwóch pierwszych lat ewaluacji. W obecnym czasie planowane są kolejne procesy inwestycyjne finansowane przez banki komercyjne; przedłużająca się decyzja Komisji powoduje zatem powstanie dodatkowych szkód.

W związku z powyższym, chcę zapytać:

Kiedy strona polska może spodziewać się zakończenia procesu oceny gdańskiego projektu nr 2010PL161PR022 i uzyskania decyzji Komisji?

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-007885/13

do Komisji

Jan Kozłowski (PPE)

(3 lipca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Termin zakończenia oceny projektu nr 2010PL161PR022 dotyczącego budowy drugiego terminalu pasażerskiego Portu Lotniczego Gdańsk

Port Lotniczy Gdańsk znajduje się w sieci lotnisk TEN-T stanowiącej kluczową infrastrukturę lotniskową Polski oraz integralną część infrastruktury europejskiej. Projekt został rzeczowo oraz finansowo zrealizowany zgodnie z harmonogramem, a lotnisko w Gdańsku jest obecnie na etapie rozliczania wniosku o płatność końcową. Lotnisko w Gdańsku oczekuje na zakończenie oceny gdańskiego portu oraz wersją roboczą decyzji Komisji dla projektu nr 2010PL161PR022 pt. „Port Lotniczy w Gdańsku – budowa drugiego terminalu pasażerskiego wraz z infrastrukturą oraz rozbudowa i modernizacja infrastruktury lotniskowej i portowej”.

W związku z powyższym uprzejmie proszę o informację, kiedy Komisja zamierza zakończyć proces oceny projektu oraz przygotować wersję roboczą decyzji.

Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji

(18 lipca 2013 r.)

Ocena dużego projektu dotyczącego portu lotniczego w Gdańsku, nr CCI 2010PL161PR022, jest nadal w toku z kilku powodów. Po pierwsze, po otrzymaniu wniosku w sprawie projektu Komisja zwróciła się do strony polskiej o pełną finansową analizę planowanych inwestycji w infrastrukturę portu, wraz z wyjaśnieniami dotyczącymi przewidywanego zapotrzebowania na przewozy. Po uzyskaniu takiej analizy Komisja dowiedziała się o planach dotyczących cywilnego portu lotniczego Gdynia-Kosakowo, oddalonego o ok. 25 km.

Zgodnie z informacjami w posiadaniu Komisji oba lotniska cechować będzie bardzo podobny model biznesowy, co z dużym prawdopodobieństwem zaszkodzi ich efektywności gospodarczej i finansowej. Rozwój dwóch portów lotniczych w tak bliskiej odległości może oznaczać nieoptymalną alokację zasobów prowadzącą do nadwyżki przepustowości, nieefektywne wykorzystywanie istniejącej przepustowości oraz – z punktu widzenia współfinansowania unijnego – nienajlepsze wykorzystanie pieniędzy europejskich podatników.

Komisja zwraca się o sporządzenie uaktualnionej analizy finansowej i gospodarczej dotyczącej portu lotniczego w Gdańsku w pełni uwzględniającej funkcjonowanie portu lotniczego w Gdyni w tak bliskiej odległości. Minister Rozwoju Regionalnego poinformowała niedawno Komisję, że dodatkowe dokumenty mające wykazać większą koordynację między oboma portami będą dostępne przed dniem 1 września 2013 r. Komisja oczekuje obecnie na te dokumenty.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007119/13

to the Commission

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

(18 June 2013)

Subject: Assessment of the ‘Gdańsk airport — construction of a second passenger terminal and infrastructure, and development and modernisation of airport and port infrastructure’ project

According to information received from the Commission on 18 March 2103 by the board of PL Gdańsk, the assessment of project 2010PL161PR022 has been suspended. This is apparently related, among other things, to an examination of the legitimacy of granting public aid to the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport. I believe this decision is unjustified since the two airports are projects which serve different purposes and should be considered separately. I find it hard, therefore, to understand the decision to suspend the project assessment procedure and its dependence on activities connected with the investment in Gdynia.

Work on the development of a second passenger terminal at Rębiechowo ended more than a year ago, and the complete request for confirmation of the financial contribution was submitted by the Ministry of Regional Development on 30 August 2010. We have now been waiting three years for an assessment of this project. Furthermore, it is many months since the board of PL Gdańsk has been asked for any clarification in connection with the project, as all doubts were cleared up within the first two years of the evaluation. The next phases of the investment process, financed by commercial banks, are now planned, and the Commission dragging its feet over a decision will therefore result in additional damage.

When can the Polish side expect completion of the assessment of project 2010PL161PR022 in Gdańsk and a decision from the Commission?

Question for written answer P-007885/13

to the Commission

Jan Kozłowski (PPE)

(3 July 2013)

Subject: Deadline for completion of the assessment of project No 2010PL161PR022 on the construction of a second passenger terminal at Gdańsk Airport

Gdańsk Airport is part of the TEN-T network of airports which comprise Poland’s key airport infrastructure and an integral part of the European infrastructure. The financing and implementation of the project was carried out on schedule and Gdańsk Airport is currently at the stage of settling the final payment claim. The airport is awaiting completion of an assessment of Gdańsk port and a draft version of the Commission’s decision on project No 2010PL161PR022 ‘Gdańsk Airport — construction of a second passenger terminal and infrastructure, and development and modernisation of airport and port infrastructure’.

When does the Commission plan to complete the project assessment process and draw up a draft decision?

Joint answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2013)

The assessment of the major project in Gdansk airport, CCI No 2010PL161PR022 is still ongoing, due to a number of reasons. Firstly, following its submission, the Commission was interested in obtaining a full financial analysis of all planned investments in the airport’s infrastructure, together with explanation related to forecasted demand. When this was provided, the Commission became aware of the plans for a civilian airport at Gdynia-Kosakowo, located approx. 25 km away.

According to the information available to the Commission, both airports will pursue very similar business models, which will most likely be detrimental to both their economic and financial viability. The development of two airports in such proximity may represent a sub-optimal allocation of resources creating a capacity surplus, inefficiencies in the use of existing capacity and — as far as the EU co-financing is concerned — poor value for money for the European taxpayers.

The Commission would like to receive updated financial and economic analysis for Gdansk airport, taking fully into account the existence of Gdynia airport in such proximity. The Minister of Regional Development recently informed the Commission that by 1 September 2013 additional documents, which are to prove greater coordination between both airports, should be available. The Commission is now awaiting those documents.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-007120/13

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Court of Auditors report on EU cooperation with Egypt

I was shocked to read the Court of Auditors report on EU cooperation with Egypt. Following this report, will the Commission:

conduct its own investigation into the failings in EU aid to Egypt, especially in the field of democracy and human rights?

as per the recommendations of the report, apply stricter criteria to budget support, including ensuring that budget support is free from corruption and that a commitment to democracy and human rights is a condition of disbursement?

pay more attention to women’s rights when, according to the report, the Egyptian Parliament has demanded ‘a reduction in the age of marriage, the decriminalising of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and a review of the Personal Status Law and Child Law in line with Sharia principles’?

assure me that, given the worrying demands mentioned above and the recent death of Suhair al Bata’a, a 13-year-old girl who perished while having an FGM operation in a village to the north of Cairo, it will suspend all aid to Egypt if FGM is legalised or there is a de facto moratorium on prosecuting those who carry out this barbaric crime?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(2 September 2013)

The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President fully cooperated with the Court of Auditors in the preparation of its report on Egypt and take its conclusions and recommendations very seriously.

On the basis of the new EU Budget Support (BS) policy, new and more rigorous guidelines have guided all BS operations since 1 January 2013. These include a stronger link to fundamental values (human rights, democracy and the rule of law), which are assessed when programmes are identified and for each proposed disbursement. A risk management framework, combining five risk categories (political, macroeconomic, development, Public Financial Management and corruption/fraud) and a stronger focus on accountability and transparency are applied.

The Egyptian Parliament has not adopted or discussed any formal draft law on women’s rights. The entire legislative framework on women's and children’s rights is still in place. The EU stresses the importance of women’s and children's rights at every high level event, notably at the latest Association Committee meeting on 28 February 2013. The EU is also funding projects worth EUR 12.4 million directly improving women’s situation, such as via UN WOMEN (172).

The EU is profoundly saddened by the death of Sohair El Batea on 6 June 2013, reaffirms its strong commitment to eradicating Female Genital Mutilation and is supporting the national campaign to eradicate this practice through a joint programme with the UNDP (173).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007121/13

a la Comisión

Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D)

(19 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Modelo de contrato único

La dualidad, es decir, la coexistencia de trabajadores con contratos indefinidos con una situación de seguridad y protección laboral muy superior a otros que poseen contratos temporales, constituye una de las características más representativas de los mercados laborales en la EU. Pese a ello, existen importantes diferencias entre los Estados, siendo España el país con mayor índice de temporalidad con un 24,9 % de la población activa en 2010, lo que representa más de 10 puntos porcentuales por encima de la media europea. De acuerdo con la OCDE se puede establecer una correlación positiva elevada entre la temporalidad y el nivel de destrucción de empleo de un país, y las estadísticas así lo demuestran, ya que desde el inicio de la crisis se han destruido en España más de 3 800 000 empleos, correspondiendo más del 74 % de dicha destrucción a los jóvenes menores de 30 años que padecen el índice de temporalidad más elevado de toda la OCDE (el 61,4 % para los jóvenes menores de 24 años).

Dicha tendencia resulta especialmente preocupante si tenemos en cuanta los importantes costes que provoca esta segmentación laboral en términos de aumento de desigualdades entre trabajadores en cuanto al acceso a seguridad, protección laboral, salarios y formación, así como en cuanto a la reducción de la productividad media del país, ya que se reducen los incentivos de trabajadores y empresarios para invertir en capital humano específico para las empresas y se promueven las actividades económicas de bajo valor añadido. Ante el riesgo de condenar a toda una generación a la precariedad, el pasado 13 de mayo el Comisario de Empleo y Asuntos Sociales, Laszló Andor, propuso que España contemple la implantación de un «contrato único abierto» para frenar el elevado desempleo, sobre todo juvenil, y para acabar definitivamente con la segmentación del mercado laboral.

1.

¿Podría la Comisión explicar más en profundidad dicha propuesta?

2.

¿No piensa la Comisión que el contrato único no eliminaría por completo la dualidad en el mercado laboral sino que la transformaría simplemente en otra modalidad?

3.

¿En qué modalidad de contrato único piensa la Comisión, en uno con derechos crecientes con la antigüedad o bien en un contrato único con un largo periodo de prueba?

4.

¿No piensa la Comisión que podrían observarse problemas legales para la introducción de esta figura contractual en España, pudiéndose considerar que es anticonstitucional o que viola la Convención 158 de la OIT ratificada por el país?

Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión

(6 de agosto de 2013)

En su paquete de medidas para el empleo (174), la Comisión subrayó que era una prioridad garantizar contratos adecuados para luchar contra la segmentación del mercado de trabajo.

El pasado mes de noviembre, la Comisión manifestó que las reformas encaminadas a simplificar la legislación laboral y reducir las diferencias en la protección del empleo entre los diferentes tipos de contrato de trabajo podrían mejorar la capacidad de adaptación de los mercados de trabajo y reducir la segmentación (175). Para ello, los Estados miembros podrían examinar como posible solución el recurso a contratos de duración indefinida con un período de prueba suficientemente largo y un aumento gradual de una serie de derechos de protección para todos los trabajadores (176). Corresponde a los Estados miembros determinar, en su caso, el tipo exacto de contrato que se ajuste mejor a sus necesidades.

La Comisión resumió su evaluación global de la evolución y las reformas del mercado de trabajo español en las recomendaciones específicas para cada país de 2013 (177) y el documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión adjunto, cuya publicación se efectuó el 29 de mayo de 2013. Para abordar el nivel de desempleo, que es inaceptablemente alto, y la segmentación del mercado de trabajo, España debería concluir, de aquí a julio de 2013, la reforma del mercado de trabajo de 2012, incluidos todos sus objetivos y medidas, y presentar modificaciones, en caso necesario, en septiembre de 2013 a más tardar. Es preciso aplicar una reforma completa de las políticas activas del mercado de trabajo (178) y adoptar medidas adicionales para modernizar y reforzar los servicios públicos de empleo. También debe prestarse una atención específica a los jóvenes que no trabajan, estudian ni reciben formación mediante la aplicación de la «Garantía Juvenil». Debería aumentarse la eficacia del programa de formación de reciclaje para los trabajadores de más edad y los trabajadores poco cualificados.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007121/13

to the Commission

Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Single contract model

One of the most characteristic features of EU labour markets is a duality, namely that workers with permanent contracts who enjoy much greater job security and protection coexist with others who possess temporary contracts. However, significant differences exist between Member States, among which Spain has the highest proportion of temporary workers, with 24.9% of its working population on temporary contracts in 2010, over 10% more than the European average. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, a strong positive correlation can be drawn between temporary contracts and the degree to which a country’s jobs are destroyed. This view is borne out by the statistics: since the start of the crisis, over 3 800 000 jobs have been destroyed in Spain, 74% of which were held by young people under 30, the group that suffers the highest level of temporary employment across OECD member countries (61.4% for young people under 24).

This trend is particularly worrying if we consider that labour segmentation leads to increasingly unequal access to secure living conditions, job protection, salaries and training and reduces a country’s average productivity level since there are fewer incentives for workers and entrepreneurs to invest in human resources for companies and economic activities of low added value are undertaken. An entire generation is at risk of being condemned to a state of precariousness. In view of this situation, Laszló Andor, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, proposed on 13 May that Spain should consider implementing a ‘single open-ended contract’ to curb this high unemployment, particularly among the young, and to end segmentation in the labour market.

1.

Could the Commission explain this proposal in more depth?

2.

Does the Commission not think that, rather than eliminating duality in the labour market, a single contract would simply create a different kind of duality?

3.

What type of single contract is the Commission considering? One that grants rights increasing in line with length of service or a single contract with a long trial period?

4.

Does the Commission not think that the introduction of this type of contract in Spain could give rise to legal problems since it might be considered anti-constitutional or in breach of ILO Convention 158, which the country has ratified?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2013)

In its Employment Package (179), the Commission stressed that ensuring appropriate contractual arrangements to combat labour market segmentation was a priority.

Last November, the Commission expressed that reforms aiming at simplifying employment legislation and reducing gaps in employment protection between different types of work contracts could improve the resilience of labour markets and reduce segmentation. (180) To this objective, Member States could possibly consider whether the use of open-ended contractual arrangements with a sufficiently long probation period and a gradual increase of a range of protection rights for all employees could be a possible solution to explore. (181) It is for the Member States to elaborate, if they so wish, the exact type of contractual arrangements that would fit their needs best.

The Commission has summarised its overall assessment of Spanish labour market developments and reforms in the 2013 country-specific recommendations (182) and the accompanying Staff Working Document published on 29 May 2013. To address the unacceptably high level of unemployment and labour market segmentation, Spain should finalise the evaluation of the 2012 labour market reform covering the full range of its objectives and measures by July 2013, and present amendments, if necessary, by September 2013. A comprehensive reform of active labour market policies (183) needs to be implemented and additional action taken to modernise and reinforce the Public Employment Service itself. Specific attention should be also paid to young people not in employment, education or training, through the implementation of a Youth Guarantee The effectiveness of reskilling training programme for older and low skilled workers should be reinforced.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007122/13

a la Comisión

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(19 de junio de 2013)

Asunto: Cambios retroactivos en la regulación del mercado de la energía en España

El Gobierno español ha ido adoptando desde 2010 una serie de medidas retroactivas que han cambiado las condiciones del mercado de la energía en este Estado miembro. Los emprendedores e inversores que, a la vista del marco legal establecido, decidieron invertir en energía renovable, y especialmente en la fotovoltaica, han visto cambiar drásticamente las condiciones del mercado, que han provocado la quiebra de numerosas empresas y acabado con miles de puestos de trabajo centrados en un sector que genera empleos de calidad y debería ser un sector económico de futuro. La realidad descrita está afectando a la libre competencia en el sector eléctrico español, como ya reconoció la Comisión en su evaluación del programa nacional de reforma y estabilidad para España 2012 (SWD(2012)0310). A esta primera crítica se unen los reparos expuestos por la Comisión en su Comunicación sobre el mercado interior de la energía (COM(2012)0663) en torno a los llamados «pagos por capacidad», hechos tan llamativos como los beneficios extraordinarios de los productores de energía por medios convencionales en España y las dudas que plantea a muchos operadores del sector la unificación de órganos reguladores en una sola Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia. Además, dos comisarios europeos han expresado en público su preocupación por lo ocurrido con las renovables en España. Así, el Comisario de Energía, Günter Oettinger, mantiene, según la prensa especializada, una línea de trabajo para actuar en auxilio de los productores fotovoltaicos españoles, para lo cual maneja informes detallados sobre la sucesión de normas retroactivas que ya ha ido soportando este colectivo y los correspondientes impactos económicos. Por su parte, la Comisaria de Acción por el Clima, Connie Hedegaard, se ha declarado contraria a aprobar normas retroactivas para las renovables: «Todo lo que se haga en este área ha de tener largo recorrido y tenemos que tener mucho cuidado en no cambiar las reglas retroactivamente».

1.

¿Qué medidas recomienda la Comisión para mejorar la competencia en el mercado eléctrico español, considerando las barreras descritas, para que no afecte a la inversión en renovables?

2.

¿En qué consiste el trabajo que desarrolla el Comisario Oettinger en torno al mercado de la energía fotovoltaica en España? ¿Considera la Comisaria Hedegaard que lo ocurrido en España es un cambio retroactivo de las reglas del juego?

3.

¿Considera la Comisión que lo ocurrido en España es coherente con la estrategia 2020? De mantenerse la situación, ¿podrá España cumplir en el futuro los compromisos de reducción de CO

2

y gases de efecto invernadero que han asumido todos los Estados miembros de la UE?

Respuesta del Sr. Oettinger en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de agosto de 2013)

1)

La Comisión recomienda que España cumpla, total y correctamente, el tercer paquete de medidas del mercado interior de la energía, de julio de 2009

1)

La Comisión recomienda que España cumpla, total y correctamente, el tercer paquete de medidas del mercado interior de la energía, de julio de 2009

 (184)  (185)  (186)

2)

Se remite a Su Señoría a las recomendaciones del semestre europeo a España

2)

Se remite a Su Señoría a las recomendaciones del semestre europeo a España

 (187)  (188)

3)

En virtud de la Decisión de reparto del esfuerzo (

3)

En virtud de la Decisión de reparto del esfuerzo (

 (189)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007122/13

to the Commission

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Retroactive changes to energy market regulations in Spain

Since 2010, the Spanish Government has been adopting a series of retroactive measures that have changed the conditions of the energy market in this Member State. Entrepreneurs and investors who, in view of the established legal framework, decided to invest in renewable energy, particularly in solar energy, have seen drastic changes in market conditions that have caused many companies to go bankrupt and made thousands of people redundant in a sector that creates good jobs and should be an economic sector of the future. This situation is affecting free competition in the Spanish electricity sector, as acknowledged by the Commission’s assessment of the 2012 national reform programme and stability programme for Spain (SWD(2012)0310). In addition to this criticism, there are the objections about what are called ‘payments for capacity’ in the Commission’s communication on the internal energy market (COM(2012)0663), and stark facts such as the windfall profits made by conventional-energy producers in Spain, and the concern of many operators in the sector about the unification of regulatory bodies into a single national commission for markets and competition. Furthermore, two European commissioners have publicly expressed their concern about the situation of renewables in Spain. The specialist press has reported that the Commissioner for Energy, Günter Oettinger, is working to assist Spanish solar-energy producers with the aid of detailed reports on the retroactive legislation that this group has already had to endure and on the resulting economic consequences. For her part, the Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, has said that she is against adopting retroactive legislation on renewables: ‘Everything done in this area must be for the long haul. We must be very careful not to change the rules retroactively’.

1.

In view of the barriers described, what steps would the Commission recommend to improve competition in the Spanish electricity market so that investment in renewables is not affected?

2.

What work is Commissioner Oettinger undertaking in relation to the solar-energy market in Spain? Does Commissioner Hedegaard consider what has happened in Spain to be a retroactive change of the rules?

3.

Does the Commission consider what has happened in Spain to be coherent with the 2020 strategy? If this situation continues, will Spain be able to fulfil the commitments made by all Member States to reduce CO

2

and greenhouse-gas emissions?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2013)

1.

The Commission recommends that Spain

1.

The Commission recommends that Spain

 (190)  (191)  (192)

2.

The Honourable Member is referred to the 2013 EU semester recommendations to Spain

2.

The Honourable Member is referred to the 2013 EU semester recommendations to Spain

 (193)  (194)

3.

Under the Effort Sharing Decision (

3.

Under the Effort Sharing Decision (

 (195)

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007123/13

an die Kommission

Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE), Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL) und David Martin (S&D)

(19. Juni 2013)

Betrifft: Weiterbehandlung der schriftlichen Anfrage E-001132/2013

In ihrer Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-001132/2013 weist die Kommission auf zwei Fälle angeblicher Enteignungen von ausländischen Investoren in Kanada hin. Die Kommission benutzt diese Fälle, um die Einführung eines Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten (ISDS) in das umfassende Wirtschafts‐ und Handelsabkommen EU-Kanada (CETA) zu rechtfertigen.

Könnte sich die Kommission zu den folgenden beiden Fällen äußern?

1.

Die Rechtssache

AbitibiBowater Inc. v Canada

scheint zu zeigen, dass der Zugang zu den Gerichten nach kanadischem Recht (

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick

, [2008] 1 SCR 190) der Zugang zum Gericht nicht verweigert worden wäre, sofern man ihn beantragt hätte. Zudem scheint es, als wären die kanadischen Gerichte auf der Grundlage solcher Verfahren befugt, ungeachtet der Datenschutzklausel im Abitibi Act die Höhe der von der Provinzregierung festgelegten Entschädigung zu überprüfen Darüber hinaus hat der Oberste Gerichtshof von Kanada seine liberale Haltung in Bezug auf indirekte Enteignungen in der Rechtssache

Antrim Truck Center v Ontario

2013 SCC 13 (2013) nochmals bestätigt.

2.

In der Rechtssache

Gallo v Canada

hätte der Grundsatz des Zugangs zur Justiz und der gerichtlichen Prüfung der Entschädigungszahlungen gleichermaßen gegolten, der Investor verzichtete jedoch darauf und leitete stattdessen direkt ein Schiedsverfahren ein. In dem anschließenden Schiedsspruch wurde bestätigt, dass die zugrundeliegende Forderung unbegründet und aussichtslos ist. Der Fall scheint eher Fragen in Bezug auf die uneingeschränkte Verfügbarkeit des ISDS als in Fragen in Bezug auf rechtmäßige Verfahren bzw. die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Kanada aufzuwerfen.

Antwort von Karel De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(20. August 2013)

Die Kommission benutzt die beiden von der Frau Abgeordneten und den Herren Abgeordneten genannten Fälle nicht als Rechtfertigung für die Einführung eines Mechanismus zur Beilegung von Investor-Staat-Streitigkeiten in das Abkommen mit Kanada. Sie werden als Beispiele dafür angeführt, dass ausländische Investoren auf Schwierigkeiten gestoßen sind, die belegen, dass bestimmte Aspekte des kanadischen Rechtssystems keine ausreichende Sicherheit bieten.

Nach der Rechtssache Dunsmuir gegen New Brunswick ist eine gerichtliche Überprüfung möglich, selbst wenn diese Überprüfung durch eine entsprechende Klausel (privative clause) ausgeschlossen wurde, allerdings könnten die Gerichte nur die „Angemessenheit“ („reasonableness “) prüfen. Die „Angemessenheitsprüfung“ schließt indessen die Prüfung des Sachverhalts eines Verwaltungsakts aus, sie muss sich vielmehr auf die verfahrensrechtlichen Einzelheiten beschränken, d. h. auf die Frage, ob das Verfahren transparent, begründet und nachvollziehbar war. Dieses begrenzte Handlungsrecht steht im Widerspruch zu dem Schutz, der Investoren in der EU aufgrund mitgliedstaatlicher Rechtsvorschriften, aufgrund des Protokolls Nr. 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und der einschlägigen Rechtsprechung gewährt wird. In der EU können enteignete Investoren auf den Wesensgehalt des Verwaltungsakts abstellen; dieser muss einen öffentlichen Zweck verfolgen, diskriminierungsfrei sein und die Zahlung einer angemessenen Entschädigung beinhalten (diese Entschädigung war nach Artikel 10 des Abitibi Acts nicht zu zahlen).

Somit wäre der etwaige Standpunkt des Obersten Gerichtshofs bezüglich der indirekten Enteignung wahrscheinlich keine Hilfe für den Investor, da es ihm unmöglich sein dürfte, den Sachverhalt des Verwaltungsaktes infrage zu stellen.

Die Rechtssache Gallo gegen Kanada beruhte auf fälschlichen Behauptungen und wurde dementsprechend von der Schiedsinstanz aus rechtlichen Gründen abschlägig beschieden. Die Kommission ist bestrebt, Bestimmungen in ihre Abkommen aufzunehmen, die eine zügige Behandlung derartiger Klagen ermöglichen. Das eigentliche Problem bleibt jedoch bestehen: Herr Gallo wurde aufgrund eines Verwaltungsakts mit Privative Clause enteignet, was seine Möglichkeiten zur Einlegung eines wirksamen Rechtsbehelfs gravierend beschneidet (siehe oben).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007123/13

to the Commission

Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE), Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL) and David Martin (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Follow-up to Written Question E-001132/2013

In its answer to Written Question E-001132/2013, the Commission cites two cases of alleged expropriation of foreign investors in Canada. The Commission uses these two cases to justify the introduction of an investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EU‐Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

Could the Commission please comment further on the following two cases?

1.

In the case

AbitibiBowater Inc. v Canada

, it seems that under Canadian law (

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick

, [2008] 1 SCR 190), access to court would not have been denied if it had been sought. Secondly, it appears that, on the basis of such proceedings, Canadian courts would have had the power to review the amount of compensation determined by the provincial cabinet despite the ‘privacy clause’ in the Abitibi Act. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently reaffirmed its liberal position regarding indirect expropriation in

Antrim Truck Center v Ontario

2013 SCC 13 (2013).

2.

In the case

Gallo v Canada

, the same principles of access to justice and court review of compensation would have applied, but the investor chose not to pursue this avenue; instead, he directly initiated arbitration. The arbitral award rendered in the case affirms that this was a spurious and unmeritorious claim. This case seems to raise questions that are much more about the unqualified availability of ISDS than about due process or rule of law in Canada.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2013)

The Commission does not use the two cases mentioned by the Honourable Members to justify investor state dispute settlement in the agreement with Canada. These are offered as examples of problems which have arisen affecting foreign investors, showing that certain elements of the Canadian legal system offer insufficient security.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick provides that judicial review may be available despite a privative clause, but that such review would be limited to ‘reasonableness’. ‘Reasonableness’ does not allow an examination of the merits of an administrative act, but only one of process: was it transparent, reasoned and intelligible. This limited right of action is in contrast with the protection afforded to investors in the EU, under Member States’ law and under Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and relevant case-law. In the EU, investors whose property has been expropriated have a cause of action on the substance of the act, which must be for a public purpose, non-discriminatory and upon the payment of adequate compensation (which under Article 10 of the Abitibi Act, was not payable).

Therefore, the potential position of the Supreme Court on indirect expropriation would likely be of no help to an investor, as he would be unlikely to be able to question the merits of the administrative act.

Gallo v Canada was indeed a spurious claim and was suitably dismissed by the arbitration tribunal on jurisdictional grounds. The Commission aims to include provisions in its agreements that would deal with such claims expeditiously. However, the underlying issue remains: Mr Gallo’s property was expropriated on the basis of an administrative act with a privative clause which would severely hamper his ability to claim judicial redress, as above.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007125/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Logement social: définition, cadre et indicateurs socio-économiques

1.

La Commission compte-t-elle définir un cadre d'action européen pour le logement socialde façon à garantir la cohérence entre les différents instruments politiques utilisés parl'Union en la matière (aides d'État, Fonds structurels, énergie, lutte contre la pauvreté etl'exclusion sociale, santé)?

2.

La Commission entend-t-elle intégrer des indicateurs socio-économiques, tels que lesinvestissements en matière de logements sociaux, dans le cadre du Semestre européen enles incluant dans son évaluation des objectifs visant à combattre et prévenir les bullesimmobilières?

3.

La Commission peut-elle clarifier, sur la base d'un échange de bonnes pratiques etd'expériences entre les États membres, la définition du logement social, sachant que ceconcept fait l'objet d'une acception divergente et d'une gestion différente (s'expliquant souvent par une certaine souplesse dans l'établissement des priorités) dans les Étatsmembres, les régions et les communautés locales?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007126/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Expulsions de logements

1.

La Commission compte-t-elle proposer un texte en réponse au drame social que représentent l'expulsion et la perte de leur logement pour ceux qui sont les plus touchés par la crise économique et le chômage?

2.

La Commission estime-t-elle que, celles-ci se produisant dans un contexte où d'importantes aides d'État sont consacrées à l'assainissement du système financier européen, des solutions alternatives aux expulsions devraient être élaborées?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007127/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Coût du logement inadéquat

La Commission, avec l'aide de l'Agence Eurofound, va-t-elle mener en 2014 une étude sur les coûts de l'inaction face au logement inadéquat dans le cadre du programme de travail 2014 de l'Agence?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007128/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Efficacité des modèles d'investissements à impact social dans le secteur du logement social

La Commission pourrait-elle, comme le suggère le Parlement, mener une étude sur l'efficacité des modèles d'investissements à impact social dans le secteur du logement social, en tenant compte du potentiel des Fonds structurels, utilisés sous forme d'instruments financiers et éventuellement combinés à d'autres sources de financement en faveur des investissements à impact social, comme par exemple la création d'emplois locaux dans l'économie verte ou d'emplois pour les jeunes, et l'inclusion sociale par le logement en faveur des populations marginalisées?

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

(2 août 2013)

Les questions de l'Honorable Parlementaire font écho aux préoccupations et aux demandes exprimées par le Parlement aux paragraphes 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 et 42 de sa résolution du 11 juin 2013 sur le logement social dans l'Union européenne [P7_TA-PROV(2013)0246] basée sur un rapport de la députée Karima Delli.

La Commission est en train de finaliser sa réponse à cette résolution et la transmettra au Parlement par la voie habituelle. La préoccupation de l'Honorable Parlementaire sera prise en compte dans cette réponse.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007125/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Social housing: definition, framework and socioeconomic indicators

1.

Does the Commission intend to set out a European social housing action framework in such a way as to ensure consistency between the various policy instruments the EU uses to address this issue (State aid, structural funding, energy policy, action to combat poverty and social exclusion, health policy)?

2.

Does the Commission intend to bring socioeconomic indicators, such as social housing investment, within the scheme of the European Semester by including them in its evaluation of targets for combating and preventing real estate bubbles?

3.

On the basis of an exchange of best practices and experience between the Member States, and taking into account the fact that social housing is conceived and managed in different ways (often due to flexibility in establishing priorities) in the Member States, regions and local communities, can the Commission clarify the definition of social housing?

Question for written answer E-007126/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Evictions

1.

Does the Commission intend to propose a text in response to the social hardship caused to those most affected by the economic crisis and by unemployment and who are being evicted and deprived of their homes?

2.

Does the Commission believe that since such cases are occurring against a backdrop of major public assistance initiatives designed to put the financial system back on a sound footing, alternatives to eviction should be found?

Question for written answer E-007127/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Cost of inadequate housing

Will the Commission, with the support of the Eurofound agency, carry out a study in 2014 on the costs of the lack of action on inadequate housing within the framework of the agency’s 2014 work programme?

Question for written answer E-007128/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Effectiveness of social impact investment models in the social housing sector

Parliament has called on the Commission to carry out a study into the effectiveness of social impact investment models in the social housing sector, focusing on the potential benefits of the Structural Funds when used as financing instruments, and possibly when combined with other sources of funding, in order to boost social impact investments, such as through the creation of local jobs in the green economy, or jobs for young people, and social inclusion through the provision of housing for marginalised groups. Will it be possible for the Commission to carry out such a study?

Joint answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2013)

The Honourable Member’s questions reflect the concerns and demands expressed by the Parliament in paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 42 of its resolution on Social Housing adopted on 11 June 2013 (P7_TA-PROV(2013)0246) based on a report of MEP Karima Delli.

The Commission is finalising its response to this resolution that will reach the Parliament through the regular channel. The Honourable member’s concern will be addressed in this response.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007129/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Sanctionner les écarts de salaire entre femmes et hommes

L'inégalité de salaire entre hommes et femmes est aujourd'hui encore une triste réalité.

1.

La Commission va-t-elle enfin proposer de nouvelles mesures pour sanctionner ces écarts et les réduire de manière efficace, tout en veillant à l'application correcte et effective de la directive 2006/54/CE relative à la mise en œuvre du principe de l'égalité des chances et de l'égalité de traitement entre hommes et femmes en matière d'emploi et de travail?

2.

Va-t-elle réviser la législation en vigueur à ce sujet, à savoir ladite directive, comme le lui demandait le Parlement dans sa résolution du 13 mars 2012?

3.

Compte-t-elle développer, en coopération avec les partenaires sociaux, des politiques propres à supprimer les écarts de salaires entre hommes et femmes, qui visent à l'intégration des femmes sur le marché du travail et promeuvent l'égalité des chances en matière de mobilité?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(5 septembre 2013)

L'une des priorités de la Commission sera de veiller à la bonne application des dispositions de la directive 2006/54/CE (196) relatives à l'égalité des rémunérations et de soutenir les États membres et les autres parties prenantes dans la mise en œuvre de la réglementation en vigueur. La Commission prépare un rapport sur la mise en œuvre de cette directive, qui devrait être publié cette année, où elle évaluera l'application des dispositions en matière d'égalité salariale.

Ce travail fait partie de l'action menée par la Commission pour combler l'écart de rémunération entre les hommes et les femmes (197). La stratégie pour l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes 2010-2015 (198) , qui définit le programme de travail de la Commission dans ce domaine, place l'égalité salariale parmi ses priorités.

En 2012, la Commission a lancé un projet intitulé «Equality Pays Off» (l'égalité, ça paie), en vue de sensibiliser les entreprises au problème, aux causes et aux conséquences de l'inégalité salariale, et de les soutenir dans leur action pour y remédier. Plus récemment, le 21 mars 2013, un forum d'entreprises a été organisé à Bruxelles afin de favoriser les échanges d'expériences et de connaissances entre 180 entreprises et parties prenantes sur les moyens d'encourager l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. L'accent était mis sur les actions visant à traiter les causes de l'écart de rémunération entre hommes et femmes. En outre, la Commission a organisé la troisième Journée européenne de l'égalité salariale, le 28 février 2013.

Au cours du semestre européen, la Commission a adressé des recommandations (199) aux États membres sur la nécessité de s'attaquer aux causes profondes de l'écart de rémunération entre hommes et femmes, comme le manque de structures d'accueil pour les enfants et les obstacles pesant sur le deuxième revenu des ménages.

La Commission continuera à financer des projets portant sur la promotion de l'égalité hommes-femmes. Ainsi, un appel à propositions sur la question de l'écart de rémunération entre hommes et femmes a récemment été publié.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007129/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Penalising gender pay gaps

Pay inequality between men and women is still a sad reality today.

1.

Will the Commission finally propose new measures to penalise these pay gaps and effectively reduce them, all the while ensuring the correct and effective application of Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation?

2.

Will it revise the current legislation on this subject, namely the abovementioned Directive, as Parliament called for in its resolution of 13 March 2012?

3.

Does it plan to develop, in cooperation with social partners, specific policies to eliminate pay gaps between men and women, aimed at integrating women into the labour market and promoting equal opportunities in matters of mobility?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2013)

One of the Commission's priorities for gender equality will be to monitor the correct application of the equal pay provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC (200) and to support Member States and other stakeholders with the proper enforcement and application of the existing rules. The Commission is preparing a Report on its application, to be published this year, assessing the implementation of the equal pay provisions.

This work is a part of projects by the Commission to tackle the gender pay gap (201). The strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 (202) set out the Commission's work programme on gender equality and identified equal pay as one of its priorities.

The Commission launched a project called ‘Equality Pays Off’ in 2012 to help raise awareness in companies about the gender pay gap, its causes and consequences and to support them in their efforts to tackle it. Most recently there was a business forum in Brussels on 21 March 2013 in order to facilitate an exchange of knowledge of actions to foster gender equality between up to 180 companies and stakeholders. There was a specific focus on actions to tackle the causes of the gender pay gap. The Commission also held the third European Equal Pay Day on 28 February 2013.

During the European Semester, the Commission addressed recommendations (203) to Member States to tackle the root causes of the gender pay gap, such as the lack of childcare facilities and the disincentives to work for second earners.

As it has done in the past, the Commission will continue financing specific projects covering the gender equality policy area. In this sense an open call for proposals focusing on the gender pay gap has recently been published.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007130/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Aide judiciaire européenne

1.

Pourquoi la Commission n'aborde-t-elle pas spécifiquement les procédures européennes auxquelles s'applique aussi la directive sur l'aide judiciaire, comme, par exemple, la procédure européenne de règlement des petits litiges, alors que l'application de la directive à la procédure susmentionnée aurait très bien pu être examinée entre le 1

er

 janvier 2009 et le 31 décembre 2010?

2.

Quelles mesures la Commission compte-t-elle prendre pour faire mieux connaître le droit à une aide judiciaire dans les litiges transfrontaliers en matière civile et commerciale, de façon à renforcer la libre circulation des citoyens?

3.

La Commission envisage-t-elle de lancer une campagne d'information efficace afin de toucher un grand nombre de bénéficiaires potentiels et de praticiens de la justice?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(19 août 2013)

La directive 2002/8/CE du Conseil du 27 janvier 2003 visant à améliorer l'accès à la justice dans les affaires transfrontalières par l'établissement de règles minimales communes relatives à l'aide judiciaire accordée dans le cadre de telles affaires (204) («directive sur l'aide judiciaire») est un instrument horizontal qui s'applique à l'ensemble des procédures et des litiges transfrontaliers. C'est pourquoi, dans son rapport consacré à l'application de cette directive (205), la Commission ne mentionne aucune procédure européenne spécifique. Le rapport se concentre plutôt sur les différentes procédures prévues par la directive, telles que les procédures contentieuses, les procédures extrajudiciaires, ainsi que l'exécution des décisions des tribunaux et des actes authentiques.

La Commission n'envisage pas à ce stade de lancer une campagne d'information sur la directive relative à l'aide judiciaire, mais partage le point de vue de l'Honorable Parlementaire quant à l'importance de mieux faire connaître le droit à une aide judiciaire dans les litiges transfrontaliers en matière civile et commerciale. Dans ce contexte, le portail e-Justice est actuellement mis à jour afin d'améliorer l'accès à l'information et aux formulaires types concernant l'aide judiciaire. La migration du site web du Réseau judiciaire européen vers le portail e-Justice améliorera encore la convivialité, de même que l'étendue et l'actualité des informations.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007130/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Legal aid in Europe

1.

Why does the Commission not specifically address the European procedures to which the directive on legal aid also applies, such as, for example, the European Small Claims Procedure, when the directive’s application to this procedure could easily have been examined between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010?

2.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to raise awareness of the right to legal aid in cross-border disputes in civil and commercial matters, so as to strengthen the free movement of citizens?

3.

Does the Commission plan to launch an effective information campaign in order to reach out to a large number of potential beneficiaries and legal practitioners?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2013)

Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes (206) (the ‘legal aid Directive’) is a horizontal instrument which applies to all cross-border litigation and procedures. Therefore, the Commission, in its Report on the application of the legal aid Directive (207), does not make any reference to a specific European procedure. Rather the report focuses on the different proceedings relating to the directive such as litigation procedures, extrajudicial procedures and the enforcement of court decisions and authentic instruments.

At this stage, the Commission does not envisage launching an information campaign on the legal aid Directive but it shares the views of the Honourable Member on the importance of awareness rising of the right to legal aid in cross-border disputes in civil and commercial matters. In this context, the e-Justice portal is currently updated in order to improve the access to information and to the legal aid standard forms. The migration of the European Judicial Network website to the e-Justice portal will further improve user-friendliness and provide comprehensive and updated information.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007131/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 juin 2013)

Objet: Union économique et monétaire approfondie

Le projet de la Commission pour une Union économique et monétaire approfondie annonce des propositions de modification du traité pour 2014.

1.

Pourquoi ces propositions n'incluent-elles pas, entre autres, une proposition spécifique visant à modifier l'article 109 du TFUE afin d'adopter les règlements prévus à cet article, conformément à la procédure législative ordinaire?

2.

La Commission compte-t-elle le faire à posteriori?

Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission

(5 août 2013)

Le «projet détaillé pour une Union économique et monétaire (UEM) véritable et approfondie» adopté par la Commission le 28 novembre 2012 expose sa vision d'une architecture solide et stable de l'UEM. Tous les grands choix économiques et budgétaires des États membres devraient progressivement faire l'objet d'une coordination, d'une ratification et d'une surveillance renforcées à l'échelon européen.

La trajectoire fixée dans le projet passe par l'adoption de mesures progressives sur le court, moyen ou plus long terme, dont certaines nécessiteraient en fait une modification du TFUE.

Les articles 107 et 108 du TFUE confient à la Commission le soin d'examiner la compatibilité des aides d'État avec le marché intérieur. L'article 109 du TFUE a trait aux règlements utiles en vue de l'application de ces articles, et en particulier aux catégories d'aides qui peuvent être dispensées de l'obligation de notification et à la clause de statu quo.

S'il est possible que des liens existent entre la coordination budgétaire envisagée dans le projet et les règles régissant l'attribution d'aides d'État, le contrôle des aides d'État est d'une portée et d'une nature distinctes. Il s'exerce spécifiquement au niveau micro-économique et, contrairement aux dispositions relatives à l'UEM, s'applique à l'ensemble du territoire de l'Union. Le TFUE attribue aussi à la Commission la compétence exclusive pour le contrôle des aides d'État et la protection de la concurrence et du marché unique. Cette fonction demeure vitale dans le processus d'approfondissement de l'UEM. En conséquence, la Commission a décidé, dans son projet sur l'UEM, qu'il n'y avait aucune raison d'inclure une proposition de modification de la base juridique du contrôle des aides d'État.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007131/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Deep economic and monetary union

The Commission’s blueprint for a deep economic and monetary union puts forward proposals to amend the Treaty for 2014.

1.

Why do these proposals not include a specific proposal aimed at amending Article 109 of the TFEU so as to adopt the regulations provided for in this article in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure?

2.

Will the Commission put forward such a proposal at a later stage?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2013)

The ‘Blueprint for a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ that the Commission adopted on 28 November 2012 provides a vision for a strong and stable EMU architecture. All major economic and fiscal policy choices by Member States should gradually become subject to stronger coordination, endorsement and surveillance at the European level.

The path set out a in the Blueprint involves incremental measures taken over the short, medium and longer term, some of which would indeed require Treaty change.

Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty entrust the Commission with the task of assessing the compatibility of state aid with the internal market. Article 109 of the Treaty relates to regulations for the application of these articles, in particular the categories of aid that can be exempted from the obligation to notify and the stand-still clause.

Whilst there may be some links between the fiscal coordination envisaged under the Blueprint and the rules for granting state aid, the control of state aid is of a different scope and nature. It focuses in particular on the micro-economic level, and, contrary to the provisions regarding the EMU, applies throughout the entire Union. The TFEU also assigns to the Commission the exclusive competence to control state aid in order to protect competition and the single market. This function remains vital in the process leading to a deeper EMU. Therefore the Commission decided that there was no reason to include a proposal for a change in the legal basis for state aid control in the Commission's blueprint on EMU.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007134/13

do Komisji

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

(19 czerwca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Przyczyny spadku masy osobniczej u dorsza na Morzu Bałtyckim

Obecnie zauważa się znaczny spadek jakości dorsza w Morzu Bałtyckim. Sukcesywnie traci on swoją masę, co między innymi przekłada się na obniżenie jego cen na rynku. Mimo iż według opinii doradztwa naukowego stan ilościowy tego gatunku jest zrównoważony, jego stan jakościowy jest na bardzo niskim poziomie.

Z publikacji wydawanych przez Międzynarodową Radę Badań Morza wynika również, że szprot, który stanowi główne pożywienie dla dorsza, migruje na północ Morza Bałtyckiego, a dorsz z nieznanych powodów za nim nie podąża. W związku z tym następuje rozproszenie siedlisk dorsza od jego pokarmu.

— Wobec powyższego chciałbym zapytać, czy Komisja ma zamiar podjąć działania w celu ustalenia przyczyn spadku masy osobniczej u dorsza w Morzu Bałtyckim?

— Ponadto proszę o udzielenie informacji, kiedy Komisja zamierza opublikować swoją propozycję wielogatunkowego planu zarządzania zasobami Morza Bałtyckiego?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Marię Damanaki w imieniu Komisji

(13 września 2013 r.)

W przypadku kwestii biologicznych takich jak rozwój zasobów dorsza w Morzu Bałtyckim, Komisja opiera się na opiniach naukowych dostarczonych przez Międzynarodową Radę Badań Morza (ICES). Najnowsza opinia ICES (208) potwierdza, że masa ciała dorsza we wschodniej części Morza Bałtyckiego rzeczywiście się zmniejsza. Uważa się, że wynika to z faktu, że stada szprota i śledzia, gatunków które stanowią podstawowe pożywienie dorsza, koncentrują się w północnej części Morza Bałtyckiego i w związku z tym są mniej dostępne dla dorsza, którego stada koncentrują się na Bałtyku południowym. W świetle tej sytuacji ICES stwierdziła, że zmniejszenie śmiertelności połowowej stad pelagicznych w obszarach południowych Morza Bałtyckiego powinno przynieść poprawę w zakresie wzrostu oraz stanu populacji dorsza. Aby poznać lepiej interakcje między gatunkami drapieżników i ich ofiar w Morzu Bałtyckim i na innych obszarach, Komisja finansuje badanie naukowe mające na celu zgromadzenie danych dotyczących zawartości żołądka najważniejszych gatunków drapieżników. Jest ono obecnie w toku i ma się zakończyć w grudniu 2014 r.

Komisja przygotowuje wielogatunkowy plan zarządzania dla stad dorsza, śledzia i szprota na Bałtyku, który zostanie poddany pod dyskusję gdy tylko Parlament i Rada zgodzą się co do zasad dotyczących przyjmowania długoterminowych planów zarządzania w ramach zreformowanej wspólnej polityki rybołówstwa.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-007134/13

to the Commission

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

(19 June 2013)

Subject: Reasons for the loss in body weight of Baltic Sea cod

A significant drop has recently been observed in the quality of Baltic Sea cod. There has been a gradual reduction in body weight, one of the consequences of which is a lower market price. Although scientific experts claim that numbers of the species are at a sustainable level, the quality of the fish is extremely poor.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has also published evidence that although sprat, which are a major source of food for cod, are migrating to the north of the Baltic Sea, they are not being followed by cod for reasons which are unknown. This means that cod habitats are becoming ever more distant from their foraging areas.

— In view of the above, I would like to ask whether the Commission intends to take any steps to determine the reasons behind the loss in body weight of Baltic Sea cod?

— Following on from this, when does the Commission plan to publish its proposal for a multi-species management plan for stocks in the Baltic Sea?

Answer gi