ISSN 1977-0898

doi:10.3000/19770898.CE2013.081.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 81E

European flag  

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

56. köide
20. märts 2013


Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

 

IV   Teave

 

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

 

Euroopa Parlament

 

KIRJALIKULT VASTATAVAD KÜSIMUSED KOOS VASTUSTEGA

2013/C 081E/01

Euroopa Parlamendi liikmete esitatud kirjalikult vastatavad küsimused ja Euroopa Liidu institutsioonide vastused neile

1

Märkus lugejale

Väljaanne sisaldab Euroopa Parlamendi liikmete esitatud kirjalikult vastatavaid küsimusi ja Euroopa Liidu institutsioonide vastuseid neile.

Iga küsimuse ja vastuse puhul on enne võimalikku tõlget esitatud originaalkeelne versioon.

Mõnel juhul võib vastus olla küsimusest erinevas keeles. See sõltub selle organi töökeelest, kellel paluti esitada vastus.

Küsimused ja vastused avaldatakse vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi kodukorra artiklile 117.

Kõiki küsimusi ja vastuseid on võimalik vaadata Euroopa Parlamendi veebisaidil (Europarl) rubriigis Parlamendi küsimused:

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

FRAKTSIOONID

PPE

Euroopa Rahvapartei (kristlike demokraatide) fraktsioon

S&D

Sotsiaaldemokraatide ja demokraatide fraktsioon Euroopa Parlamendis

ALDE

Euroopa Demokraatide ja Liberaalide Liidu fraktsioon

Verts/ALE

Roheliste / Euroopa Vabaliidu fraktsioon

ECR

Euroopa Konservatiivide ja Reformistide fraktsioon

GUE/NGL

Euroopa Ühendatud Vasakpoolsete / Põhjamaade Roheliste Vasakpoolsete liitfraktsioon

EFD

Vaba ja Demokraatliku Euroopa fraktsioon

NI

fraktsioonilise kuuluvuseta parlamendiliikmed

ET

 


IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Parlament

KIRJALIKULT VASTATAVAD KÜSIMUSED KOOS VASTUSTEGA

20.3.2013   

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CE 81/1


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
KIRJALIKULT VASTATAVAD KÜSIMUSED KOOS VASTUSTEGA

Euroopa Parlamendi liikmete esitatud kirjalikult vastatavad küsimused ja Euroopa Liidu institutsioonide vastused neile

(2013/C 81 E/01)

Sisukord

E-011897/11 by Ilda Figueiredo and João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Floating offshore wind farms

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-011996/11 by António Fernando Correia De Campos, Ana Gomes, Edite Estrela, Elisa Ferreira, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Luís Paulo Alves and Vital Moreira to the Commission

Subject: Demonstration of floating offshore wind turbines

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-012190/11 by Paulo Rangel, Mário David, Nuno Teixeira, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Regina Bastos and José Manuel Fernandes to the Commission

Subject: Floating offshore wind turbines

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-012680/11 by Nuno Melo and Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Floating offshore wind farms

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-012591/11 by Daniel Caspary, Bernd Lange, Pablo Zalba Bidegain and Iuliu Winkler to the Commission

Subject: International trade agreements: time lag between conclusion of negotiations and the Commission's authorisation of signature

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-012595/11 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Support and promotion of democratic processes and women's rights in the countries affected by the Arab Spring

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-012608/11 by Lambert van Nistelrooij, Jan Olbrycht, Iosif Matula, Nuno Teixeira, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Erminia Mazzoni and Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid to the Commission

Subject: EU Solidarity Fund

Versión española

Version française

Versione italiana

Nederlandse versie

Wersja polska

Versão portuguesa

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-012612/11 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: The relationship between the European Social Fund and the European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-012640/11 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: Ensuring first class medical care is afforded to Alzheimer's patients who are admitted to Accident and Emergency departments

English version

E-012646/11 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights of Turkish Kurds and the alleged use of ‘chemical’ weapons by the Turkish air force against Kurdish guerrillas

English version

E-012647/11 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Human rights of Turkish Kurds and the alleged use of ‘chemical’ weapons by the Turkish air force against Kurdish guerrillas

English version

E-012649/11 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possible programmes and funding to support joint projects carried out as part of the partnership between the city of Rome (Italy) and Cork (Ireland)

Versione italiana

English version

E-012656/11 by Antonyia Parvanova, Corinne Lepage, Jo Leinen, Nessa Childers and Philippe Juvin to the Commission

Subject: Early diagnosis and cost-effective management of hereditary haemochromatosis

българска версия

Deutsche Fassung

Version française

English version

E-012684/11 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Oriol Junqueras Vies, Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Maria Badia i Cutchet and Raimon Obiols to the Commission

Subject: Possible inclusion of regions of systemic importance in the European Semester process

Versión española

English version

E-000123/12 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Penalty imposed on an IT company in Italy for refusing to supply information and apply legislation on guarantees

Version française

English version

E-000151/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Widespread poaching activities in the Po delta wildlife park in the province of Rovigo, in breach of Directive 2009/147/EC (formerly Directive 79/409/EEC)

Versione italiana

English version

E-000173/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000492/12 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė to the Commission

Subject: The effectiveness of the application of the system of biometric passport controls

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000201/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Reasons for the failure to complete the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes addressing illegal immigration in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000291/12 by Georgios Koumoutsakos to the Commission

Subject: Allegations by the former Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz and reports in the Turkish press regarding illegal activities by agencies of the Turkish Government

Ελληνική έκδοση

Versione italiana

English version

P-000297/12 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: New Euro-Mediterranean governance: role of the cities and regions in the Union for the Mediterranean and strengthening decentralised cooperation

Version française

English version

E-000333/12 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Death of Idrissa Diallo in the Detention Centre for Foreigners (CIE) in Barcelona. Permanent violation of human rights, mistreatment and repression in Spanish Detention Centres.

Versión española

English version

E-000344/12 by Hermann Winkler to the Commission

Subject: Urban waste-water policy: implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC, as amended by Directives 98/15/EC and 2000/60/EC

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000365/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Urgent case regarding violation of human rights in Russia — Situation of freedom of expression and the rule of law in Russia, court case banning Falun Gong materials

Versión española

English version

E-000367/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The conviction of the former Prime Minister of Ukraine and the inhumane conditions in which she is being detained

Versione italiana

English version

E-000385/12 by Mairead McGuinness to the Commission

Subject: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers — differentiated responsibility of food business operators

English version

P-000408/12 by Heinz K. Becker to the Commission

Subject: Urgent European initiatives to combat rising food prices: combating speculation on the financial markets and the imposition of different cost prices

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000610/12 by Vladimír Maňka to the Commission

Subject: The toy market

Slovenské znenie

English version

E-000611/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Involvement of Portuguese bodies in European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000614/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Violation of the Birds Directive by the Region of Sardinia in approving the 2011/2012 hunting calendar without the obligatory opinion of I.S.P.R.A (Institute for Environmental Protection and Research)

Versione italiana

English version

E-000615/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: The ‘Costa Concordia ’ shipwreck on 13 January 2012 off the Tuscan coast.

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000617/12 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Banking secrecy

Versione italiana

English version

E-000618/12 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Amendment to Spanish Coastal Law

Versión española

English version

E-000619/12 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of REN

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000620/12 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of REN

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000624/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Measures to promote the use of electronic payments

Versione italiana

English version

E-000625/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Methane pipeline explosion in Massa Carrara

Versione italiana

English version

E-000626/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Action to support young people in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000627/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Unused European Social Fund appropriations earmarked for youth employment in the EU and in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000628/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Installation and upgrading of IT systems in Greek Government departments

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000629/12 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Financial support for young people looking for work in another Member State

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000630/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Acceleration of the FAST nuclear fusion project

Versione italiana

English version

E-000631/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — A new state in South Africa?

Versione italiana

English version

E-000632/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Residents of Camp Ashraf could be transferred to Camp Liberty

Versione italiana

English version

E-000633/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Oil spills: rules for prevention and protection against environmental disasters

Versione italiana

English version

E-000634/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: District heating: a monopoly to be regulated and monitored

Versione italiana

English version

E-000635/12 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Use of GM products in Europe and ‘Horizon 2020’ funds

Versione italiana

English version

E-000636/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Council

Subject: Participation by the private sector in restructuring the Greek debt

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000637/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Participation by the private sector in restructuring the Greek debt

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000638/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: The European Commission's banking system reform plan

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000639/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Authorisation for waste recovery and disposal project without an environmental impact assessment

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000640/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: Radioactive material stolen from Egyptian nuclear power station

Versione italiana

English version

E-000641/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: Persecution of Christians in North Korea

Versione italiana

English version

E-000642/12 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Attacks on churches on the East African island of Zanzibar

Versione italiana

English version

E-000645/12 by Piotr Borys, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Małgorzata Handzlik, Paweł Zalewski, Krzysztof Lisek, Artur Zasada and Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Clarification of the tragic events in Kazakhstan in December 2011

Wersja polska

English version

E-000646/12 by Louis Grech to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of EU waste legislation

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-000647/12 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: ‘Black box’ for cars

Versione italiana

English version

P-000649/12 by Seán Kelly to the Commission

Subject: Early termination of Alternative Energy Requirement VI Power Purchase Agreements

English version

E-000650/12 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: Response: European Disability Strategy and Italian Law 102/2009

Versione italiana

English version

E-000652/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Late payment by the Spanish Government to the autonomous communities

Versión española

English version

E-000653/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Late payment by public authorities

Versión española

English version

E-000656/12 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Food safety

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000657/12 by Elisabeth Köstinger to the Commission

Subject: Properties of waste which render it hazardous and the European Waste Catalogue

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000658/12 by Spyros Danellis to the Commission

Subject: Measures relating to the cruise shipping sector

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000659/12 by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission

Subject: CAP proposals and small farmers

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000661/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: The Baltic Science Link

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000663/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: A Baltic Region service sector innovation support strategy

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000665/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: The Baltic Region Innovation and Scientific Research Fund

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000662/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: Preparation of a Baltic Sea Region innovation, innovation group, and small and medium enterprise network development programme

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000664/12 by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission

Subject: Health and life science innovation projects;

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000667/12 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: EU wants to blacklist east Jerusalem settlers

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000668/12 by Elena Băsescu to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Foreign policy priorities of the Danish Presidency

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000669/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Security provisions for cruise ships

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000670/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Recognition of professional qualifications

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000672/12 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Facebook — digital oblivion

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000674/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: WIFI on trains

English version

E-000676/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Use of bicycle helmets

English version

E-000677/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Bus safety equipment

English version

E-000678/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: First aid kits in cars

English version

E-000679/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Fire extinguishers in cars

English version

E-000680/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Roadside warning triangles

English version

E-000681/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Threat of redundancies in the Salvador Caetano Group

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000682/12 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Collective redundancy in the Panrico company

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000683/12 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Cases of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000686/12 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Anti-competitive practices in the European music industry

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-000688/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Situation of Galicia's shipping industry

Versión española

English version

E-000689/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Commission investigation into the Peñalba-Isona power line project

Versión española

English version

E-000693/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Cardiovascular disease

English version

E-000694/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Common fisheries policy

English version

E-000695/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Common fisheries policy

English version

E-000697/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Funding lines for tourism

English version

E-000698/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Obesity in Europe

English version

E-000702/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Shale gas exploration and production activities

English version

E-000703/12 by Alfredo Pallone, Salvatore Iacolino, Antonio Cancian and Giovanni La Via to the Commission

Subject: Operation of EBA

Versione italiana

English version

E-000704/12 by Peter van Dalen to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU mission in northern Iraq

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000706/12 by Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley and Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: The directive on Marine Sulphur

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-000707/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Legal assistance

English version

E-000708/12 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Attacking and kidnapping of EU nationals in the Afar region of Ethiopia

English version

P-000710/12 by Mikael Gustafsson to the Commission

Subject: Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson, Swedish journalists imprisoned in Ethiopia

Svensk version

English version

E-000711/12 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Refusal to register a Belarusian party

Wersja polska

English version

E-000712/12 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Confiscation of an edition of a Belarusian newspaper

Wersja polska

English version

E-000714/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Environment bill and objections by environmental organisations

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000715/12 by Mikael Gustafsson to the Commission

Subject: Environmentally friendly travel

Svensk version

English version

E-000716/12 by Anna Hedh to the Commission

Subject: Forced sterilisations for transgender persons in Sweden

Svensk version

English version

E-000717/12 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Human rights violations in Pakistan and EU funding

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000718/12 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Urgent call for a ban on the hunting of the migratory birds the European turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) and the garganey (Anas querquedula)

Versione italiana

English version

E-000719/12 by Nigel Farage to the Commission

Subject: Ante Gotovina

English version

E-000720/12 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Cooperation for protecting IT networks

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000721/12 by Bendt Bendtsen to the Commission

Subject: Distance requirement applying to the sale of animal products between retail establishments

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000722/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Grants for emerging artists

English version

E-000723/12 by Judith Sargentini to the Commission

Subject: Human rights guidance for industrial sectors

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000724/12 by Simon Busuttil to the Commission

Subject: Online gambling

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-000725/12 by Carlos Coelho to the Commission

Subject: SIS II — Right of access, correction and deletion of data

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000726/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Adult education programmes

English version

E-000727/12 by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission

Subject: Restoration of the natural environment in the Western Scheldt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000728/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Natura 2000 network

Versión española

English version

E-000730/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Co-funding of the Natura 2000 network

Versión española

English version

E-000735/12 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Justification and purpose of funding for Segarra Garrigues

Versión española

English version

E-000736/12 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: EurActiv

English version

E-000737/12 by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission

Subject: Adverse impacts of the PFOA on human health

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000738/12 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Kosovo

English version

P-000739/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: EUR 500 and EUR 200 banknotes

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000740/12 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Differentiation of rates of interest and increasing imbalances

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-000741/12 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Strengthening safety nets for financial stability

Versión española

English version

P-000742/12 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Traceability in labelling breadmaking products

Versione italiana

English version

E-000743/12 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Council

Subject: Strengthening safety nets for financial stability

Versión española

English version

E-000745/12 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: New genocide denial law in France

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000747/12 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights in Cuba

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000748/12 by Frank Vanhecke to the Council

Subject: Retirement age and early retirement of European civil servants

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000749/12 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: Relations between Turkey and Hamas

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000750/12 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Relations between Turkey and Hamas

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000751/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Dovetailing the ERDF into the Common Strategic Framework

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000752/12 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Partnership contracts and operational programmes within the proposed Common Strategic Framework for the Structural Funds in the 2014-2020 programming period

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000753/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Potential pollution of the North Sea

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000754/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Action to promote growth

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000756/12 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Reappearance of malaria in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000757/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Young jobseekers

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000758/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Combating child pornography

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000759/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Enterprise-level agreements

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000760/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Violence in Syria

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000762/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Scientific research in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000764/12 by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission

Subject: Seed banks insufficient to guarantee the conservation of endangered plants

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000765/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Funding of a youth club and youth cafe

English version

E-000766/12 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Interruption of Interreg payments

English version

E-000767/12 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Possible bankruptcy of private electricity companies

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000768/12 by Paweł Zalewski to the Commission

Subject: EU‐Morocco trade

Wersja polska

English version

E-000769/12 by Fiona Hall to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EUBAM Rafah Mission

English version

E-000771/12 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Diversification of sources of oil supply

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000773/12 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Review of maritime safety legislation

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000776/12 by Ioannis A. Tsoukalas to the Commission

Subject: Oil embargo on Iran

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000777/12 by Dan Jørgensen to the Commission

Subject: Welfare of pigs

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000781/12 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Situation in Syria and the safety of civilians

Wersja polska

English version

E-000782/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Citizens’ initiative

English version

E-000783/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Update on Iceland's application to join the EU

English version

E-000787/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Developing green collar jobs

English version

E-000788/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Drug importation

English version

E-000789/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: EU airline blacklist

English version

E-000790/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Pan-European e-government services

English version

E-000791/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: EU financial support to combat AIDS in Africa

English version

E-000792/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Organised crime within the EU

English version

E-000793/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Bank charges levied on transfers of funds

English version

E-000794/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Expansion of the Erasmus programme

English version

E-000795/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Money laundering in the eurozone

English version

E-000796/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Support of the tourism industry

English version

E-000797/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Reduction of red tape for small business

English version

E-000798/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Providing primary education in developing countries

English version

E-000799/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Peace IV Programme for Ireland

English version

E-000800/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of CCTB

English version

E-000801/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Development of ICT and of the information society

English version

E-000802/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Data roaming charges

English version

E-000803/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Economic activity in aquaculture in Europe

English version

E-000804/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Cheese sold to the EU

English version

E-000805/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: External vehicle speed control

English version

E-000806/12 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Confiscated duty-free liquids

English version

E-000807/12 by Dan Jørgensen to the Commission

Subject: Role of the Commission in the European partnership on pig castration

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000808/12 by Antonyia Parvanova to the Commission

Subject: Application under Bulgarian law of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

българска версия

English version

P-000809/12 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Application of the subsidiarity principle

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-000811/12 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Council

Subject: Economic sanctions against Belarus

English version

E-000813/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Violation of Community rules by the project for an incinerator at O Irixo (Ourense, Spain)

Versión española

English version

E-000814/12 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Garoña nuclear power plant (Álava)

Versión española

English version

E-000818/12 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Economic sanctions against Belarus

English version

E-000173/13 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Status of wines and spirits in the EU-Canada free trade agreement

Version française

English version

P-000297/13 by Michèle Rivasi to the Commission

Subject: Third-generation contraceptive pills and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Version française

English version

P-000344/13 by Debora Serracchiani to the Commission

Subject: Croatia-Italy programme

Versione italiana

English version

P-000408/13 by Esther Herranz García to the Commission

Subject: Reinstatement of anti-dumping measures on imports of preserved mandarins from China

Versión española

English version

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011897/11

à Comissão

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) e João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(14 de Dezembro de 2011)

Assunto: Energia eólica offshore flutuante

A energia eólica pode constituir uma das possíveis alternativas na prossecução das políticas energéticas. No entanto, com os locais mais interessantes para a instalação de turbinas eólicas em terra já ocupados e com o forte aumento da potência das novas turbinas que, embora com enormes economias de escala, implicam pás de dimensões tais que não podem ser transportadas por terra, e cujos impactos ambientais (visuais e de ruído) tornariam a sua implantação em terra ainda mais difícil, ganha cada vez mais força a ideia da forte implantação de eólicas no mar. Para mais, no mar os ventos são mais fortes e mais constantes que em terra.

Tal opção em águas profundas — predominantes na UE e a distâncias da costa que tornem admissíveis os impactos em terra das novas eólicas — é, contudo, demasiado cara se a respectiva implantação for fixa. Neste contexto, está a surgir a proposta da instalação de plataformas flutuantes para a implantação de eólicas no mar longe das costas.

Recentemente a imprensa deu conta da instalação de um projecto de demonstração de eólica offshore flutuante em Portugal, ao largo da Póvoa de Varzim.

Assim, solicitamos à Comissão que nos informe do seguinte:

Conhece outros projectos de eólica offshore flutuante na UE? Se sim, onde, desde quando se encontra em funcionamento, com que potência instalada e com que resultados?

Há algum estudo sobre a evolução destas alternativas energéticas e sobre a evolução dos seus custos?

Que perspectivas existem quanto ao seu financiamento comunitário?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-011996/11

à Comissão

António Fernando Correia De Campos (S&D), Ana Gomes (S&D), Edite Estrela (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) e Vital Moreira (S&D)

(19 de Dezembro de 2011)

Assunto: Demonstração de eólicas offshore flutuantes

A energia eólica vai seguramente constituir um dos principais pilares na prossecução das políticas energéticas e de sustentabilidade da UE nas próximas décadas, tanto mais que a quase totalidade das outras fontes de energia renováveis se baseiam em tecnologias ainda demasiado embrionárias e caras para poderem dar um contributo significativo e competitivo no médio prazo. No entanto, com os locais mais interessantes para a instalação de turbinas eólicas em terra já ocupados e com o forte aumento da potência das novas turbinas que, embora com enormes economias de escala, implicam pás de dimensões tais que não podem ser transportadas por terra e cujos impactos ambientais (visuais e de ruído) tornariam a sua implantação em terra ainda mais difícil, ganha cada vez mais força a ideia da forte implantação de eólicas no mar. Para mais, no mar os ventos são mais fortes e mais constantes que em terra.

Tal opção em águas profundas — predominantes na UE e a distâncias da costa que tornem admissíveis os impactos em terra das novas eólicas — é, contudo, demasiado cara se a respetiva implantação for fixa. Neste contexto, surge como incontornável a instalação de plataformas flutuantes para a implantação de eólicas no mar longe das costas.

Recentemente a imprensa deu conta da instalação de um projeto de demonstração de eólica offshore flutuante em Portugal, ao largo da Póvoa de Varzim.

A demonstração de viabilidade deste tipo de solução é essencial para a sua adopção de forma mais generalizada, a qual contribuirá para o objectivo europeu de 20 % de energia de fontes renováveis em 2020. Com vista à prossecução deste objectivo importará conhecer e disseminar experiências já adquiridas neste âmbito.

Para além deste projecto, está a Comissão a par de qualquer outro projecto de eólica offshore flutuante na UE? Se sim, onde, desde quando se encontra em funcionamento, com que potência instalada e com que resultados?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-012190/11

à Comissão

Paulo Rangel (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE) e José Manuel Fernandes (PPE)

(21 de Dezembro de 2011)

Assunto: Eólicas offshore flutuantes

A energia eólica, como fonte energética renovável, representa cada vez mais uma das soluções de futuro de que dispomos para uma aposta num crescimento verdadeiramente sustentável e no combate às alterações climáticas.

A Europa tem estado na linha da frente no sector das chamadas energias limpas, mas não deixa de ter concorrentes de peso cujo papel está a ser cada vez mais preponderante, como a China, os Estados Unidos ou as chamadas economias emergentes.

Como europeus, devemos ter a ambição de manter a liderança neste sector.

A procura de novas fontes de energia, como é sabido, exige a tomada de opções políticas claras, aposta na investigação e avultados investimentos. Mas é também um motor de desenvolvimento económico, de criação de emprego, de crescimento.

A par da investigação sobre as fontes de energia, tem havido igualmente uma busca de novos espaços para a instalação de eólicas.

Em Portugal vierem recentemente a público notícias que dão conta da instalação de um projecto de demonstração de eólica offshore flutuante ao largo da Póvoa de Varzim.

Para além deste, está a Comissão a par de qualquer outro projecto de eólica offshore flutuante na UE?

Se sim, onde, desde quando se encontra em funcionamento, com que potência instalada e com que resultados obtidos?

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-012680/11

à Comissão

Nuno Melo (PPE) e Diogo Feio (PPE)

(11 de Janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Eolica offshore flutuante

A energia eólica vai seguramente constituir um dos principais pilares na prossecução das políticas energéticas e de sustentabilidade da UE nas próximas décadas, tanto mais que a quase totalidade das outras fontes de energia renováveis se baseiam em tecnologias ainda demasiado embrionárias e caras para poderem dar um contributo significativo e competitivo no médio prazo. No entanto, com os locais mais interessantes para a instalação de turbinas eólicas em terra já ocupados e com o forte aumento da potência das novas turbinas já anunciadas pelos principais fabricantes que, embora com enormes economias de escala, implicam pás de dimensões tais que não podem ser transportadas por terra e cujos impactos ambientais (visuais e de ruído) tornariam a sua implantação em terra ainda mais difícil, ganha cada vez mais força a ideia da forte implantação de eólicas no mar.

Tal opção em águas profundas — predominantes na UE e, em todo o caso, inerentes longe das costas (a distâncias destas que tornem admissíveis os impactos visuais e de ruído das novas eólicas) — é, contudo, demasiado cara se a respetiva implantação for fixa. Neste contexto, surge como incontornável a instalação de plataformas flutuantes para a implantação de eólicas no mar.

Acresce que tal também poderá revitalizar a indústria da construção naval e os respetivos estaleiros na UE que passam por grandes dificuldades.

Recentemente a imprensa deu conta da instalação de um projeto de demonstração de eólica offshore flutuante em Portugal ao largo da Póvoa de Varzim.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento do projeto de demonstração de eólica offshore flutuante em Portugal? Como o avalia?

Para além deste, está a Comissão a par de qualquer outro projeto de eólica offshore flutuante na UE? Se sim, onde, desde quando se encontra em funcionamento, com que potência instalada e com que resultados?

Resposta conjunta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão

(14 de Fevereiro de 2012)

A investigação sobre turbinas eólicas flutuantes é financiada no contexto do projeto HiPRWind, ao abrigo do sétimo Programa‐Quadro (7.° PQ). As atividades de investigação no âmbito do 7.° PQ abrangem também novos conceitos de turbinas eólicas de maiores dimensões (> 10MW) e estruturas flutuantes afins.

A demonstração de estruturas flutuantes competitivas em termos de custos foi incluída no convite à apresentação de propostas no domínio da energia ao abrigo do 7.° PQ, em 2011.

Embora, até uma época recente, as experiências in situ se tenham limitado a alguns protótipos (como o projeto Hywind, na Noruega), o convite à apresentação de propostas ao abrigo do 7.°PQ, em 2011, pretende demonstrar e avaliar os benefícios e a competitividade em termos de custos das turbinas eólicas offshore com uma potência de vários MW, numa estrutura flutuante.

Os sistemas de turbinas eólicas flutuantes offshore com uma capacidade nominal de 25 MWe foram também considerados elegíveis para financiamento ao abrigo do convite à apresentação de propostas NER300 (1), estando em curso o respetivo processo de avaliação.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-011897/11

to the Commission

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) and João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(14 December 2011)

Subject: Floating offshore wind farms

Wind power is one of the options for consideration when developing energy policies. However, the best locations for installing land-based wind turbines have already been taken and huge economies of scale have led to the development of new, much more powerful turbines with blades so large that they can no longer be transported by land and for which it is increasingly difficult to find appropriate land-based locations for environmental reasons due to their visual impact and noise levels. This has led to increasing interest in the idea of strongly promoting offshore wind farms. Offshore winds are also stronger and more prevalent than inland ones.

However, the option of setting up offshore wind farms in deep sea areas, of which there is no shortage in the EU, far enough away from the coast to reduce the terrestrial impact of the new wind technologies to acceptable levels, is too expensive if fixed installations are used. This has led to the design of floating platforms on which to set up wind farms far from the coast.

The print media recently reported on a pilot floating offshore wind power project in Portugal, at Póvoa de Varzim.

1.

Is the Commission aware of any other floating offshore wind farms in the EU? If so, how long have they been operating, what is their installed capacity and what results have they produced?

2.

Has any studies been carried out into developments regarding these alternative sources of energy and their costs?

3.

What possibilities are there that they could be eligible for Community funding?

Question for written answer E-011996/11

to the Commission

António Fernando Correia De Campos (S&D), Ana Gomes (S&D), Edite Estrela (S&D), Elisa Ferreira (S&D), Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), Luís Paulo Alves (S&D) and Vital Moreira (S&D)

(19 December 2011)

Subject: Demonstration of floating offshore wind turbines

Wind power will undoubtedly be a mainstay of the energy and sustainability policies to be pursued by the EU in the decades ahead, especially since almost all other renewable energy sources are based on technologies that are still too embryonic and costly to be able to make a significant and competitive contribution in the medium term. However, the most suitable inland sites for wind turbines are already occupied; and the higher power of the new turbines (albeit with huge economies of scale) is such that the blades would be too big to transport by land and, because of their environmental impact (visually and in terms of noise), more and more difficult to install inland. That being the case, the idea of large offshore wind farms is becoming increasingly more persuasive. Furthermore, sea-winds are stronger and more constant than inland winds.

On the other hand, in deep waters — as EU waters mostly are — and at such distances from the coast that the inland impacts of the new turbines would be acceptable, that option would be too expensive if the arrays in question were fixed. Consequently, floating platforms for turbines a long way out to sea are being viewed as the necessary solution.

It was recently reported in the press that a floating offshore wind turbine demonstration project had been set up in Portugal, off Póvoa de Varzim.

Solutions of this type have to shown to be viable if they are to be adopted more widely and hence help to meet the European target of 20 % of energy generated from renewable sources in 2020. To that end it will be essential to find out about and disseminate experience already acquired.

Apart from the above project, does the Commission know of any other floating offshore wind turbine projects in the EU? If so, where are they sited and how long have they been in operation? What is their installed power, and what has been their outcome?

Question for written answer E-012190/11

to the Commission

Paulo Rangel (PPE), Mário David (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE) and José Manuel Fernandes (PPE)

(21 December 2011)

Subject: Floating offshore wind turbines

Wind energy, as a renewable form of energy, is increasingly becoming one of the forward-looking solutions available to us to support genuinely sustainable growth and combat climate change.

Although Europe is at the forefront of ‘clean energy’ development, it has some serious rivals, which are becoming increasingly influential, such as China, the United States and the ‘emerging economies’.

As Europeans, we should seek to maintain our dominant position in this sector.

The quest for new energy sources obviously calls for clear political decisions to be made in favour of research and substantial investment. It can also be a motor for economic development, job creation and growth.

Alongside research into energy sources, efforts have also been made to look for new sites on which to set up wind farms.

News was recently published in Portugal about the creation of a pilot floating offshore wind farm near Póvoa de Varzim.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of any other floating offshore wind energy projects in the EU?

If so, since when have they been in operation, what is their installed capacity and what results have been obtained from them?

Question for written answer E-012680/11

to the Commission

Nuno Melo (PPE) and Diogo Feio (PPE)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Floating offshore wind farms

Wind energy will undoubtedly be one of the main elements of the European Union’s energy and sustainability policies over the next decades, even more so since almost all other forms of renewable energy involve technologies that are as yet too undeveloped or too expensive to make a significant and competitive contribution in the medium term. However, as the areas best suited to the installation of wind turbines are already inhabited, and given the greatly increased power of these turbines, according to the principal manufacturers, which, although there are enormous economies of scale, involve rotor blades too large to be transported on land and whose environmental effects in terms of visual and noise impact would make installing them on land even more difficult, all this makes the idea of major wind farm installations at sea even more attractive

This option, in deep water — which predominates in the EU or, in any case, away from the coasts — at sufficient distance to render the visual and noise impact acceptable) — would still be too expensive if the installations were fixed. In this context, the installation of floating platforms for wind farms at sea becomes unavoidable.

Also, this could help to revive the EU’s naval construction industry and shipyards which are experiencing serious difficulties

Recently it was reported in the press that a pilot floating offshore wind farm has been constructed in Portugal near Póvoa de Varzim.

Is the Commission aware of this pilot project for a floating offshore wind farm in Portugal? What is its opinion?

Apart from this one, does the Commission know of any other floating offshore wind farm projects within the EU? If the answer is yes, how long has it been running, how much power does it produce and with what results?

Joint answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2012)

Research into floating systems has been funded through a Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) grant to the HiPRWind project. The FP7 research activities also address new concepts for larger wind turbines (>10MW) and corresponding floating structures.

Demonstration of cost-competitive floating structures was included as a topic in the FP7 Energy call 2011.

Whereas, until recently, on-site experience was limited to a few prototypes (such as the HYWIND project in Norway), the FP7 call 2011 aims to demonstrate and assess benefits and cost competitiveness of grid-connected multi MW offshore turbines on a floating structure.

Floating off-shore wind systems with a nominal capacity of 25 MWe were also eligible for funding under the NER300 call (2). The evaluation process is ongoing.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-012591/11

a la Comisión

Daniel Caspary (PPE), Bernd Lange (S&D), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE) y Iuliu Winkler (PPE)

(13 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Acuerdos de comercio internacional: tiempo transcurrido entre la conclusión de las negociaciones y la autorización de firma de la Comisión

La reciente experiencia relativa al Acuerdo de Asociación entre la Unión Europea y Centroamérica, así como en relación con el Acuerdo comercial con Perú y Colombia, ha demostrado que puede transcurrir un intervalo de tiempo muy largo entre la conclusión de las negociaciones pertinentes y el momento en que la Comisión propone autorizar la firma del acuerdo. En estos dos casos en los que participan países latinoamericanos, el lapso temporal ha sido casi de 18 meses. El retraso se ha atribuido al proceso de verificación jurídica y de traducción.

Habida cuenta de que, en las cuestiones económicas de escala mundial, a menudo es importante obtener acceso al mercado y a reducciones arancelarias lo antes posible, este retraso genera una clara desventaja para la Unión Europea y los Estados miembros con respecto a sus competidores económicos, en particular, con respecto a Estados Unidos, donde la necesidad de traducción es inexistente o bastante reducida.

En vista de lo expuesto:

¿Es posible reducir considerablemente este intervalo, o al menos hasta cierto punto, a fin de colocar a la UE en una situación de menor desventaja frente a sus principales competidores a escala mundial?

¿Qué medidas específicas podrían emprender las instituciones europeas para acelerar el proceso, respetando en todo momento las prerrogativas otorgadas a cada institución en el marco del Tratado de Lisboa?

Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión

(14 de marzo de 2012)

1.

Dado que los acuerdos comerciales de la UE son textos voluminosos, que generalmente contienen calendarios de liberalización muy detallados, la verificación jurídica (

₫depuración₻) puede durar varios meses, en función de la longitud y complejidad de los documentos y de los recursos de que disponen ambas Partes. Posteriormente, los textos verificados se traducen a veintidós lenguas oficiales de la UE y se incorporan en una propuesta, elaborada por la Comisión, de Decisión del Consejo por la que se autoriza la firma. Finalmente, los textos son verificados por los juristas lingüistas del Consejo. Por tanto, pese a los esfuerzos de todos los interesados por actuar más rápidamente, transcurre más de un año entre el final de las negociaciones y la Decisión del Consejo por la que se autoriza la firma.

En los acuerdos que mencionan Sus Señorías, el plazo necesario para preparar a la firma fue excepcionalmente largo, puesto que el Acuerdo de Asociación se celebró con seis países de América Central que tenían que coordinar sus posiciones entre sí y el Acuerdo multilateral con Colombia y Perú se había negociado en dos lenguas. En cambio, solo fueron necesarios nueve meses para verificar y traducir el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio UE-Corea.

2.

La Comisión ha introducido medidas de eficiencia mediante una mejor planificación del trabajo y una notificación previa de los traductores de la Comisión y los juristas lingüistas del Consejo. Sería posible conseguir un mayor ahorro si las tres instituciones implicadas llegaran a un acuerdo sobre unos requisitos de formato normalizados para los textos correspondientes, lo cual constituye una cuestión más amplia que la que actualmente plantean Sus Señorías.

Los retrasos en la firma de los acuerdos comerciales obviamente retrasan los beneficios esperados por los agentes económicos de ambas partes.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-012591/11

an die Kommission

Daniel Caspary (PPE), Bernd Lange (S&D), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE) und Iuliu Winkler (PPE)

(13. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Internationale Handelsabkommen: zeitliche Verzögerung zwischen dem Abschluss von Verhandlungen und der Unterzeichnungs-genehmigung durch die Kommission

Die jüngsten Erfahrungen beim Assoziierungsabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Mittelamerika sowie beim Handelsabkommen mit Peru und Kolumbien haben gezeigt, dass der Zeitraum zwischen dem Abschluss der jeweiligen Verhandlungen und dem Zeitpunkt, an dem die Kommission die Unterzeichnung des Abkommens empfiehlt, sehr lang sein kann. In diesen beiden Fällen, in denen lateinamerikanische Länder beteiligt waren, betrug die zeitliche Verzögerung fast 18 Monate. Die Verzögerung wird auf den Prozess der Übersetzung und rechtlichen Prüfung zurückgeführt.

Da es in der globalen Wirtschaft häufig wichtig ist, so schnell wie möglich Zugang zum Markt zu erhalten und Zollermäßigungen zu erzielen, bedeutet diese Verzögerung für die Europäische Union und die Mitgliedstaaten einen deutlichen Nachteil gegenüber Wettbewerbern, insbesondere den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, für die kein bzw. nur ein geringer Übersetzungsbedarf besteht.

In Anbetracht obiger Ausführungen:

Ist es möglich, diesen Zeitraum erheblich oder zumindest in einem gewissen Maß zu verkürzen, damit die EU gegenüber ihren weltweiten Hauptkonkurrenten weniger benachteiligt ist?

Welche speziellen Maßnahmen könnten die Europäischen Institutionen ergreifen, um den Prozess zu beschleunigen und gleichzeitig die Befugnisse der einzelnen Institution gemäß dem Vertrag von Lissabon zu berücksichtigen?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(14. März 2012)

1.

Handelsübereinkünfte der EU sind sehr umfangreich und enthalten in der Regel sehr detaillierte Liberalisierungspläne. Deshalb kann die rechtliche Prüfung (im internen Jargon auch

„Scrubbing“ genannt) mehrere Monate in Anspruch nehmen, je nachdem, wie voluminös und komplex die Dokumente sind und wie viele Ressourcen auf beiden Seiten zur Verfügung stehen. Anschließend werden die geprüften Texte in 22 Amtssprachen der EU übersetzt und in einen Kommissionsvorschlag für einen Beschluss des Rates eingefügt, mit dem dieser die Unterzeichnung genehmigt. Zudem werden die Texte noch einer Überprüfung durch die Rechts— und Sprachsachverständigen des Rates unterzogen. Obwohl sich alle Beteiligten darum bemühen, schneller voranzukommen, vergeht ein gutes Jahr zwischen dem Abschluss der Verhandlungen und dem endgültigen Ratsbeschluss zur Genehmigung der Unterzeichnung.

Die Vorbereitungen zur Unterzeichnung der von den Herren Abgeordneten angesprochenen Übereinkünfte nahmen außergewöhnlich viel Zeit in Anspruch, weil zum einen das Assoziierungsabkommen gleich mit sechs zentralamerikanischen Staaten geschlossen wurde, die ihre Positionen untereinander abstimmen mussten, und weil zum anderen über das multilaterale Übereinkommen mit Kolumbien und Peru in zwei Sprachen verhandelt worden war. Im Gegensatz dazu konnten die Prüfung und die Übersetzung des Freihandelsabkommens der EU mit Korea in neun Monaten durchgezogen werden.

2.

Die Kommission hat Effizienzmaßnahmen ergriffen, die eine bessere Planung der Arbeiten sowie eine frühere Einbeziehung der Kommissionsübersetzer und der Rechts— und Sprachsachverständigen des Rates vorsehen. Weitere Effizienzgewinne wären möglich, wenn die drei beteiligten Institutionen sich auf einheitliche Formate für die einschlägigen Texte einigen würden; diese Frage geht jedoch über das hinaus, was die Herren Abgeordneten in ihrer Anfrage angesprochen haben.

Es ist offensichtlich, dass durch den Verzug bei der Unterzeichnung von Handelsübereinkünften auch die von den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten auf beiden Seiten erhofften Vorteile verzögert werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012591/11

to the Commission

Daniel Caspary (PPE), Bernd Lange (S&D), Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE) and Iuliu Winkler (PPE)

(13 January 2012)

Subject: International trade agreements: time lag between conclusion of negotiations and the Commission's authorisation of signature

Recent experience involving the Association Agreement between the European Union and Central America as well as the Trade Agreement with Peru and Colombia has shown that the interval between conclusion of the relevant negotiations and the time when the Commission proposes that signing be authorised can be very long. In these two cases involving Latin American countries the time lag was nearly 18 months. The delay has been attributed to the translation and legal verification process.

Since in global economic affairs it is often important to gain market access and tariff reductions as soon as possible, this time lag creates a clear disadvantage for the European Union and the Member States over economic competitors, in particular the United States, where the need for translation is non-existent or fairly limited.

In the light of the above:

Is it possible to shorten this interval considerably, or at least to some extent, in order to put the EU at less of a disadvantage vis-à-vis its major competitors in the world?

What specific action could the European institutions take to speed up the process, whilst respecting each Institution’s prerogatives under the Lisbon Treaty?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2012)

1.

As EU trade agreements are voluminous texts, usually containing very detailed liberalisation schedules, legal verification (or

‘scrubbing’) can last several months, depending on the length and complexity of the documents and resources available to both sides. Thereafter, the verified texts are translated in 22 official EU languages and are put in to a Commission proposal for a Council decision authorising signature. They are further verified by the Council's lawyer linguists. It thus takes well over a year between the end of negotiations and the actual Council decision authorising signature, despite efforts of all involved to move more quickly.

The agreements referred to by the Honourable Members took an exceptionally long time to prepare for signature because the Association Agreement was concluded with six Central American countries that needed to coordinate their positions among themselves and the Multiparty Agreement with Colombia and Peru had been negotiated in two languages. Conversely, it took nine months to verify and translate the EU‐Korea Free Trade Agreement.

2.

The Commission has introduced efficiency measures through better planning of work and earlier notification of Commission's translators and Council's lawyer linguists. Further savings would be possible if all three institutions involved were to agree on standardised formatting requirements for the relevant texts — a wider issue than presently raised by the Honourable Members.

Delays in signing trade agreements obviously defer the gains awaited by economic operators on both sides.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-012595/11

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(12. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Unterstützung und Förderung der Demokratieprozesse und Frauenrechte in den Ländern des arabischen Frühlings

In den Ländern des arabischen Frühlings wie Ägypten, Jordanien, Tunesien und Libyen finden gravierende politische und gesellschaftliche Umbrüche statt.

1.

Unterstützt und fördert die EU durch ihre auswärtige Politik — basierend auf der Universalität der Menschenrechte — die Demokratie— und Reformbestrebungen dieser Länder? Wenn ja, welche und wie?

2.

Unterstützt und fördert die EU im Speziellen die Frauenrechte und Geschlechtergleichstellung in diesen Ländern? Wenn ja, welche Instrumente setzt sie hierfür ein und in welchen Ländern?

3.

Welche konkreten Ergebnisse konnten bereits erzielt werden?

Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission

(13. März 2012)

Die Reaktion der Europäischen Union auf die Ereignisse in den Ländern des arabischen Frühlings wurde in zwei Mitteilungen skizziert: „Eine Partnerschaft mit dem südlichen Mittelmeerraum für Demokratie und gemeinsamen Wohlstand“ vom 8. März 2011 und „Eine neue Antwort auf eine Nachbarschaft im Wandel“ vom 25. Mai 2011. Die EU erkennt an, dass eine starke Zivilgesellschaft zur Achtung der Menschenrechte, einschließlich der Frauenrechte, sowie zur Förderung von Demokratie und guter Regierungsführung beitragen und so eine wichtige Rolle bei der Eindämmung staatlicher Übergriffe spielen kann. Dies ist ein Schlüsselelement für den Aufbau einer vertieften Demokratie.

Die Hohe Vertreterin /Vizepräsidentin Catherine Ashton hat immer wieder auf die zentrale Rolle hingewiesen, die Frauen in der Gesellschaft spielen. Im September 2011 lud sie am Rande der UN-Generalversammlung in New York unter anderem Hillary Clinton, Helen Clark und Michelle Bachelet zu einem hochrangigen Treffen ein, um die internationale Aufmerksamkeit darauf zu lenken, dass weltweit und somit auch in Nordafrika eine aktive Beteiligung von Frauen an politischen Prozessen sichergestellt werden muss. Die EU setzt sich seit langem nachdrücklich für die Frauenrechte und die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter in allen Bereichen der Gesellschaft ein. 2006 hat sie sich im Rahmen der Europa-Mittelmeer-Partnerschaft dem „Istanbul-Prozess“ verpflichtet, der die Geschlechtergleichstellung fördert.

Neben einem speziellen Programm zur Förderung der Geschlechtergleichstellung steht der Zivilgesellschaft eine Reihe von Instrumenten zu Verfügung, die ihre Bemühungen um die Sicherstellung der Frauenrechte unterstützen. Dazu zählt vor allem das Europäische Instrument für Demokratie und Menschenrechte. Auf Initiative von Kommissar Füle, der für die Erweiterung und die Europäische Nachbarschaftspolitik zuständig ist, richtete die Kommission im September 2011 außerdem die Fazilität zur Förderung der Zivilgesellschaft in den Nachbarschaftsländern ein. Darüber hinaus leitet die EU eine regionale Kampagne für die politische Teilhabe von Frauen in Nahost und Nordafrika ein, die sich auf ihre „Leitlinien betreffend Gewalt gegen Frauen und Mädchen und die Bekämpfung aller Formen der Diskriminierung von Frauen und Mädchen“ stützt.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012595/11

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(12 January 2012)

Subject: Support and promotion of democratic processes and women's rights in the countries affected by the Arab Spring

The countries affected by the Arab Spring, such as Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia and Libya, are experiencing major political and social upheaval.

1.

Is the EU supporting and encouraging the efforts to bring about democracy and reform in these countries through its foreign policy, based on the universality of human rights? If so, which and how?

2.

In particular, does the EU support and promote women’s rights and gender equality in these countries? If so, what instruments is it using and in which countries?

3.

What concrete results have already been achieved?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2012)

The European Union’s response to events in the Arab Spring countries was outlined in the two communications: ‘A partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the southern Mediterranean’ of 8 March 2011 and ‘A new response to a changing Neighbourhood’ of 25 May 2011. The EU recognises that a thriving civil society can help uphold human rights, including women’s rights, and contribute to democracy building and good governance, playing an important role in checking government excesses. It is a key element for building deep democracy.

In meetings and visits, the High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) Catherine Ashton has constantly highlighted the central role women play in their respective societies. In New York in September 2011, in the margins of the UN General Assembly, she convened a high level meeting with, inter alia, Hillary Clinton, Helen Clark and Michelle Bachelet to draw international attention to the need to ensure women’s active participation in the political processes worldwide, including in North Africa. The EU has a long-lasting and strong commitment to women’s rights and gender equality in all aspects of society. Within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the EU since 2006 committed itself to the ‘Istanbul Process’ which promotes gender equality.

As well as a dedicated programme towards gender, a number of instruments are available to civil society in their efforts to ensure women's rights. This includes in particular the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. At the initiative of Commissioner Füle, responsible for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, the Commission established also the Neighbourhood Civil Society facility in September 2011. In addition, the EU is launching a regional campaign on ‘Women’s Political participation in the Middle East and North Africa’ under the EU’s guidelines on violence and discrimination against women and girls.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-012608/11

a la Comisión

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) y Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE

La Unión Europea está construida sobre los principios de solidaridad y de responsabilidades compartidas dentro de la Comunidad con el fin de ofrecer calidad de vida a todos los ciudadanos. Como respuesta a las graves inundaciones que tuvieron lugar en Europa Central durante el verano de 2002, la Unión Europea creó el Fondo de Solidaridad para ayudar a los países que lo necesitaban.

1.

¿Está la Comisión de acuerdo en que la prevención de las catástrofes naturales es de vital importancia para reducir al mínimo las consecuencias de futuras catástrofes naturales?

2.

¿Está la Comisión de acuerdo en que las actividades preventivas se deben incluir en el Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE?

3.

¿Qué cambios se pueden prever para incluir criterios orientados hacia la prevención en el nuevo reglamento para el Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE 2014-2020?

Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(10 de febrero de 2012)

1.

La Comisión, junto con los Estados miembros y respaldada por el Parlamento, está poniendo en práctica una ambiciosa estrategia de prevención que abarque la mejora de los conocimientos, la evaluación del riesgo y la planificación de la gestión del riesgo, y que además utilice íntegramente las posibilidades de financiación de la UE para respaldar medidas, como la gestión de las inundaciones. Además, la reciente propuesta de la Comisión de revisar la legislación de protección civil integra, por primera vez, disposiciones para la prevención, con el objetivo de abordar la totalidad del ciclo de gestión de las catástrofes.

2.

El Fondo de Solidaridad de la Unión Europea se creó con el propósito específico de conceder asistencia financiera para operaciones de emergencia en el contexto de las consecuencias de las catástrofes naturales importantes. Los mecanismos para activar y aplicar el Fondo de Solidaridad y la manera en que se obtienen los créditos presupuestarios necesarios —aparte del presupuesto normal de la UE— están encaminados a ese único objetivo. Si bien la prevención de catástrofes es una prioridad clave entre las políticas de la UE, la Comisión estima que el Fondo de Solidaridad debería seguir centrándose en su propósito inicial.

3.

El Reglamento (CE) n° 2012/2002 del Consejo, por el que se crea el Fondo de Solidaridad de la Unión Europea, no tiene fecha límite, sino que seguirá en vigor hasta que sea sustituido o modificado. El 6 de octubre de 2011, la Comisión presentó una Comunicación sobre el futuro del Fondo de Solidaridad, que contiene una serie de propuestas para mejorar las operaciones de dicho instrumento; las propuestas incluyen reflexiones sobre la posibilidad de condicionar la ayuda del Fondo de Solidaridad a la realización de esfuerzos previos en términos de prevención. Dependiendo del resultado de la discusión de la presente Comunicación con el Parlamento, el Consejo y otras partes interesadas, se presentará una propuesta legislativa.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-012608/11

à la Commission

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) et Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 janvier 2012)

Objet: Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne

L'Union européenne est fondée sur les principes de solidarité et de responsabilité partagée au sein de la communauté, afin d'apporter une certaine qualité de vie à tous les citoyens. À la suite des importantes inondations qui ont touché l'Europe centrale lors de l'été 2002, l'Union européenne a instauré le Fonds de solidarité en vue d'aider ces pays dans le besoin.

1.

La Commission convient-elle que la prévention des catastrophes naturelles revêt une importance fondamentale afin de réduire au minimum les conséquences de futures catastrophes naturelles?

2.

La Commission convient-elle que des activités de prévention devraient être intégrées dans le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne?

3.

Quels changements sont à prévoir afin d'inclure des critères axés sur la prévention dans le nouveau règlement du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne pour 2014-2020?

Réponse donnée par M. Hahn au nom de la Commission

(10 février 2012)

1.

La Commission, en collaboration avec les États membres et avec le soutien du Parlement, met actuellement en œuvre une stratégie de prévention ambitieuse comprenant un renforcement des connaissances, une évaluation des risques et une planification de la gestion des risques, tout en tirant pleinement parti des possibilités de financement de l'UE afin de soutenir des mesures telles que la gestion des inondations. En outre, la récente proposition de la Commission de révision de la législation en matière de protection civile intègre pour la première fois des dispositions en matière de prévention ayant pour finalité de traiter l'ensemble du cycle de gestion des catastrophes.

2.

Le Fonds de solidarité de l'UE a été spécifiquement mis en place pour fournir une assistance financière d'urgence à la suite de catastrophes naturelles majeures. Les mécanismes d'activation et de mise en œuvre des crédits du Fonds de solidarité et les modalités de mobilisation des crédits budgétaires nécessaires — au-delà du budget normal de l'UE —, tendent vers ce seul objectif. Même si la prévention de catastrophes naturelles fait partie des priorités d'action majeures de l'UE, la Commission estime que le Fonds de solidarité ne devrait pas s'écarter de sa finalité première.

3.

Le règlement (CE) n

o

 2012/2002 du Conseil instituant le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne n'est pas limité dans le temps et demeure en vigueur jusqu'à ce qu'il soit remplacé ou modifié. Le 6 octobre 2011, la Commission a présenté une communication sur l'avenir du Fonds de solidarité. Elle contenait diverses propositions destinées à améliorer l'utilisation de cet instrument, parmi lesquelles des réflexions sur l'opportunité de subordonner l'aide du Fonds de solidarité à des efforts préalables en matière de prévention. En fonction des résultats du débat sur la présente communication avec le Parlement, le Conseil et les autres parties prenantes, une proposition législative suivra.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-012608/11

alla Commissione

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) e Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE

L’Unione europea è costruita sulla base dei principi di solidarietà e di responsabilità condivisi nella Comunità allo scopo di fornire un’adeguata qualità di vita a tutti i cittadini. In risposta alle gravi inondazioni avvenute nell’Europa centrale nell'estate del 2002, l'Unione europea ha istituito il Fondo di solidarietà al fine di aiutare questi paesi nel momento del bisogno.

1.

La Commissione è d’accordo che la prevenzione di disastri naturali è di importanza essenziale al fine di minimizzare le conseguenze dei futuri disastri naturali?

2.

La Commissione è d’accordo sul fatto che le attività preventive debbano essere incluse nel Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE?

3.

Quali cambiamenti possono essere previsti al fine di includere i criteri finalizzati alla prevenzione nel nuovo regolamento relativo al Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE 2014-2020?

Risposta data da Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione

(10 febbraio 2012)

1.

La Commissione, di concerto con gli Stati membri e con il sostegno del Parlamento, sta portando avanti una strategia ambiziosa di prevenzione finalizzata a migliorare le conoscenze, a valutare i rischi e a pianificare la gestione dei rischi, nonché a sfruttare appieno le possibilità di finanziamento da parte dell'Unione di misure quali la gestione delle inondazioni. Inoltre, per la prima volta, la recente proposta della Commissione di revisione della legislazione in materia di protezione civile prevede disposizioni sulla prevenzione, con l'obiettivo di coprire l'intero ciclo di gestione delle catastrofi.

2.

Il Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea è stato istituito con l'intento specifico di sostenere finanziariamente interventi d'urgenza all'indomani di gravi catastrofi naturali. I meccanismi per attivare il Fondo di solidarietà e le modalità di mobilitazione degli stanziamenti necessari — in aggiunta al normale bilancio dell'UE — hanno questo unico obiettivo. Anche se la prevenzione delle catastrofi naturali è una delle priorità fondamentali delle politiche dell'UE, la Commissione ritiene che il Fondo di solidarietà non debba perdere di vista il suo obiettivo iniziale.

3.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 2012/2002 del Consiglio che istituisce il Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea non ha scadenza, ma resta in vigore fino a quando non sarà sostituito o modificato. Il 6 ottobre 2011 la Commissione ha presentato una comunicazione sul futuro del Fondo di solidarietà, contenente una serie di proposte destinate a migliorare il funzionamento di questo strumento, in cui è prospettata anche la possibilità di subordinare l'intervento del Fondo di solidarietà all'azione di prevenzione svolta in precedenza. In base all'esito del dibattito sulla comunicazione con il Parlamento, il Consiglio e le altre parti interessate, sarà presentata una proposta legislativa.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-012608/11

aan de Commissie

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) en Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 januari 2012)

Betreft: Solidariteitsfonds van de EU

De Europese Unie is gestoeld op de beginselen van solidariteit en gedeelde verantwoordelijkheden binnen de Gemeenschappen om alle burgers een goede levenskwaliteit te bieden. Als reactie op de ernstige overstromingen in Centraal-Europa in de zomer van 2002, richtte de Europese Unie het Solidariteitsfonds op om de landen in nood te helpen.

1.

Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat het voorkomen van natuurrampen van essentieel belang is om de gevolgen van toekomstige natuurrampen tot een minimum te beperken?

2.

Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat preventieactiviteiten opgenomen moeten worden in het Solidariteitsfonds van de EU?

3.

Welke wijzigingen kunnen er doorgevoerd worden om op preventie gerichte criteria op te nemen in de nieuwe verordening voor het Solidariteitsfonds van de EU 2014-2020?

Antwoord van de heer Hahn namens de Commissie

(10 februari 2012)

1.

Om maatregelen zoals overstromingsbeheer te ondersteunen, werkt de Commissie, samen met de lidstaten en met de steun van het Parlement, aan de uitvoering van een ambitieuze preventiestrategie, die gebaseerd is op verruimde kennis, risicobeoordeling en planning van risicobeheersing in combinatie met een maximaal gebruik van de financieringsmogelijkheden van de EU. Het recente voorstel van de Commissie om de wetgeving inzake civiele bescherming te herzien, combineert bovendien voor het eerst preventiebepalingen met de doelstelling om de gehele rampenbeheercyclus aan te pakken.

2.

Het Solidariteitsfonds van de EU is opgericht met de specifieke bedoeling financiële steun te verstrekken voor noodacties in de nasleep van grote natuurrampen. De mechanismen om het Solidariteitsfonds te activeren en in te schakelen en de manier waarop de noodzakelijke begrotingsmiddelen worden vergaard, los van de normale EU-begroting, zijn op die doelstelling afgestemd. Aangezien het voorkomen van rampen tot de hoogste prioriteiten van het EU-beleid behoort, is de Commissie van mening dat het Solidariteitsfonds zich op zijn oorspronkelijke doelstelling moet blijven concentreren.

3.

Verordening nr. 2012/2002 van de Raad tot oprichting van het Solidariteitsfonds van de EU is niet beperkt in de tijd en blijft geldig tot zij wordt vervangen of gewijzigd. De Commissie heeft op 6 oktober 2011 een mededeling over de toekomst van het Solidariteitsfonds ingediend waarin zij een aantal voorstellen doet om de operaties van deze instrumenten te verbeteren, met inbegrip van overwegingen om steun uit het Solidariteitsfonds afhankelijk te stellen van eerdere inspanningen op het gebied van preventie. Afhankelijk van het resultaat van de discussie met het Parlement, de Raad en andere belanghebbenden over deze mededeling zal er een wetsvoorstel volgen.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-012608/11

do Komisji

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) oraz Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 stycznia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Fundusz Solidarności UE

Unia Europejska opiera się na zasadach solidarności i podziału odpowiedzialności w ramach Wspólnoty w celu zapewnienia jakości życia wszystkim obywatelom. W reakcji na intensywne powodzie w Europie Środkowej, do których doszło latem 2002 r., Unia Europejska utworzyła Fundusz Solidarności, aby pomóc państwom w potrzebie.

1.

Czy Komisja zgadza się ze stwierdzeniem, że zapobieganie klęskom żywiołowym ma kluczowe znaczenie dla minimalizacji skutków przyszłych klęsk żywiołowych?

2.

Czy Komisja zgadza się, że należy uwzględnić działania prewencyjne w Funduszu Solidarności UE?

3.

Jakie zmiany należy przewidzieć w nowym rozporządzeniu w sprawie Funduszu Solidarności UE 2014-2020, aby uwzględnić kryteria ukierunkowane na zapobieganie?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji

(10 lutego 2012 r.)

1.

Komisja, przy poparciu Parlamentu, realizuje wraz z państwami członkowskimi ambitną strategię zapobiegawczą, obejmującą – oprócz maksymalnego wykorzystywania unijnych możliwości finansowania – poszerzanie wiedzy, ocenę ryzyka i planowanie zarządzania ryzykiem, w celu wspierania takich środków, jak zarządzanie zagrożeniem powodziowym. Ponadto niedawna propozycja Komisji, aby dokonać przeglądu prawodawstwa w zakresie ochrony ludności, po raz pierwszy łączy przepisy dotyczące zapobiegania, co pozwoli zająć się kwestią pełnego cyklu zarządzania katastrofami.

2.

Fundusz Solidarności UE został ustanowiony w szczególnym celu udzielania pomocy finansowej na działania nadzwyczajne w następstwie wystąpienia poważnych klęsk żywiołowych. Mechanizmy uruchamiania i wdrażania Funduszu Solidarności oraz sposób, w jaki podwyższane są niezbędne środki budżetowe – przekraczające zwykły budżet UE – służą spełnieniu tego jedynego celu. Podczas gdy zapobieganie katastrofom jest kluczowym priorytetem polityk UE, Komisja uważa, że Fundusz Solidarności powinien w dalszym ciągu skupiać się na swoim pierwotnym celu.

3.

Rozporządzenie Rady 2012/2002 ustanawiające Fundusz Solidarności UE nie jest ograniczone w czasie i pozostaje w mocy do momentu jego zastąpienia lub zmiany. W dniu 6 października 2011 r. Komisja przedstawiła komunikat w sprawie przyszłości Funduszu Solidarności zawierający kilka propozycji usprawnienia funkcjonowania tego instrumentu, w tym propozycję uzależnienia pomocy z Funduszu Solidarności od wcześniejszych wysiłków w zakresie zapobiegania. W zależności od wyników debaty na temat tego komunikatu z Parlamentem Europejskim, Radą i innymi zainteresowanymi stronami kolejnym krokiem będzie przygotowanie wniosku legislacyjnego.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-012608/11

à Comissão

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) e Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 de Janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Fundo de Solidariedade da UE

A União Europeia é construída com base nos princípios da solidariedade e das responsabilidades partilhadas no seio da Comunidade para fornecer qualidade de vida a todos os cidadãos. Em resposta a cheias graves na Europa Central, no verão de 2002, a União Europeia organizou o Fundo de Solidariedade para ajudar os países em necessidade.

1.

Concorda a Comissão que a prevenção de catástrofes naturais é crucial para minimizar as consequências de catástrofes naturais futuras?

2.

Concorda a Comissão que as atividades de prevenção deviam ser incluídas no Fundo de Solidariedade da UE?

3.

Que alterações se podem prever que incluam critérios orientados para a prevenção na nova regulamentação do Fundo de Solidariedade 2014/2020?

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(10 de Fevereiro de 2012)

1.

A Comissão, juntamente com os Estados-Membros e com o apoio do Parlamento, está a implementar uma ambiciosa estratégia de prevenção, que prevê uma melhoria do conhecimento, da avaliação dos riscos e do planeamento da gestão dos riscos, além da plena utilização das possibilidades financeiras da UE para apoiar medidas como a gestão das inundações. Além disso, a recente proposta da Comissão para rever a legislação relativa à proteção civil integra, pela primeira vez, disposições em matéria de prevenção com o objetivo de responder a todo o ciclo de gestão das catástrofes.

2.

A criação do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE teve como objetivo específico apoiar financeiramente as operações de emergência após a ocorrência de catástrofes naturais graves. Os mecanismos de ativação e aplicação do Fundo de Solidariedade e a forma como as dotações orçamentais necessárias são disponibilizadas — adicionalmente ao orçamento normal da UE — estão orientados para esse único objetivo. Embora a prevenção de catástrofes seja uma prioridade fundamental das políticas da UE, a Comissão considera que o Fundo de Solidariedade deve manter-se centrado no seu objetivo inicial.

3.

O Regulamento (CE) n.° 2012/2002 do Conselho, de 11 de novembro de 2002, que institui o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia, não é limitado no tempo e continuará em vigor até à sua substituição ou alteração. Em 6 de outubro de 2011, a Comissão apresentou uma comunicação sobre o futuro do Fundo de Solidariedade, que contém um conjunto de propostas destinadas a melhorar a utilização destes instrumentos, incluindo uma reflexão sobre a possibilidade de condicionar a ajuda do Fundo de Solidariedade a esforços prévios em termos de prevenção. Dependendo dos resultados dos debates sobre esta comunicação com o Parlamento Europeu, o Conselho e as outras partes interessadas, deverá ser apresentada uma proposta legislativa.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-012608/11

adresată Comisiei

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) şi Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 ianuarie 2012)

Subiect: Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene

Uniunea Europeană are la bază principiul solidarității și al responsabilităților comune din cadrul Comunității pentru asigurarea calității vieții tuturor cetățenilor. Ca urmare a inundațiilor severe din Europa Centrală din vara anului 2002, Uniunea Europeană a instituit Fondul de solidaritate pentru a ajuta statele la nevoie.

1.

Este Comisia de acord că prevenirea dezastrelor naturale are o importanță esențială în reducerea consecințelor viitoarelor dezastre naturale?

2.

Este Comisia de acord că activitățile de prevenire ar trebui incluse in Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene?

3.

Ce schimbări ar putea fi anticipate pentru a include criterii orientate spre prevenire în noul regulament privind Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene 2014-2020?

Răspuns dat de dl Hahn în numele Comisiei

(10 februarie 2012)

1.

Comisia, împreună cu statele membre și susținută de către Parlament, este în curs de implementare a unei strategii ambițioase în materie de prevenire care vizează îmbunătățirea cunoștințelor, evaluarea riscurilor și planificarea gestionării riscurilor, pe lângă utilizarea deplină a posibilităților de finanțare la nivelul UE a măsurilor de sprijin precum gestionarea inundațiilor. Pe de altă parte, recenta propunere a Comisiei de revizuire a legislației de protecție civilă include, pentru prima dată, dispoziții în materie de prevenire având obiectivul de a aborda întregul ciclu de gestionare a dezastrelor.

2.

Fondul de Solidaritate al Uniunii Europene a fost înființat cu scopul specific de a acorda asistență financiară pentru operațiuni de urgență în urma unei catastrofe naturale majore. Mecanismele pentru activarea și punerea în aplicare a Fondului de solidaritate și modul în care sunt obținute alocările bugetare necesare — suplimentare față de bugetul normal al UE — sunt orientate spre atingerea aceluiași obiectiv unic. Deși prevenirea dezastrelor este o prioritate cheie în cadrul politicilor UE, Comisia consideră că Fondul de Solidaritate al Uniunii Europene ar trebui să se concentreze, în continuare, asupra scopului său inițial.

3.

Regulamentul 2012/2002 al Consiliului de instituire a Fondului de Solidaritate al Uniunii Europene nu este limitat în timp și continuă să fie în vigoare până în momentul în care va fi înlocuit sau modificat. La 6 octombrie 2011, Comisia a prezentat o comunicare privind viitorul Fondului de solidaritate care conține o serie de propuneri de îmbunătățire a operațiunilor acestui instrument, printre care se numără reflecții cu privire la posibilitatea de a condiționa acordarea sprijinului prin Fondul de Solidaritate de depunerea, în prealabil, a unor eforturi în materie de prevenire. În funcție de rezultatul dezbaterii pe marginea acestei comunicări cu Parlamentul, Consiliul și alte părți interesate, se va elabora o propunere legislativă.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012608/11

to the Commission

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), Jan Olbrycht (PPE), Iosif Matula (PPE), Nuno Teixeira (PPE), Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE), Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) and Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(10 January 2012)

Subject: EU Solidarity Fund

The European Union is built around the principles of solidarity and of shared responsibilities within the Community to provide quality of life for all citizens. In response to the severe floods in Central Europe in the summer of 2002, the European Union set up the Solidarity Fund to help those countries in need.

1.

Does the Commission agree that prevention of natural disasters is of essential importance to minimise the consequences of future natural disasters?

2.

Does the Commission agree that prevention activities should be included in the EU Solidarity Fund?

3.

What changes can be foreseen to include prevention-orientated criteria in the new regulation for the EU Solidarity Fund 2014-2020?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2012)

1.

The Commission, together with Member States and supported by the Parliament, is implementing an ambitious prevention strategy covering enhanced knowledge, risk assessment and risk management planning, in addition to making full use of EU financing possibilities to support measures such as flood management. Furthermore, the recent Commission proposal to revise the Civil Protection legislation integrates, for the first time, provisions for prevention with the objective to address the full disaster management cycle.

2.

The EU Solidarity Fund was set up with the specific purpose of granting financial assistance for emergency operations in the aftermath of major natural disasters. The mechanisms to activate and implement the Solidarity Fund and the way in which the necessary budgetary appropriations are raised — over and above the normal EU budget — are geared towards that sole objective. While the prevention of disasters is a key priority among EU policies, the Commission believes that the Solidarity Fund should remain focused on its initial purpose.

3.

Council Regulation 2012/2002 establishing the EU Solidarity Fund is not limited in time and continues to be in force until it is replaced or amended. On 6 October 2011, the Commission has presented a communication on the future of the Solidarity Fund containing a number of proposals to improve the operations of this instruments which include reflections about making Solidarity Fund aid conditional to prior efforts in terms of prevention. Depending on the outcome of the discussion of this communication with the Parliament, the Council and other stakeholders, a legislative proposal will follow.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-012612/11

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 de Janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Articulação entre o Fundo Social Europeu e o Programa Europeu para a Mudança Social e a Inovação

A Comissão Europeia lançou a estratégia Europa 2020, criando condições para a União Europeia alcançar um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo. Entre as várias prioridades estratégicas, salienta-se o objetivo de alcançar uma economia com uma taxa de emprego elevada que assegure a coesão económica, social e territorial.

Em outubro de 2011, a Comissão Europeia publicou as propostas de regulamentos da Política de Coesão para o período de 2014/2020.

Entre as propostas apresentadas, salienta-se o Fundo Social Europeu (COM(2011)0607 final) e o Programa Europeu para a Mudança Social e a Inovação (COM(2011)0607 final). Ambos os programas consideram como sendo prioritário o apoio aos cidadãos em matéria de emprego e inclusão social.

Segundo a proposta da Comissão Europeia, o Fundo Social Europeu pretende trabalhar em sinergia com o novo programa integrado em prol da mudança e da inovação social. Juntos, constituem a vasta iniciativa europeia em matéria de emprego e inclusão social.

Considera-se que a União Europeia possui uma abordagem estratégica e integrada dos diferentes fundos estruturais para apoiar as pessoas com dificuldades a nível laboral, estimulando novas oportunidades que irão solucionar as dificuldades mais prementes.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Quais as principais diferenças ao nível de intervenção social entre o Fundo Social Europeu e o Programa Europeu para a Mudança Social e a Inovação?

Como se prevê a correta articulação entre os dois programas em causa?

Além do crescimento inclusivo que consta da estratégia Europa 2020, tem a Comissão alguma outra linha de ação programática para corresponder ao objetivo de diminuir as dificuldades das populações no mercado laboral?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(14 de Fevereiro de 2012)

O Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) e o Programa da União Europeia para a Mudança Social e a Inovação têm objetivos similares, mas diferem substancialmente. O Programa da União Europeia para a Mudança Social e a Inovação retoma e alarga o âmbito de aplicação de três programas existentes (₫Progress₻ (3)«Progress» (4)

O Programa da União Europeia para a Mudança Social e a Inovação centrar-se-á no apoio à coordenação política, no reforço das capacidades, na partilha de boas práticas, na recolha de dados fundamentais, no desenvolvimento de instrumentos estatísticos a nível da UE e no ensaio de políticas inovadoras. As medidas mais bem sucedidas serão reforçadas com o apoio do FSE (5), a fim de que o Programa da União Europeia para a Mudança Social e a Inovação possa ser visto como uma plataforma experimental para as atividades do FSE. A Comissão vai privilegiar a exploração de sinergias entre o FSE e Programa da União Europeia para a Mudança Social e a Inovação e assegurar a sua complementaridade.

Embora os dois instrumentos constituam a principal fonte de financiamento da UE para promover o emprego e a inserção social, outros instrumentos da UE, como os Fundos Estruturais e os Programas Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida e Juventude em Ação, têm igualmente uma incidência indireta no emprego. A estratégia ₫Europa 2020₻, nomeadamente as iniciativas emblemáticas como a Plataforma Europeia contra a Pobreza e a Exclusão Social, a de Juventude em Movimento e Uma União da Inovação e o método aberto de coordenação, proporciona um quadro político global para a cooperação entre os Estados-Membros e a Comissão que abrange a reforma estrutural. A 20 de dezembro de 2011, a Comissão propôs também a iniciativa ₫Oportunidades para a Juventude₻, que prevê uma ação com vista a prevenir e combater o desemprego dos jovens.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012612/11

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(10 January 2012)

Subject: The relationship between the European Social Fund and the European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation

The European Commission has launched Europe 2020, a strategy for creating conditions for the European Union to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Foremost among the various strategic objectives is to create an economy with high levels of employment in order to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion.

In October 2011 the European commission published its proposals for Regulations on the Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020.

The proposals put forward stressed the importance of the European Social Fund (COM(2011) 0607 final) and the European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation (COM(2011) 0607 final). Both programmes prioritise support for citizens in the areas of employment and social inclusion.

According to the European Commission’s proposals, the European Social Fund should work in synergy with the new integrated programme for change and social innovation. Together they form a major European initiative in the areas of employment and social change.

The European Union has a strategic and integrated policy approach involving different Structural Funds aimed at supporting people experiencing employment problems, encouraging new opportunities which should solve the most pressing problems.

I should like to ask the Commission:

What are the main differences in terms of social intervention between the European Social Fund and the European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation?

What does it see as the appropriate relationship between these two programmes?

Besides the overall growth envisaged in the Europe 2020 strategy, does the Commission have any other lines of action under the programme action aimed at reducing the difficulties people face in the labour market?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2012)

The European Social Fund (ESF) and the Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI) have similar aims but differ substantially. The PSCI incorporates and extends the coverage of three existing programmes (Progress (6), EURES and Progress Microfinance (7)). Its total budget (EUR 850 million) will amount to about 1 % of the proposed ESF budget (EUR 84 billion) and will be managed directly by the Commission, while the ESF is implemented at national or regional level through operational programmes drawn up by the Member States and adopted by the Commission (shared management).

The PSCI will focus on supporting policy coordination, sharing best practice, capacity-building, gathering evidence, developing statistical tools at EU level and testing innovative policies. The most successful measures will be scaled up with ESF support (8), so PSCI may be regarded as an experimental platform for ESF activities. The Commission will put special emphasis on harnessing synergy between the ESF and the PSCI and will ensure they are complementary.

Although the two instruments are the main source of EU funding for promoting employment and social inclusion, other EU instruments, such as the Structural Funds and the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) and Youth in Action, also have an indirect impact on employment. The Europe 2020 strategy, including such flagship initiatives as the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, Youth on the Move and Innovation Union, and the Social Open Method of Coordination provide a comprehensive policy framework for cooperation between the Member States and the Commission that covers structural reform. On 20 December 2011 the Commission also proposed a Youth Opportunities Initiative, which provides for action to prevent and fight youth unemployment.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012640/11

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Ensuring first class medical care is afforded to Alzheimer's patients who are admitted to Accident and Emergency departments

Can the Commission state what ‘checks and balances’ are in place to ensure first class medical care is afforded to Alzheimer’s patients who are admitted to Accident and Emergency departments across the European Union, with specific regard to the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2012)

The communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on a European initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias from 2009 is the basis for Commission action in the area of Alzheimer’s disease.

The question of organising emergency healthcare response for Alzheimer's patients in specific Member States is, however, an issue under the responsibility of each individual Member State in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012646/11

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Human rights of Turkish Kurds and the alleged use of ‘chemical’ weapons by the Turkish air force against Kurdish guerrillas

I have been contacted by a constituent from a London-based charity called Roj Women about the Turkish State’s intensifying military operation against Kurdish guerrilla fighters since August 2011.

Roj Women also claims that civilian human-rights activists and elected BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) members, BDP supporters and non-Kurdish supporters have been arrested and detained on a large scale.

As Turkey’s Government extends military operations for another year, allowing the armed forces to carry out cross-border operations into the Iraqi Kurdish regions, Turkish warplanes have been accused by this UK-based NGO of bombing Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq with resulting casualties.

According to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association, Turkish warplanes have also allegedly killed 36 guerrilla fighters with napalm bombs and what have been termed ‘chemical’ weapons in the Guze Reshe and Gunde Pire areas of Chele district. Roj Women alleges that the armed forces have prohibited post-mortem examinations of these fighters to establish the true cause of death.

Is the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy aware of these alarming and controversial allegations of the use of ‘chemical’ weapons, and, if they are proven to be true by independent observers, is such a military measure ever permissible under international law? Has the EU raised these allegations with the Turkish Government or demanded an investigation to establish the facts, given that Turkey is an EU candidate country?

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

(17 April 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President is concerned about the allegations on the use of chemical weapons in recent months. During discussions at working level with the Commission at the beginning of December 2011 Turkey replied that an investigation has been launched and that the bodies of the PKK members killed during the clashes have been sent to the Forensic Medicine Institution (FMI) to identify the cause of death. The Commission will continue to monitor the issue.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012647/11

to the Commission

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Human rights of Turkish Kurds and the alleged use of ‘chemical’ weapons by the Turkish air force against Kurdish guerrillas

I have been contacted by a constituent from a London-based charity called Roj Women about the Turkish State’s intensifying military operation against Kurdish guerrilla fighters since August 2011.

Roj Women also claims that civilian human-rights activists and elected BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) members, BDP supporters and non-Kurdish supporters have been arrested and detained on a large scale.

As Turkey’s Government extends military operations for another year, allowing the armed forces to carry out cross-border operations into the Iraqi Kurdish regions, Turkish warplanes have been accused by this UK-based NGO of bombing Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq with resulting casualties.

According to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association, Turkish warplanes have also allegedly killed 36 guerrilla fighters with napalm bombs and what have been termed ‘chemical’ weapons in the Guze Reshe and Gunde Pire areas of Chele district. Roj Women alleges that the armed forces have prohibited post-mortem examinations of these fighters to establish the true cause of death.

Is the Commission aware of these alarming and controversial allegations of the use of ‘chemical’ weapons, and, if they are proven to be true by independent observers, is such a military measure ever permissible under international law? Has the Commission raised these allegations with the Turkish Government or demanded an investigation to establish the facts, given that Turkey is an EU candidate country?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2012)

The Commission is concerned about the allegations regarding the use of chemical weapons in recent months, and has raised the issue with the Turkish authorities. During discussions at working level at the beginning of December 2011, Turkey replied that an investigation has been launched and that the bodies of the PKK members killed during the clashes have been sent to the Forensic Medicine Institution (FMI) to identify the cause of death. The Commission will continue to raise the issue.

In this context, the Commission would like to underline that all parties need to work unremittingly to bring peace and prosperity for all the citizens of Turkey. The south-east of Turkey needs peace, democracy and stability as well as social, economic and cultural development. This can only be achieved through consensus on concrete measures expanding the social, economic and cultural rights of the people living in the region.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-012649/11

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(11 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Possibili programmi e finanziamenti a sostegno di progetti comuni realizzati all'interno del partenariato tra le città di Roma (Italia) e di Cork (Irlanda)

Le Associazioni culturali ₫Insight Cities₻ e ₫Irlanda italiana₻, con il supporto del Comune di Roma, propongono un progetto di partenariato tra la città di Roma e Cork City. Si tratta, infatti, di due città che condividono una forte eredità cristiana ed europea ed un ampio patrimonio artistico e culturale.

I partenariati tra città sono intesi a formare vincoli tra i comuni e i loro cittadini rafforzando i legami culturali e commerciali. In questo caso, sono stati proprio i cittadini delle due città a chiedere ai Comuni un partenariato ufficiale. Quest'ultimo sarà incentrato su aree quali arte e cultura, ambiente, sport e tempo libero, sviluppo, lavoro, giovani e istruzione. A tal fine, verrà promosso il ₫gemellaggio₻ tra istituti culturali e scolastici (scuole superiori ed università) in Irlanda e in Italia.

Il partenariato, inoltre, farà perno sul turismo culturale, sulle arti e sulle tradizioni letterarie che da sempre svolgono un ruolo chiave nell'economia di entrambe le città. Gli ultimi dati disponibili mostrano come il turismo italiano in Irlanda apporta entrate per circa 162 milioni di euro l'anno, e che i turisti italiani negli ultimi anni sono aumentati del 10 %.

La realizzazione di un simile progetto potrebbe favorire gli scambi commerciali, il turismo e il dialogo interculturale. Infine, il progetto, oltre a essere sostenuto da diversi Consiglieri del Comune di Roma, è a conoscenza dell'Ambasciata irlandese in Italia.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione indicare:

se all'interno del programma di partenariato tra città esistono programmi o finanziamenti volti a sostenere la realizzazione di progetti comuni;

un quadro generale della situazione?

Risposta data da Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione

(24 febbraio 2012)

La Commissione è favorevole ai raduni di cittadini e di gruppi di cittadini di città gemellate, che possono così beneficiare dei partenariati tra comuni per sviluppare una migliore consapevolezza e buone relazioni tra i rispettivi cittadini.

Dall'avvio del programma ₫Europa per i cittadini₻ 2007-2013, si è assistito ad uno sviluppo molto positivo dell'attività di gemellaggio di città, specialmente in relazione a progetti multilaterali e reti di città gemellate. Ogni anno il programma finanzia circa 1 000 progetti di gemellaggio, con oltre 3 000 città. Il numero di progetti multilaterali di gemellaggio di città è stato sempre maggiore e ha appena raggiunto la metà di tali progetti.

La Commissione invita l'onorevole parlamentare a consultare il sito Internet del programma in cui potrà trovare tutte le informazioni pertinenti, inclusi, tra l'altro, la guida del programma (9), il funzionamento della procedura di candidatura e di selezione (10), le opportunità di finanziamento per il 2012, le rispettive scadenze e le informazioni necessarie per presentare una candidatura (11). I punti di contatto per l'Europa per i cittadini negli Stati membri possono anch'essi fornire informazioni e assistenza (12).

Un portale quale ₫A Universe of Twinning₻ (Un universo di gemellaggi) (13) è un buon esempio di piattaforma a sostegno del gemellaggio di città, che fornisce scambio di informazioni, condivisione delle pratiche ottimali, strumenti per la ricerca di partner e altre informazioni utili.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012649/11

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Possible programmes and funding to support joint projects carried out as part of the partnership between the city of Rome (Italy) and Cork (Ireland)

The cultural associations ‘Insight Cities’ and ‘Irlanda italiana’ are proposing a partnership project between the city of Rome and Cork City with the support of the City of Rome. These two cities share a strong Christian and European tradition, as well as a vast artistic and cultural heritage.

The aim of partnerships between cities is the forging of links between municipalities and their citizens so as to strengthen cultural and commercial ties. In this case, it was none other that the citizens of both cities who asked the municipalities to establish an official partnership. The partnership will focus on areas such as art and culture, the environment, sports and leisure, development, work, youth and education. To this end, ‘twinning’ between cultural and educational institutions (colleges and universities) will be promoted in Ireland and Italy.

The partnership also will hinge on cultural tourism, on the arts and on literary traditions, which have always played a key role in the economies of both cities. The latest statistics indicate that Italian tourism brings a total of around 162 million euro a year into Ireland, and that the number of Italian tourists has increased by 10 % in recent years.

The carrying out of such a project could benefit trade, tourism and intercultural dialogue. Finally, apart from being supported by several Councillors of the City of Rome, the project is also known to the Irish Embassy in Italy.

In this regard, can the Commission provide:

information about whether the partnership programme includes programmes or funds for the support and implementation of joint projects;

an overview of the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2012)

The Commission supports gatherings of citizens and citizens' groups from twinned towns so as to benefit from the partnership between municipalities to develop better understanding and good relations between their citizens.

Since the launching of the Programme Europe for Citizens 2007-2013 there has been a very positive development of town twinning activities, especially in relation to multilateral projects and networks of twinned towns. Every year the Programme funds almost 1,000 town-twinning projects, involving more than 3,000 cities. The number of multilateral town twinning projects has been increasing and they are now just over half of such projects.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Internet site of the programme where she will find all the relevant information, including, inter alia, the programme guide (14), how the application and selection procedure works (15), funding opportunities for 2012, respective deadlines and necessary information to submit an application (16). The Europe for Citizens Contact Points in the Member States can also provide more information and support (17).

A portal like ‘A Universe of Twinning’ (18) is a good example of a platform that supports town twinning providing information exchange, sharing of best practice, partner search tools and other useful information.

(българска версия)

Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-012656/11

до Комисията

Антония Първанова (ALDE), Corinne Lepage (ALDE), Jo Leinen (S&D), Nessa Childers (S&D) и Philippe Juvin (PPE)

(11 януари 2012 г.)

Относно: Ранно диагностициране и разходоефективно управление на наследствената хемохроматоза

Наследствената хемохроматоза (НН) е генетично състояние, характеризиращо се с пренасищане на кръвта с желязо. Макар и болестността от това генетично увреждане (хомозиготност на мутация C282Y на гена за наследствена хемохроматоза (HFE)) варира в голяма степен между държавите-членки, според оценките 2 милиона жители в ЕС са потенциално засегнати от заболяването. Групите на учените и пациентите вече работят за повишаване на осведомеността относно наследствената хемохроматоза, която, ако не се диагностицира рано, може да доведе до сериозни увреждания на жизненоважни органи (цироза и карцином на черния дроб, диабет, полиартрит и хормонални смущения), включително не само до влошаване качеството на живота, но и до увреждания и дори смърт.

В момента вече съществуват прости и разходоефективни начини за ефективно диагностициране и лечение на наследствената хемохроматоза. Една предполагаема диагноза може да бъде поставена чрез много лесни и евтини кръвни изследвания (насищане на трансферин и феритин) и може лесно да се потвърди от чувствителен и специфичен генетичен тест (виж мутация C282Y). Ако тестът е положителен, на него се подлагат и на роднините на пациента. Съществуващото лечение се състои от кръвопускане или флеботомия. Извършването на флеботомия периодически се повтаря, за да се елиминира пренасищането с желязо.

С оглед на трансграничното измерение на наследствената хемохроматоза, а също така и броя на потенциално засегнатите европейски пациенти, и като се признава основната отговорност на държавите-членки за организиране и предоставяне на здравни услуги и медицински грижи, би ли могла Комисията да отговори на следните въпроси:

Обмисля ли Комисията инициативи или програми, които биха могли да повишат осведомеността относно наследствената хемохроматоза, по-специално такива, насочени към рисковите групи от населението и специалистите в областта на здравеопазването (особено общопрактикуващите лекари)?

Комисията ще разгледа ли възможността за разработване на специални насоки за подобряване на ранното откриване и диагностициране на наследствената хемохроматоза, като по този начин съдейства за разходоефективното управление на заболяването в рамките на системите на здравеопазването в Европа чрез намаляване броя на късно диагностицираните пациенти?

Възнамерява ли Комисията да продължи и да увеличи подкрепата си за изследвания на наследствени или генетични заболявания?

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

(21 февруари 2012 г.)

Хемохроматозата е едно от най-често срещаните наследствени заболявания в Европа. Тя често не се диагностицира — отчасти поради факта, че нейните симптоми са сходни с тези на редица други заболявания. Няма признато изследване на европейско равнище относно разпространението на заболяването. Макар да продължава да съществува несигурност относно точните епидемиологични данни в Европа, на заинтересованите страни се препоръчва да използват възможностите, които предлага рамката на ЕС в областта на редките заболявания.

Действията на Комисията по отношение на редките заболявания са представени в „Съобщение относно редките заболявания: предизвикателствата за Европа“ (19).. Поради много големия брой заболявания Комисията не разполага с необходимите средства, за да предприеме специфични мерки по отношение на всяко едно рядко заболяване. Поради тази причина Комисията полага усилия да осигури решения по отношение на редките заболявания като цяло и не възнамерява да разработва специални насоки за ранно откриване и диагностициране на наследствената хемохроматоза, нито планира да организира кампании за повишаване на осведомеността, насочени към специалистите в областта на здравеопазването.

Комисията, обаче, подпомага от 2007 г. насам съвместната научноизследователска дейност в тази област чрез своята Рамкова програма за научни изследвания (РП7). Комисията подкрепи проекта за научни изследвания EUROIRON относно генетичния контрол на патогенезата на заболявания, дължащи се на натрупването на желязо (20), и по-специално хемохроматоза. В рамките на мрежата EuroGentest (21) също бяха разработени полезни средства за генетични изследвания на хемохроматозата. При поканите за представяне на предложения в рамките на РП7 в бъдеще може да възникнат други възможности за изследване на заболяванията, свързани с нарушената обмяна на желязо.

Комисията предложи на Парламента и на Съвета да отделят необходимото внимание на генетичните заболявания в рамките на раздел „Здравеопазване, демографски промени и благосъстояние“ от приоритета „Обществени предизвикателства“ в нейното предложение за „Хоризонт 2020“ — рамковата програма за научни изследвания и иновации (2014-2020 г.).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-012656/11

an die Kommission

Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE), Corinne Lepage (ALDE), Jo Leinen (S&D), Nessa Childers (S&D) und Philippe Juvin (PPE)

(11. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Früherkennung und kosteneffektive Behandlung der erblichen Hämochromatose

Bei der erblichen Hämochromatose handelt es sich um eine genetische Veranlagung, die durch eine Eisenüberladung des Blutes gekennzeichnet ist. Obwohl die Verbreitung dieses genetischen Defekts (Homozygotie der Mutation C282Y im HFE-Gen) zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten stark variiert, wird geschätzt, dass 2 Millionen Einwohner der EU potenziell von dieser Krankheit betroffen sind. Wissenschaftler und Patientengruppen haben bereits Anstrengungen unternommen, die Bekanntheit der erblichen Hämochromatose zu steigern, die, sofern sie nicht frühzeitig erkannt wird, zu schweren Schädigungen lebenswichtiger Organe (Zirrhose und Karzinom der Leber, Diabetes, Polyarthritis und hormonelle Störungen) und somit nicht nur zu einer verschlechterten Lebensqualität, sondern auch zu Behinderungen und sogar zum Tod führen kann.

Derzeit bestehen bereits einfache und kostengünstige Möglichkeiten zur Diagnose und wirksamen Behandlung der erblichen Hämochromatose. Eine Verdachtsdiagnose kann mittels sehr einfacher und preiswerter Bluttests (Transferrinsättigung und Ferritinwert) erfolgen und leicht durch einen empfindlichen und spezifischen Gentest (Suche nach Mutation C282Y) bestätigt werden. Falls der Test positiv ausfällt, wird er auf die Verwandten des Patienten ausgeweitet. Die derzeitige Behandlung besteht aus Blutentnahme oder Aderlass. Aderlässe werden regelmäßig wiederholt, um die Eisenüberladung zu beheben.

In Anbetracht der grenzüberschreitenden Dimension der erblichen Hämochromatose sowie der Anzahl der potenziell betroffenen europäischen Patienten und unter Anerkennung der primären Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten für die Organisation und Bereitstellung von Gesundheitsdiensten und medizinischer Versorgung wird die Kommission um Beantwortung der folgenden Fragen gebeten:

Erwägt die Kommission Initiativen oder Programme, die die Sensibilisierung für die erbliche Hämochromatose steigern könnten, insbesondere solche, die auf Risikogruppenpopulationen und im Gesundheitswesen tätige Personen (vor allem praktische Ärzte) abzielen?

Würde die Kommission die Entwicklung von spezifischen Leitlinien zur Verbesserung der Früherkennung und Diagnose von erblicher Hämochromatose in Betracht ziehen und damit den Gesundheitssystemen in Europa eine kosteneffektive Behandlung der Krankheit durch die Verringerung der Anzahl spät diagnostizierter Patienten ermöglichen?

Beabsichtigt die Kommission, ihre Unterstützung für die Erforschung von Erbkrankheiten und genetischen Erkrankungen fortzuführen und zu intensivieren?

Antwort von Herrn Dalli im Namen der Kommission

(21. Februar 2012)

Hämochromatose ist eine der häufigsten Erbkrankheiten in Europa. Oft bleibt sie unerkannt, zum Teil weil ihre Symptome denen einer Reihe anderer Erkrankungen ähnlich sind. Es gibt keine anerkannte europäische Studie über die Prävalenz dieser Erkrankung. Auch wenn ein Zweifel an den genauen epidemiologischen Daten in Europa bestehen bleibt, wurde den Beteiligten empfohlen, die Möglichkeiten des EU-Rahmens für seltene Krankheiten zu nutzen.

Die Maßnahmen der Kommission im Bereich seltener Krankheiten werden in der „Mitteilung über seltene Krankheiten — eine Herausforderung für Europa“ (22) dargelegt. Wegen der hohen Anzahl solcher Krankheiten hat die Kommission nicht die Mittel, auf jede einzelne seltene Krankheit mit spezifischen Maßnahmen einzugehen. Aus diesem Grund ist die Kommission bestrebt, Globallösungen für seltene Krankheiten zu finden; sie beabsichtigt nicht, spezifische Leitlinien für Früherkennung und Diagnose der erblichen Hämochromatose zu erarbeiten. Auch hat sie nicht vor, Sensibilisierungskampagnen für Beschäftigte des Gesundheitswesens zu organisieren.

Hingegen unterstützt die Kommission seit 2007 die Forschungszusammenarbeit auf diesem Gebiet durch ihr Forschungsrahmenprogramm (FP7), beispielsweise durch das Forschungsprojekt EUROIRON über die genetische Kontrolle der Pathogenese von Erkrankungen aufgrund von Eisenakkumulation (23), insbesondere Hämochromatose. Auch das Netz EuroGentest (24) hat nützliche Instrumente für Gentests auf Hämochromatose entwickelt. Weitere Möglichkeiten für die Erforschung von Erkrankungen des Eisenstoffwechsels können sich mit künftigen Aufforderungen zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen im Rahmen des FP7 ergeben.

Die Kommission hat dem Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat vorgeschlagen, genetisch bedingte Erkrankungen im Bereich der gesellschaftlichen Herausforderung „Gesundheit, demografischer Wandel und Wohlergehen“ in ihrem Vorschlag für Horizont 2020, das Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und Innovation (2014-2020), gebührend zu berücksichtigen.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-012656/11

à la Commission

Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE), Corinne Lepage (ALDE), Jo Leinen (S&D), Nessa Childers (S&D) et Philippe Juvin (PPE)

(11 janvier 2012)

Objet: Diagnostic précoce et gestion rentable de l'hémochromatose héréditaire

L'hémochromatose héréditaire (HH) est une maladie génétique qui se manifeste par un surplus de fer dans le sang. Bien que la prévalence de cette anomalie génétique (homozygotie de la mutation C282Y dans le gène HFE) varie beaucoup d'un État membre à l'autre, on estime que 2 millions d'habitants de l'Union européenne sont potentiellement affectés par cette maladie. Des scientifiques et des groupes de patients ont déjà mené des actions de sensibilisation à l'hémochromatose héréditaire. Si elle n'est pas diagnostiquée à temps, cette maladie peut causer de graves dommages aux organes vitaux (cirrhose et carcinome du foie, diabète, polyarthrite et troubles hormonaux), entraînant non seulement une mauvaise qualité de vie, mais également des handicaps, et même la mort.

Aujourd'hui, des moyens simples et rentables existent déjà pour diagnostiquer et traiter efficacement l'hémochromatose héréditaire. Un diagnostic suspect peut être établi au moyen de tests sanguins très simples et peu coûteux (saturation de la transferrine et de la ferritine) et peut facilement être confirmé par un test génétique spécifique et sensible (recherche de la mutation C282Y). Si le test est positif, il est également effectué sur les proches du patient. Le traitement actuel consiste en des saignées ou phlébotomies. Les phlébotomies sont répétées périodiquement afin d'éliminer le surplus de fer.

Étant donné la dimension transfrontalière de l'hémochromatose héréditaire, ainsi que le nombre de patients européens potentiellement affectés, et tout en reconnaissant que la responsabilité principale de l'organisation et de la prestation de services de santé et de soins médicaux incombe aux États membres, la Commission pourrait-elle répondre aux questions suivantes:

La Commission étudie-t-elle des initiatives ou des programmes qui pourraient améliorer la sensibilisation à l'hémochromatose héréditaire, en ciblant notamment les populations à risques et les professionnels de la santé (en particulier, les médecins généralistes)?

La Commission voudrait-elle étudier l'élaboration de directives spécifiques afin d'améliorer la détection et le diagnostic précoces de l'hémochromatose héréditaire, permettant ainsi une gestion rentable de la maladie par les systèmes des soins de santé en Europe grâce à une diminution du nombre de malades diagnostiqués tardivement?

La Commission a-t-elle l'intention de poursuivre et d'intensifier son soutien à la recherche sur les maladies héréditaires et génétiques?

Réponse donnée par M. Dalli au nom de la Commission

(21 février 2012)

L'hémochromatose est l'une des maladies héréditaires les plus fréquentes en Europe. Elle est généralement sous-diagnostiquée, notamment parce que ses symptômes sont similaires à ceux de diverses autres maladies. Aucune étude européenne reconnue n'existe sur la prévalence de cette maladie. Même si un doute persiste quant à l'exactitude des données épidémiologiques en Europe, il a été recommandé aux parties concernées d'utiliser les possibilités offertes par le cadre de l'Union européenne sur les maladies rares.

L'action de la Commission dans le domaine des maladies rares est présentée dans la communication intitulée ₫Les maladies rares: un défi pour l'Europe₻ (25). En raison du nombre très élevé de maladies, la Commission n'a pas les moyens de prendre des mesures spécifiques à l'égard de chaque maladie rare. C'est pourquoi elle s'efforce d'appréhender ces maladies de façon globale et ne compte pas élaborer de lignes directrices particulières sur le dépistage et le diagnostic précoces de l'hémochromatose héréditaire; elle ne prévoit pas non plus d'organiser des campagnes de sensibilisation à l'intention des professionnels de la santé.

En revanche, la Commission soutient depuis 2007 la recherche collaborative dans ce domaine par l'intermédiaire de son 7e programme-cadre de recherche (PC7). Elle a apporté son aide au projet de recherche EUROIRON concernant le contrôle génétique de la pathogenèse de maladies liées à une surcharge en fer (26), et notamment de l'hémochromatose. Le réseau EuroGentest (27) a également mis au point des outils utiles pour le dépistage de cette maladie par test génétique. D'autres possibilités de recherche sur les maladies du métabolisme du fer pourront se présenter dans de futurs appels à propositions dans le cadre du PC7.

La Commission a proposé au Parlement européen et au Conseil de prendre dûment en considération les maladies génétiques dans le volet ₫Santé, évolution démographique et bien-être₻ de la priorité ₫Défis de société₻ de sa proposition de programme-cadre pour la recherche et l'innovation (2014-2020) pour Horizon 2020.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012656/11

to the Commission

Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE), Corinne Lepage (ALDE), Jo Leinen (S&D), Nessa Childers (S&D) and Philippe Juvin (PPE)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Early diagnosis and cost-effective management of hereditary haemochromatosis

Hereditary haemochromatosis (HH) is a genetic condition marked by iron overload in the blood. While the prevalence of this genetic defect (homozygosity of the C282Y mutation in the HFE gene) varies widely among Member States, it is estimated that 2 million inhabitants in the EU are potentially affected by the disease. Scientists and patients’ groups have already worked on raising awareness of hereditary haemochromatosis which, if not diagnosed early, can result in severe damage to vital organs (cirrhosis and carcinoma of the liver, diabetes, polyarthritis and hormonal disorders) inducing not only poor quality of life but also disabilities and even death.

At present, simple and cost-effective ways already exist to diagnose and treat hereditary haemochromatosis effectively. A suspected diagnosis can be given by means of very simple and low-cost blood tests (transferrin saturation and ferritin) and can easily be confirmed by a sensitive and specific genetic test (search for C282Y mutation). If the test is positive it is extended to the patient’s relatives. The current treatment consists of blood-letting or phlebotomy. Phlebotomies are periodically repeated in order to eliminate iron overload.

Given the cross-border dimension of hereditary haemochromatosis as well as the number of European patients potentially affected, and while recognising the primary responsibility of Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, could the Commission answer the following questions:

Is the Commission considering initiatives or programmes which could enhance awareness of hereditary haemochromatosis, notably targeting risk-group populations and health professionals (particularly general practitioners)?

Would the Commission consider the development of specific guidelines to enhance early detection and diagnosis of hereditary haemochromatosis, thus allowing cost-effective management of the disease for healthcare systems in Europe by reducing the number of late-diagnosed patients?

Does the Commission intend to continue and step up its support for research into hereditary or genetic diseases?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2012)

Haemochromatosis is one of the most frequent hereditary diseases in Europe. It tends to be under-diagnosed, partly because its symptoms are similar to those of a range of other illnesses. There is no accepted European study on the prevalence of the disease. Even if a doubt about exact epidemiological data in Europe persists, it has been recommended to stakeholders to use the facilities of the EU framework on rare diseases.

The Commission's action on rare diseases is presented in the communication on Rare Diseases: Europe's challenges (28). Due to the very high number of diseases, the Commission does not have the means to address each individual rare disease with specific actions. This is why the Commission seeks to provide solutions for rare diseases as a whole and does not intend to develop specific guidelines on early detection and diagnosis of hereditary haemochromatosis, nor is it planning to organise awareness campaigns addressing health professionals.

The Commission has however been supporting collaborative research in this area through its Framework Programme for Research (FP7) since 2007. The Commission supported the research project EUROIRON on Genetic control of the pathogenesis of diseases based on iron accumulation (29) especially haemochromatosis. The EuroGentest Network (30) has also developed useful tools for genetic testing in haemochromatosis. Further opportunities for investigating diseases of iron metabolism may arise in future calls for proposals within FP7.

The Commission has proposed to the Parliament and the Council to give due consideration to genetic diseases in the Health, demographic change and wellbeing section of the Societal Challenges priority in its proposal for Horizon 2020, the FP for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-012684/11

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D) y Raimon Obiols (S&D)

(11 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Posible inclusión de regiones de importancia sistémica en el proceso del Semestre Europeo

El 12 de julio de 2011, el Consejo Europeo adoptó sus recomendaciones sobre los programas nacionales de reforma y sus opiniones sobre los programas de estabilidad y de convergencia en el marco del Semestre Europeo de 2011. Con la adopción de las recomendaciones específicas por país, para que los Estados miembros apliquen estas recomendaciones antes de tomar decisiones clave en el terreno presupuestario.

Este programa, que se encuentra, pues, en su fase inicial, está siendo constantemente revisado con el objetivo de convertirlo en una herramienta eficaz para coordinar efectivamente los presupuestos de los Estados miembros en Europa. Aun así, por el momento no tiene en cuenta todavía el rol de las regiones con poderes fiscales y legislativos ni su importancia vital en la lucha contra el déficit y la armonización presupuestaria en Europa.

La OCDE (31), en un estudio del año 2009, abordó esta temática concreta e hizo público que las comunidades autónomas españolas son las responsables de aproximadamente el 30 % del gasto en el Estado español; en la República Federal de Alemania el nivel de gasto de los Länder llega también a una cifra muy similar, así como en el caso de Bélgica.

La coordinación es, pues, necesaria también con el nivel regional en algunos casos. Este hecho queda subrayado cuando una región aplica medidas económicas de acuerdo con los estándares europeos, pero no tiene modo de recibir la aprobación de las instituciones europeas, que las legitimaría, haciendo más difícil así que sus ciudadanos entiendan la importancia de tales medidas.

¿Cree la Comisión que sería útil la inclusión de algún mecanismo en el marco del Semestre Europeo que permitiera incluir a aquellas regiones con poderes fiscales y legislativos que, por su volumen económico y exportador comparable al de Estados miembros, tienen una importancia sistémica para toda la UE?

¿Cree la Comisión que es posible habilitar algún mecanismo voluntario para que aquellas regiones con poderes fiscales y legislativos que les concedan importancia sistémica puedan participar del proceso del Semestre Europeo?

¿No cree la Comisión que la participación en el Semestre Europeo de dichas regiones con poderes fiscales y legislativos podría ser un incentivo racional y legitimador para aprobar las medidas de armonización presupuestaria requeridas para conseguir una mayor coordinación a nivel europeo?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(8 de marzo de 2012)

El semestre europeo es el mecanismo de la UE para la coordinación y supervisión multilateral de las políticas económicas de los Estados miembros. De conformidad con lo establecido en el Tratado y en el Derecho derivado, las recomendaciones formuladas por la Comisión y adoptadas por el Consejo en este contexto se dirigen a los Estados miembros. Incumbe a los gobiernos nacionales o federales garantizar la adopción de medidas para seguir las recomendaciones adoptadas por el Consejo. En cuanto al objetivo de evitar déficit excesivos, el Protocolo n° 12 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea establece que los gobiernos de los Estados miembros son responsables de los déficit de las administraciones públicas y que los procedimientos nacionales deberán permitir a los Estados miembros cumplir sus obligaciones presupuestarias. A la luz de la importancia de la adhesión a las necesarias reformas económicas, la Comisión siempre ha instado a los Estados miembros a que garanticen que las partes interesadas, incluidas las regiones, participen adecuadamente en la formulación de los programas nacionales de reforma. De modo más general, los acuerdos nacionales de carácter jurídico y político deben garantizar una participación adecuada de todas las partes interesadas en el marco del semestre europeo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-012684/11

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE), Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE), Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D) and Raimon Obiols (S&D)

(11 January 2012)

Subject: Possible inclusion of regions of systemic importance in the European Semester process

On 12 July 2011, the European Council adopted its recommendations on national reform programmes and its opinions on stability and convergence programmes under the 2011 European Semester. With the adoption of country-specific recommendations, so that the Member States might apply these recommendations before taking any key budgetary decisions.

This programme, still in its initial phase, is undergoing constant revision in order to make it into an efficient tool for effectively coordinating the budgets of the Member States of Europe. Notwithstanding, it does not yet take into consideration the role of regions with fiscal and legislative powers nor their crucial importance in combating the deficit and working towards budgetary harmonisation in Europe.

The OECD (32), in a 2009 study, addressed this specific issue and made it known that the Spanish Comunidades Autónomas are responsible for approximately 30 % of the expenditure of the Spanish state; in the Federal Republic of Germany the level of expenditure of the Länder is also of a similar order, as is the case in Belgium.

Therefore, coordination is also necessary at regional level in certain cases. This is particularly relevant when a region applies economic measures in line with European standards, but is unable to receive the approval of the European institutions to legitimise these, which makes it even more difficult for its citizens to understand the importance of measures of this nature.

Does the Commission believe that it would be useful to include some mechanism within the framework of the European Semester which would allow for the inclusion of those regions with fiscal and legislative powers which, given their economic turnover and volume of exports comparable to those of Member States, are of systemic importance for the entire European Union?

Does the Commission believe that it is possible to find some voluntary mechanism so that regions with fiscal and legislative powers which make them of systemic importance can participate in the European Semester process?

Does the Commission not believe that participation in the European Semester by the aforementioned regions with fiscal and legislative powers could be a rational and legitimising incentive for the approval of the budgetary harmonisation measures required if we are to achieve greater coordination at European level?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

The European Semester is the EU‐level mechanism for the multilateral surveillance and coordination of Member States' economic policies. As provided for by the Treaty and the relevant secondary legislation, the recommendations formulated by the Commission and adopted by the Council in this context are addressed to Member States. It is the responsibility of national or federal governments to ensure that action is taken in response to the recommendations adopted by the Council. With regard to the avoidance of excessive deficits, Protocol 12 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes that the governments of Member States are responsible for the deficits of the general government and that national procedures should enable Member States to meet their budgetary obligations. In view of the importance of the ownership of necessary economic reforms, the Commission has however always called on Member States to ensure that relevant stakeholders, including regions, are appropriately involved in the formulation of National Reform Programmes. More generally, national legal and political arrangements should ensure that, all relevant stakeholders are involved within the framework of the European Semester as appropriate.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000123/12

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(17 janvier 2012)

Objet: Sanction infligée en Italie à une société informatique pour refus d'informer et d'appliquer la législation sur les garanties

L'autorité italienne de la concurrence a, en décembre 2011, condamné la firme informatique Apple à une amende de 900 000 euros pour ne pas avoir respecté la loi accordant une garantie de 2 ans en application de la directive européenne sur les garanties des biens de consommation.

La Commission peut-elle indiquer:

si elle est informée par les États membres des contrôles et, le cas échéant, des infractions enregistrées pour non-application de cette directive;

dans quelle mesure elle ne devrait pas entreprendre une étude systématique sur l'application de cette directive, qui semble être peu ou mal appliquée par l'industrie et le commerce des États membres;

dans quelle mesure elle ne devrait pas financer une vaste campagne d'information afin de permettre aux associations de consommateurs de faire connaître ce droit élémentaire à une garantie de 2 ans pour tous les biens de consommation?

Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission

(8 mars 2012)

La Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire à sa réponse à la question écrite E-7524/2011 (33) sur l'application de l'acquis en matière de protection des consommateurs. C'est aux États membres qu'il incombe en premier lieu de veiller à l'application effective des règles.

La décision des autorités italiennes de prendre des sanctions contre Apple, en décembre 2011, constitue un exemple parmi beaucoup d'autres du travail effectué par les autorités compétentes nationales. La Commission présume que cette décision nationale se fondait non pas sur la directive 1999/44/CE relative à la vente des biens de consommation, mais bien sur la directive 2005/29/CE concernant les pratiques commerciales déloyales.

La Commission soutient l'action des autorités nationales visant à faire appliquer la législation, que ce soit en appuyant le travail des organisations de consommateurs, en coordonnant les efforts des autorités nationales via le réseau de coopération pour la protection des consommateurs ou en favorisant le développement, à l'échelle de l'UE, du réseau des centres européens des consommateurs.

Les États membres ne notifient pas à la Commission les inspections effectuées dans le cadre de la directive sur les biens de consommation, ni les infractions relevées. Cependant, la Commission ne ménage pas ses efforts pour garantir une transposition homogène des directives de l'UE dans les législations nationales de tous les États membres, et assure le suivi de leur mise en œuvre (34). Lorsque cela s'avère nécessaire, elle engage des procédures d'infraction, conformément à l'article 258 du TFUE.

En ce qui concerne les campagnes d'information, la Commission renvoie par ailleurs l'Honorable Parlementaire à sa réponse à la question écrite E-315/2012 (35).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000123/12

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(17 January 2012)

Subject: Penalty imposed on an IT company in Italy for refusing to supply information and apply legislation on guarantees

In December 2011, the Italian competition authority fined the IT firm Apple EUR 900 000 for not complying with the law that grants a two-year guarantee pursuant to the European Directive on the sale of consumer goods and related guarantees.

— Is the Commission notified by Member States of inspections, and of infringements of the directive where they are detected?

— Should not the Commission undertake a systematic study on the application of this directive, which seems to be rarely or inadequately applied by trade and industry in the Member States?

— Should it not finance a major information campaign enabling consumer associations to publicise this basic right to a two-year guarantee for all consumer goods?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to the Written Question E‐7524/2011 (36) on enforcement of the consumer acquis. The primary responsibility for effectively enforcing the rules lies with Member States.

The decision of the Italian authorities to sanction Apple in December 2011 is one example amongst many of the work done by national authorities. The Commission understands that this national decision was based not on the Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC) but on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC).

The Commission supports the action of national authorities on enforcement for instance supporting consumer organisations' work, coordinating the efforts of national authorities through the Consumer Protection Cooperation network and supporting the further development of the EU‐wide network of European Consumer Centres.

The Commission is not notified by Member States of inspections and infringements of the Consumer Sales Directive. The Commission invests significant effort into ensuring that the transposition of EU Directives into national laws is consistent in all the Member States and monitors their implementation (37). Where appropriate it initiates infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 258 TFEU.

On information campaigns, the Commission would additionally refer the Honourable Member to its answer to the Written Question E‐315/2012 (38).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000151/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(18 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Diffusa attività di bracconaggio nel Parco del delta del fiume Po in provincia di Rovigo in violazione della direttiva 2009/147/CE (già direttiva 79/409/CEE)

Il delta del Po veneto rappresenta un'importante zona di sosta, riproduzione, svernamento per uccelli migratori, in particolare acquatici. La regione Veneto ha incluso valli, lagune e tratti terminali dei rami del fiume Po nei siti di importanza comunitaria (39) e zone di protezione speciale (40) della rete Natura 2000.

Con legge n. 36/1997 la regione Veneto ha istituito il Parco regionale del delta del Po veneto che comprende i rami deltizi del Po e porzioni di valli e di lagune.

L'intera area purtroppo è interessata da un intenso fenomeno di bracconaggio. Il locale WWF (41), segnala da anni attività di caccia illegale praticata ai danni dell'avifauna migratoria in tutto il comprensorio lagunare e vallivo del delta del Po. Dal 2004 ad oggi in una serie di sopralluoghi effettuati in zone, giorni e orari diversi, il WWF ha riscontrato nel 100 % delle uscite la costante e diffusa presenza di bracconieri in azione; ben 125 sono gli episodi registrati di caccia sanzionabili penalmente, segnalati alle autorità competenti, come l’uso di registratori e di armi semiautomatiche con caricatore contenente più di due cartucce (42).

La vigilanza effettuata dagli organismi preposti si è rivelata del tutto inadeguata ad affrontare il fenomeno che negli anni non è diminuito. Nel 2007 la polizia provinciale di Rovigo ha sequestrato con un singolo controllo oltre 700 uccelli abbattuti in una valle da pesca in violazione del limite consentito di uccelli abbattibili. Attualmente il WWF ha segnalato invano alla provincia di Rovigo la presenza di numerosi appostamenti fissi di caccia attivi addirittura all'interno del Parco del delta. Numerosi sono stati nel tempo i recuperi di uccelli non cacciabili feriti o uccisi dai bracconieri tra i quali l'uccisione di una gru (Grus grus).

Alla luce di quanto esposto, ritiene la Commissione di intervenire per verificare quanto illustrato al fine di adottare tutti quei provvedimenti necessari per la tutela degli uccelli acquatici migratori che ogni anno svernano nel comprensorio del delta del fiume Po provenienti dal nord Europa?

In particolare come intende la Commissione procedere nei confronti delle autorità locali relativamente:

alla continua violazione della direttiva 2009/147/CE con riferimento all'uso di registratori e di armi semiautomatiche con caricatore contenente più di due cartucce?

all'abbattimento di specie protette di uccelli?

alla scarsità ed inadeguatezza dei controlli effettuati dalle autorità locali competenti affinché la direttiva 2009/147/CE sia rispettata?

Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(24 febbraio 2012)

Ai sensi della direttiva 2009/147/CE del Consiglio concernente la conservazione degli uccelli selvatici (43), l'uccisione deliberata di uccelli selvatici protetti e l'uso dei mezzi elencati nell'allegato IV sono attività illegali. Incombe a ciascuno Stato membro predisporre il sistema di protezione richiesto per prevenire il fenomeno del bracconaggio e prendere gli opportuni provvedimenti per contrastarlo là dove esiste.

La Commissione ha avviato un dialogo con gli Stati membri, l'organizzazione BirdLife International e la Federazione delle associazioni di caccia e conservazione dell'UE (FACE) per affrontare questa problematica.In tale contesto, nel luglio 2011 la Commissione ha partecipato, insieme a rappresentanti degli Stati membri, di BirdLife International, della FACE e di altre ONG, ad una conferenza internazionale sulla caccia, la cattura e il commercio illegali di uccelli, organizzata dal segretariato della convenzione di Berna a Larnaca (Cipro).Sulla scia di questa conferenza, la Commissione sta esplorando diverse possibilità per suscitare una presa di coscienza e prestare sostegno agli Stati membri nei loro sforzi per arginare il problema.

Quanto alla particolare situazione denunciata dall'onorevole parlamentare, la Commissione indagherà presso le autorità italiane circa l'efficacia dei provvedimenti adottati per porvi rimedio.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000151/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(18 January 2012)

Subject: Widespread poaching activities in the Po delta wildlife park in the province of Rovigo, in breach of Directive 2009/147/EC (formerly Directive 79/409/EEC)

The Po delta in the Veneto is an important rest stop, breeding ground wintering area for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. The Veneto region has included valleys, lagoons and the estuaries of several branches of the river Po in Sites of Community Importance (44) and Natura 2000 Special Protection Areas (45).

Under Law 36/1997, the Veneto regional authorities established the Po delta regional wildlife park, which includes branches of the river Po and parts of valleys and lagoons.

The whole area is unfortunately affected by intense poaching activity. The local WWF (46) has for years been reporting illegal hunting activities endangering migratory birds around the lagoons and the delta area of the Po valley. In a series of surveys carried out in different sites, on different dates and at different times since 2004, the WWF observed the constant and widespread presence of poachers in every single case. 125 episodes of hunting activities punishable by law were recorded and reported to the authorities. These included the use of tape recorders and of semi-automatic weapons with magazines holding more than two cartridges (47).

The supervision carried out by the bodies in charge has proven totally inadequate in dealing with this phenomenon, which has not diminished over the years. In 2007, in a single raid, Rovigo’s Provincial Police seized over 700 birds shot in a fishing valley in violation of the maximum permissible kill. The WWF has recently reported the to the Rovigo provincial authorities the presence of several hunting emplacements situated within the delta wildlife park itself. However, no action has been taken. Many protected birds either injured or killed by poachers have been recovered, including a dead crane (Grus grus).

In view of this, will the Commission investigate matters and take all necessary measures for the protection of migratory waterfowl flying in from Northern Europe to winter in the Po river delta area every year?

In particular, how does the Commission plan on taking legal action against local authorities in relation to:

the constant infringement of Directive 2009/147/EC, with regard to the use of tape recorders and semi-automatic weapons with magazines holding more than two cartridges,

the slaughter of protected bird species,

the insufficient and inadequate checks carried out by local authorities to ensure compliance with Directive 2009/147/EC?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2012)

The deliberate killing of protected wild birds and the use of the means listed in Annex IV are illegal activities under Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (48). It is the responsibility of each Member State to put in place the requisite system of protection to prevent the problem of poaching and to take the necessary action to address it where it occurs.

The Commission has initiated a dialogue with Member States, BirdLife International and the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) to address the issue. In this context in July 2011 the Commission took part, together with representatives of Member States, BirdLife International, FACE, and other NGOs, in an international conference on illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds organised by the Secretariat of the Bern Convention in Larnaca (Cyprus). Further to this conference the Commission is exploring different ways to raise awareness and support Member States' efforts to tackle the problem.

On the particular issue raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission will investigate with the Italian authorities about the effectiveness of the measures taken to tackle the problem.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000173/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 18 d.)

Tema: Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2252/2004 dėl valstybių narių išduodamų pasų ir kelionės dokumentų apsauginių savybių ir biometrikos standartų

Įgyvendinant Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 2252/2004 yra pereita prie biometrinės pasų kontrolės – pasai išduodami nuskaitant dešinės ir kairės rankų dviejų pirštų atspaudus.

Į mane kreipėsi Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo narys ir atkreipė dėmesį į tai, jog ši biometrinių duomenų sistema nėra sujungta su Policijos daktiloskopinių duomenų registru. Jo nuomone, sujungus pasų išdavimo sistemą su Policijos daktiloskopinių duomenų registru būtų galima efektyviau identifikuoti policijos ieškomus, įtariamus ir kaltinamus asmenis, kadangi pasų poskyriuose pagal asmens piršto atspaudą būtų matoma visa policijos turima informacija: ar asmuo ieškomas, įtariamas padaręs nusikaltimą ar kitaip nusižengęs.

Noriu sužinoti Komisijos nuomonę, ar gali būti sudaroma galimybė biometrinę pasų išdavimo sistemą sujungti su kitų duomenų registrais (gyventojų, policijos ieškomų, neatpažintų lavonų, įtariamųjų, kaltinamųjų ir teistų asmenų), kuriuose kaupiami, apdorojami ir sisteminami rankų ar rankų pirštų atspaudai, siekiant efektyvesnės nusikalstamų veikų kontrolės ir prevencijos?

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000492/12

Komisijai

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)

(2012 m. sausio 23 d.)

Tema: Biometrinės pasų kontrolės sistemos taikymo efektyvumas

Lietuvoje įgyvendinant Tarybos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 2252/2004 pereinama prie biometrinės pasų kontrolės, t. y. pasai išduodami nuskaičius dešinės ir kairės rankų dviejų pirštų atspaudus. Tačiau šis reglamentas riboja asmens dokumentų biometrinių duomenų panaudojimą, kadangi 4 straipsnio 3 punkte nustatyta, kad „pagal šį reglamentą biometrinės savybės pasuose ir kelionės dokumentuose naudojamos tik patikrinti dokumento autentiškumą ir savininko asmens tapatybę pagal tiesiogiai prieinamas palyginamas savybes“.

Kaip Komisija vertina galimybę sujungti į vieną sistemą duomenų registrus (gyventojų, policijos ieškomų, neatpažintų palaikų, įtariamųjų, teistų asmenų ir kt.) bei sistemas (biometrinę pasų kontrolės sistemą), kuriose kaupiami, apdorojami ir sisteminami rankų pirštų atspaudai, kad būtų įmanoma atlikti palyginimo bei kitus reikalingus veiksmus, siekiant efektyvesnės nusikalstamų veikų kontrolės ir prevencijos?

Ar Komisija nemano, jog ši sistemų ir registrų sąveika padėtų efektyviau identifikuoti policijos ieškomus, įtariamus ir kaltinamus asmenis?

Bendras atsakymas, C. Malmström atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2012 m. kovo 1 d.)

Remdamasi atsakymais į klausimus raštu E-3962/09, E-4811/09, E-4867/09 ir E-8825/2011 (49), Komisija patvirtina, kad Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 2252/2004 siekiama nustatyti pasų ir kelionės dokumentų apsaugos nuo klastojimo standartus. Be to, siekiant nustatyti patikimą ryšį tarp tikrojo savininko ir dokumento, į pasą ar kelionės dokumentą reikėtų integruoti biometrinius identifikatorius. Reglamentu nenustatyta, kaip valstybės narės turi saugoti asmens duomenis.

Tai, kad teisės aktu suteikiama galimybė susipažinti su pasuose pateiktais asmens duomenimis ir biometrine informacija kitu nei Reglamente (EB) Nr. 2252/2004 nustatytu tikslu, reiškia, kad vėliau asmens duomenys tvarkomi. Duomenys turi būti tvarkomi laikantis Direktyvoje 95/46/EB nustatytų duomenų apsaugos, ypač būtinumo ir proporcingumo, principų.

Susipažinimas su asmens duomenimis siekiant užkirsti kelią nusikaltimui, jį ištirti ir patraukti kaltininką baudžiamojon atsakomybėn gali būti laikomas teisėtu tikslu demokratinėje visuomenėje, jei tai atitinka nacionalinės teisės aktą, kuriuo įgyvendinama Direktyva 95/46/EB, reikiamai apsaugomos duomenų subjektų teisės ir imamasi griežtų saugumo bei organizacinių priemonių. Be to, nacionalinėms duomenų apsaugos institucijoms turi būti suteiktas įgaliojimas stebėti, kaip tvarkomi asmens duomenys, ir užtikrinti, kad būtų apsaugomos duomenų subjektų teisės ir laikomasi nustatytų saugumo priemonių.

Nuo šių reikalavimų vykdymo iš esmės priklauso, ar bus užkirstas kelias pagrindinės teisės – teisės į asmens duomenų apsaugą – pažeidimams.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000173/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(18 January 2012)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States

The implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 is a move towards biometric passport control — passports are issued after scanning two fingers of the right and left hands.

I was approached by a member of the Lithuanian Parliament who drew my attention to the fact that the biometric system is not linked to the Police fingerprint database. In his opinion, by merging the passport issuing system with Police fingerprint database it would be possible to more effectively identify wanted, suspected and accused persons, because, having obtained a person’s fingerprints, the passport services would be able to see all the information available to the police: whether a person is wanted, or suspected of having committed a crime or other offences.

I would like to know the Commission’s opinion as to whether it would be possible to merge the biometric passport issuing system with other data registers (civic records, police databases of wanted people, unidentified human remains, suspected, accused and convicted persons) that collect, process and organise hand or fingerprints for more effective crime control and prevention?

Question for written answer E-000492/12

to the Commission

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)

(23 January 2012)

Subject: The effectiveness of the application of the system of biometric passport controls

Lithuania is moving over to a system of biometric passport controls, i.e. involving passports containing a scan of two fingerprints from the left and right hands, for the purposes of implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004. However, this regulation restricts the use of the biometric data on personal documents given that Article 4(3) stipulates that ‘for the purpose of this regulation, the biometric features in passports and travel documents shall only be used for verifying the authenticity of the document and the identity of the holder by means of directly available comparable features’.

What is the Commission’s view concerning the possibility of combining various data records (of population, persons sought by the police, unidentified remains, suspects, convicted persons) and systems (the system of biometric passport controls) involving the storage, processing and filing of fingerprints in one system so that it is possible to make a comparison and perform other necessary actions in order to ensure more effective crime control and prevention?

Does the Commission not think that merging these systems and records would help identify persons sought by the police or suspected or accused of crimes more effectively?

Joint answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2012)

Referring to the answers to Written Question E‐3962/09, E‐4811/09, E‐4867/09 and E‐8825/2011 (50), the Commission confirms that the objective of Regulation 2252/2004 is to set up security standards for passports and travel documents to protect against falsification. At the same time, biometric identifiers should be integrated in the passport or travel document to establish a reliable link between the genuine holder and the document. The regulation does not make provisions on the manner whereby personal data shall be stored by Member States.

A legislation that provides the access to personal data and biometric information contained in passports for a purpose other than that laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, implies a further processing of personal data. This has to comply with data protection principles laid down in Directive 95/46/EC, in particular principles of necessity and proportionality.

The access to these personal data for the purpose of prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime can be considered a legitimate purpose in a democratic society provided it complies with national law implementing Directive 95/46/EC and it is subject to appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of data subjects and strict security and organisational measures. National data protection authorities must also be given authority to monitor this processing of personal data and ensure the protection of rights of data subjects as well as compliance with security measures that have to be adopted.

The fulfilment of these requirements is essential to prevent a violation of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000201/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αιτίες αδυναμίας ολοκλήρωσης των ετήσιων προγραμμάτων για το 2007 και το 2008, για την αντιμετώπιση της παράνομης μετανάστευσης στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με την απάντηση της Επιτροπής σε προηγούμενη ερώτηση μου (E-010361/2011) που αφορά το ποσοστό εκτέλεσης των κονδυλίων των ευρωπαϊκών Ταμείων για την αντιμετώπιση της παράνομης μετανάστευσης στην Ελλάδα, προκύπτει ότι το κλείσιμο των πρώτων ετήσιων προγραμμάτων για το 2007 και το 2008 δεν έχει ακόμη ολοκληρωθεί. Η Επιτροπή, επομένως, δεν είναι σε θέση να αξιολογήσει το συνολικό επίπεδο εκτέλεσης των προγραμμάτων και τη γενική απορρόφηση των κονδυλίων των Ταμείων στην Ελλάδα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποίοι είναι οι λόγοι της σοβαρής χρονικής καθυστέρησης του κλεισίματος των πρώτων ετήσιων προγραμμάτων για το 2007 και το 2008; Πότε αναμένεται να ολοκληρωθούν;

Εκτιμά η Επιτροπή πως η καθυστέρηση αυτή θα έχει επιπτώσεις στην απορρόφηση κοινοτικών πόρων για τη μετανάστευση στην Ελλάδα και στην υλοποίηση των έργων των ετήσιων προγραμμάτων του 2011 και του 2012;

Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)

Επί του παρόντος εξετάζονται οι τελευταίες εκθέσεις για την εφαρμογή των ετήσιων προγραμμάτων 2007 και 2008 που υποβλήθηκαν στην Επιτροπή για τα τέσσερα Ταμεία του γενικού προγράμματος ₫Αλληλεγγύη και διαχείριση των μεταναστευτικών ροών₻. Το κλείσιμο αυτών των προγραμμάτων είναι μια διαδικασία που απαιτεί διάφορους τεχνικούς ελέγχους τόσο σε επιχειρησιακό όσο και σε οικονομικό επίπεδο. Ο χρόνος που απαιτείται για το κλείσιμο κάθε προγράμματος εξαρτάται από την πολυπλοκότητα του προγράμματος, την πληρότητα των απαιτούμενων πληροφοριών και την έγκαιρη υποβολή του στην Επιτροπή.

Κάθε ετήσιο πρόγραμμα έχει τον δικό του κύκλο ζωής και κάθε κλείσιμο είναι μια διοικητική διαδικασία που αρχίζει όταν ένα πρόγραμμα έχει ήδη ολοκληρωθεί. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι κάθε καθυστέρηση στο πλαίσιο της διαδικασίας κλεισίματος δεν έχει αντίκτυπο στην πραγματική εκτέλεση των μετέπειτα προγραμμάτων.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000201/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(18 January 2012)

Subject: Reasons for the failure to complete the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes addressing illegal immigration in Greece

According to the Commission’s reply to my previous question (E‐010361/2011) concerning the take-up rate of European funds to deal with illegal immigration in Greece, it would appear that the first annual programmes, for 2007 and 2008, have not yet been completed. The Commission, therefore, is not in a position to evaluate the overall level of implementation of programmes and the general take-up rate of funds by Greece.

Will the Commission answer the following:

What are the reasons for the serious delay in closing the first annual programmes for 2007 and 2008? When are they expected to be completed?

Does the Commission consider that this delay will impact on the take-up of Community funds for immigration in Greece and on the implementation of projects under the 2011 and 2012 annual programmes?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2012)

The final reports on the implementation of the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes submitted to the Commission for the four Funds of the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ are currently under examination. The closure of these programmes is a procedure requiring various technical checks at both operational and financial levels. The time needed for the closure of each programme depends on the complexity of the programme, the completeness of the required information and its timely submission to the Commission.

Each annual programme has its own project life cycle and every closure is an administrative procedure that starts when a programme has already ended. This means that any delay within the closure procedure has no impact on the actual implementation of the subsequent programmes.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000291/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)

(19 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Δηλώσεις του πρώην πρωθυπουργού της Τουρκίας Μ. Γιλμάζ και δημοσιεύματα τουρκικού Τύπου σχετικά με παράνομες δραστηριότητες μηχανισμών του τουρκικού κράτους

Σε συνέχεια των πρόσφατων αποκαλυπτικών δηλώσεων του πρώην πρωθυπουργού της Τουρκίας Μεσούτ Γιλμάζ στην εφημερίδα ₫BirG ü n περί προσχεδιασμένου εμπρησμού ελληνικών δασών από τις τουρκικές μυστικές υπηρεσίες, την περίοδο 1993-1996, ακολούθησαν σειρά δημοσιευμάτων στον τουρκικό Τύπο που αναφέρονται εκτενώς σε παράνομες δραστηριότητες του τουρκικού κράτους, επιβεβαιώνοντας ουσιαστικά τις αρχικές δηλώσεις Γιλμάζ.

Ενδεικτικά, οι εφημερίδες ₫Μιλιέτ₻ και ₫Βατάν₻ δημοσίευσαν άρθρα που αναφέρονται στη διαβόητη υπόθεση ₫Σουσούρλουκ₻ και συγκεκριμένα στην ύπαρξη έκθεσης που είχε συντάξει ο διευθυντής του γραφείου του τότε πρωθυπουργού της Τουρκίας Μεσούτ Γιλμάζ, η οποία, όπως αναφέρουν τα σχετικά δημοσιεύματα, περιγράφει εκτενώς τη δράση του τουρκικού ₫παρακρατικού₻ μηχανισμού και κάνει λόγο για πυρκαγιές σε ελληνικά δάση, τοποθέτηση βομβών σε αρμενικούς στόχους στην Ευρώπη, κ.λπ.

Κατόπιν των συγκλονιστικών αυτών αποκαλύψεων και με δεδομένη την έντονη ανησυχία και τον έντονο προβληματισμό που έχουν προκαλέσει οι σοβαρές αυτές αποκαλύψεις σχετικά με κατ' ουσίαν εχθρικές ενέργειες έναντι κράτους-μέλους, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι ενήμερη για τις παραπάνω πληροφορίες που αφορούν σε παράνομες δραστηριότητες του τουρκικού κράτους και εάν ναι, προτίθεται να ζητήσει περισσότερες σχετικές πληροφορίες;

Πιστεύει ότι θα πρέπει να υπάρξει άμεση και ενδελεχής διερεύνηση των δηλώσεων του πρώην πρωθυπουργού της Τουρκίας κ. Γιλμάζ, όπως με τη σύσταση κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής της Μεγάλης Τουρκικής Εθνοσυνέλευσης ή/και αυτεπάγγελτη κινητοποίηση της τουρκικής Δικαιοσύνης για τον ίδιο σκοπό;

Εάν η τουρκική πλευρά τελικώς αποφασίσει να μην κινηθεί προς την κατεύθυνση της πλήρους διαλεύκανσης της παραπάνω υπόθεσης, τι θα μπορούσε αυτό να σημάνει για τις σχέσεις ΕΕ-Τουρκίας;

Προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να θέσει το ζήτημα στις τουρκικές αρχές και να ζητήσει διευκρινίσεις για μια υπόθεση που φαίνεται να συνδέεται με επιθέσεις και σε άλλες πέραν της Ελλάδος χώρες της ΕΕ και διαβεβαιώσεις ότι τέτοιες πρακτικές δολιοφθορών δεν πρόκειται να επαναληφθούν ή να γίνουν ανεκτές;

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000482/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(24 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Ανάμειξη της τουρκικής κυβέρνησης στις πυρκαγιές στην Ελλάδα το 1995

Το 1998, η ελληνική κυβέρνηση διένειμε εσωτερικώς έγγραφο εντός της ΕΕ και του ΝΑΤΟ με το οποίο επισήμαινε την ανάμειξη της Άγκυρας στις πυρκαγιές που επανειλημμένα αφάνισαν ελληνικά δάση τη δεκαετία του 90. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση ισχυρίστηκε ότι είχε λάβει τις σχετικές πληροφορίες από την εθνική της υπηρεσία πληροφοριών (την ΕΥΠ). Τον Δεκέμβριο του 2011, ο πρώην Πρωθυπουργός της Τουρκίας Mesut Yilmaz επιβεβαίωσε τις αποκαλύψεις του εγγράφου που είχε εκδώσει η Αθήνα, δηλώνοντας ότι η τουρκική κυβέρνηση είχε πράγματι διατάξει πράκτορες της εθνικής της υπηρεσίας πληροφοριών (ΜΙΤ) να θέσουν πυρκαγιές σε ελληνικά δάση.

Διαθέτει η Επιτροπή περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με την εν λόγω υπόθεση;

Σε περίπτωση που επιβεβαιωθούν οι κατηγορίες κατά της Άγκυρας και δεδομένης της σοβαρότητάς τους, ποια δράση θα αναλάβει η Επιτροπή;

Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(13 Μαρτίου 2012)

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει τα Αξιότιμα Μέλη στην απάντηση της στις προηγούμενες γραπτές ερωτήσεις E-012686/2012 και E-000036/2012 (51).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000291/12

alla Commissione

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)

(19 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Dichiarazioni dell'ex Primo ministro turco Mesut Yilmaz e notizie riportate dalla stampa turca riguardo ad attività illegali di agenzie del governo turco

A seguito delle recenti dichiarazioni rivelatrici rilasciate dall'ex Primo ministro turco Mesut Yilmaz al quotidiano turco BirGün secondo cui i servizi segreti turchi avrebbero appiccato il fuoco ai boschi della Grecia nel periodo compreso fra il 1993 e il 1996, sono stati pubblicati sulla stampa turca articoli che contengono dettagli sulle attività illegali del governo turco e che in sostanza confermano le accuse originarie di Mesut Yilmaz.

A titolo di esempio, i quotidiani Milliyet e Vatan hanno pubblicato articoli che fanno riferimento all'infame caso Susurluk e più in particolare all'esistenza di una relazione del Capo di Gabinetto di Mesut Yilmaz, all'epoca Primo ministro; in tali articoli si afferma che la relazione descrive dettagliatamente le attività del giro di organizzazioni ₫clandestine₻ turche e menziona gli incendi nelle foreste greche, il bombardamento di obiettivi armeni in Europa e via di seguito.

In considerazione delle sconvolgenti affermazioni di cui sopra e delle forti preoccupazioni causate da queste gravi rivelazioni riguardanti atti sostanzialmente ostili nei confronti di uno Stato membro, si chiede alla Commissione:

È a conoscenza delle soprammenzionate informazioni riguardanti attività illegali del governo turco? In caso di risposta affermativa, intende la Commissione ricercare ulteriori informazioni sulla questione?

Ritiene la Commissione che si debba procedere a un'indagine immediata e approfondita sulla base delle affermazioni dell'ex Primo ministro turco Yilmaz, ad esempio istituendo una commissione parlamentare in seno alla Grande assemblea turca e/o mobilitando ex officio il sistema giudiziario turco a tale scopo?

Qualora la parte turca dovesse scegliere di non prendere provvedimenti in vista di una risoluzione globale della questione, questo sviluppo cosa potrebbe significare per le relazioni UE-Turchia?

Intende la Commissione sottoporre la questione alle autorità turche e cercare chiarimenti riguardo a un caso apparentemente legato ad attacchi contro paesi dell'UE diversi dalla Grecia, nonché la garanzia che detti atti di sabotaggio non saranno ripetuti né tollerati?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000482/12

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(24 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Coinvolgimento del governo turco negli incendi che hanno colpito la Grecia nel 1995

Nel 1998, il governo greco ha fatto circolare all'interno dell'UE e della NATO un documento che indicava il coinvolgimento del governo di Ankara negli incendi che hanno ripetutamente devastato le foreste della Grecia nel corso degli anni Novanta. Il governo greco sosteneva di aver ottenuto queste informazioni dal proprio servizio nazionale di intelligence (l'EYP). Nel dicembre 2011, l'ex Primo Ministro turco Mesut Yilmaz ha confermato quanto contenuto nel documento emesso da Atene, dichiarando che il governo turco aveva effettivamente ordinato ad agenti dell'intelligence nazionale turca (MIT) di appiccare incendi nelle foreste greche.

Dispone la Commissione di ulteriori informazioni al riguardo?

Nel caso in cui le accuse a carico di Ankara vengano confermate e considerata la gravità delle stesse, quali misure intende adottare?

Risposta congiunta data da Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione

(13 marzo 2012)

La Commissione rimanda gli onorevoli parlamentari alla sua risposta alle precedenti interrogazioni scritte E-012686/2012 e E-000036/2012 (52).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000291/12

to the Commission

Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)

(19 January 2012)

Subject: Allegations by the former Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz and reports in the Turkish press regarding illegal activities by agencies of the Turkish Government

Following recent revealing allegations by the former Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz to the Turkish newspaper B irGün regarding the intentional arson of Greek forests by the Turkish secret services in the period between 1993 and 1996, a series of stories have been printed in the Turkish Press, giving details on illegal activities by the Turkish Government and in essence confirming Yilmaz’s original allegations.

By way of example, Milliyet and Vatan posted articles referring to the infamous ‘Susurluk’ case and more specifically to the existence of a report by the chief of the bureau of Mesut Yilmaz, Prime Minister at the time; these articles claim that the report describes in detail the activities of the Turkish ring of ‘clandestine’ organisations and cites fires in Greek forests, bombings of Armenian targets in Europe and so on.

Further to the above shocking revelations and in view of the major concern triggered by these grave revelations regarding essentially hostile acts against a Member State, will the Commission answer the following:

Is the Commission aware of the above information referring to illegal activities by the Turkish Government? If so, does the Commission intend to seek further information on the matter?

Does the Commission consider that an immediate and thorough investigation of the claims made by the former Turkish Prime Minister Mr Yilmaz must ensue, for instance by establishing a parliamentary committee of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and/or the ex officio mobilisation of the Turkish legal system for the same purpose?

Should the Turkish side eventually elect not to take steps towards comprehensively solving the above case, what could this development signal for EU‐Turkey relations?

Does the Commission intend to refer the issue to the Turkish authorities and seek clarification on a case apparently linked to attacks on further EU countries other than Greece, and assurances that such acts of sabotage will not be repeated or tolerated?

Question for written answer E-000482/12

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(24 January 2012)

Subject: Involvement of the Turkish government in the fires in Greece in 1995

In 1998, the Greek Government circulated a document internally within the EU and NATO which pointed to the involvement of Ankara in the fires which repeatedly devastated Greek forests during the 1990s. The Greek Government claimed to have obtained this information from its own national intelligence service (the EYP). In December 2011, the former Turkish Prime Minister, Mesut Yilmaz, confirmed the revelations in the document released by Athens, declaring that the Turkish government had in fact ordered agents of its national intelligence service (MIT) to start fires in Greek forests.

Does the Commission have any further information in this regard?

In the event that the charges against Ankara are confirmed and given their seriousness, what action will the Commission take?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2012)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Members to its reply to previous Written Questions E‐012686/2012 and E‐000036/2012 (53).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-000297/12

à la Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE)

(17 janvier 2012)

Objet: Nouvelle gouvernance euro-méditerranéenne: rôle des villes et des régions dans l'Union pour la Méditerranée et renforcement de la coopération décentralisée

Le Printemps arabe a fait naître de nouveaux espoirs de relance et d'approfondissement du partenariat euro-méditerranéen. La société civile a montré son importance dans les changements politiques intervenus au sud de la Méditerranée, et c'est donc à un nouvel échelon, celui de la proximité, qu'il convient de fonder les nouvelles collaborations.

Pour consolider les avancées démocratiques et travailler sur des projets concrets associant les deux rives de la Méditerranée, une nouvelle gouvernance euro-méditerranéenne doit se mettre en place, impliquant davantage les villes et les régions dans le cadre de l'Union pour la Méditerranée. Ceci renfoncera sans aucun doute le sentiment d'appropriation du processus de coopération par les citoyens euro-méditerranéens.

Deux initiatives méritent d'être saluées et renforcées. Le 21 janvier 2010 a été lancée à Barcelone l'Assemblée Régionale et Locale Euro-Méditerranéenne (ARLEM), nouvel espace institutionnel de dialogue pour les autorités locales et régionales au sein de l'UpM.

Précédemment, en 2000, la Ville de Bordeaux avait mis en place le Réseau des Villes Euromed, dont la prochaine session plénière se tiendra les 9 et 10 février 2012 à Nice, ville qui préside le réseau depuis novembre 2008.

1.

Quel rôle institutionnel la Commission compte-t-elle attribuer à l'ARLEM et au Réseau des Villes Euromed dans le cadre de l'Union pour la Méditerranée?

2.

Plus largement, quelle place la Commission européenne entend-elle accorder à la coopération décentralisée euro-méditerranéenne dans le cadre de la politique européenne de voisinage? Dans ce contexte, quelles mesures et quels financements envisage-t-elle?

3.

Dans le cadre de la coopération décentralisée euro-méditerranéenne, quelles initiatives la Commission prévoit-elle de soutenir

dans les domaines du développement durable, des déchets, de l'eau, des transports et de la gestion urbaine?

Réponse donnée par M. Füle au nom de la Commission

(21 mars 2012)

1.

Lors de leur réunion des 3 et 4 novembre 2008 à Marseille, les ministres des affaires étrangères des pays de l'Union pour la Méditerranée ont reconnu l'importance de la dimension locale et régionale et du rôle joué par l'Assemblée régionale et locale euro-méditerranéenne. La Commission maintiendra une coopération étroite avec l'ARLEM et renforcera sa coordination avec les villes Euromed.

2.

La Commission et la Vice-présidente/Haute représentante ont insisté sur le rôle important joué par les autorités locales et régionales et leur participation à la définition de la politique européenne de voisinage. La Commission prévoit d'octroyer une aide financière concrète aux autorités locales en vue de soutenir leur processus de décentralisation; cette aide revêtira trois formes principales, à savoir des programmes d'aide bilatéraux et régionaux, ainsi que les programmes d'aide thématiques intitulés

₫acteurs non-étatiques et autorités locales dans la politique du développement₻.

3.

L'UE finance plusieurs actions dans le cadre euro-méditerranéen, notamment a) un projet régional antérieur intitulé MED-PACT, doté d'un budget de 5 millions d'euros (programme de partenariat avec les autorités locales du bassin méditerranéen), portant sur la période 2006-2009 et destiné à encourager la coopération entre les villes; b) le programme Ciudad (coopération en matière de développement urbain et de dialogue), en cours, doté d'un budget de 14 millions d'euros, portant sur la période 2009-2013 et destiné à soutenir la planification d'un développement urbain durable sur le long terme en encourageant les partenariats entre les autorités locales; c) un nouveau projet régional intitulé

₫Cleaner Energy-Saving Mediterranean Cities₻, doté d'un budget de 5 millions d'euros pour la période 2012-2015 et destiné à renforcer les capacités des autorités locales à mettre en œuvre des politiques durables à leur échelon (énergies renouvelables, gestion efficace des ressources en eau, etc.), ainsi qu'à les préparer à adhérer au pacte des maires; d) des programmes d'aide portant sur des thèmes spécifiques et s'adressant aux acteurs non-étatiques ainsi qu'aux autorités locales.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000297/12

to the Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE)

(17 January 2012)

Subject: New Euro-Mediterranean governance: role of the cities and regions in the Union for the Mediterranean and strengthening decentralised cooperation

The Arab Spring has given rise to new hopes of reviving and deepening the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Civil society has demonstrated its importance in the political changes that have taken place in the southern Mediterranean, and our cooperation should now be founded on a new basis, that of closeness to the citizen.

In order to consolidate the democratic advances that have been made and work on concrete projects bringing together the two sides of the Mediterranean, a new Euro-Mediterranean governance should be put in place, involving cities and regions more intensively in the Union for the Mediterranean. This will undoubtedly strengthen the feeling of ownership of the cooperation process among Euro-Mediterranean citizens.

Two initiatives should be welcomed and supported. On 21 January 2010, the Euro-Mediterranean Local and Regional Assembly (ARLEM), a new institutional forum for dialogue among local and regional authorities within the UfM, was established in Barcelona.

Previously, in 2000, the City of Bordeaux set up the Euromed Cities Network, which will hold its next plenary session on 9 and 10 February 2012 in Nice, a city which has chaired the network since November 2008.

1.

What institutional role does the Commission intend to accord to ARLEM and the Euromed Cities Network in the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean?

2.

More broadly, what place does the European Commission aim to give to decentralised Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy? In this context, what measures and financing does it envisage?

3.

In the framework of decentralised Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, what measures does the Commission plan to support in the areas of sustainable development, waste, water, transport and urban management?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2012)

1.

The UfM Ministers of Foreign Affairs at their meeting on 3-4 November 2008 in Marseilles acknowledged the importance of the local and regional level and the role of a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly. The Commission will continue having close cooperation with ARLEM and enhance coordination with the Euro-Med Cities.

2.

The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President emphasised the importance and involvement of local and regional authorities in shaping the European Neighbourhood Policy. It envisages concrete financial support to local authorities to assist them in their decentralisation process through three main channels i.e. bilateral and regional support programmes and the thematic support programme called Non —State Actors and Local Authorities in Development.

3.

EU‐funded actions in the Euro-Med framework include a) a previous EUR 5 million MED-PACT regional project (Local Authorities Partnership Programme in the Mediterranean) from 2006 to 2009, encouraged cooperation between cities; b) the ongoing regional EUR 14 million CUIDAD Programme (Cooperation in Urban Development and Dialogue) for 2009-2013, supported sustainable and long term urban development planning by enhancing partnerships among local authorities; c) a new EUR 5 million regional project called

‘Cleaner Energy Saving Mediterranean Cities’ with a budget for 2012-2015 with a view to strengthening the capacity of local authorities to implement more sustainable local policies (renewable energy, efficient water etc.) and to prepare them for signing up to the Covenant of Mayors; d) specific thematic support programmes on non-state actors and local authorities.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000333/12

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(19 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Muerte de Idrissa Diallo en el Centro de Internamiento de Extranjeros (CIE) de Barcelona. Permanente vulneración de los derechos humanos, malos tratos y represión en los CIE españoles

En la madrugada del pasado 6 de enero falleció en el Centro de Internamiento de la Zona Franca de Barcelona Idrissa Diallo, joven africano de 21 años, que había sido trasladado a Barcelona desde el CIE de Melilla el pasado 22 de diciembre. Esta muerte se suma a la de otras tres personas muertas en circunstancias confusas en el mismo CIE y, al menos, a otra muerte en el CIE de Valencia, y son numerosos los casos de denuncias por deficiencias en el tratamiento de enfermedades y adicciones.

En los CIE se priva de libertad a personas por carecer de permiso de residencia, una irregularidad tipificada como falta administrativa que, a pesar de ser equivalente en el marco legislativo español a una multa de tráfico, conlleva una reclusión obligada de hasta 60 días. La existencia de estos centros responde a la política europea migratoria actual, defendida por socialdemócratas y conservadores, que instrumentaliza a las personas extranjeras y las trata como simple mano de obra barata, expulsando a las que el mercado no necesita.

La habitabilidad de estos centros, como vienen denunciando numerosas organizaciones sociales, es nula, con unas condiciones peores que en las cárceles comunes, y las personas allí recluidas ven vulnerados sus derechos humanos fundamentales y tienen que enfrentarse a actos de represión policial y malos tratos que quedan impunes la mayoría de las veces, ya que los que se atreven a denunciarlos son deportados.

La gestión de estos centros y las condiciones a las que están expuestas las personas recluidas se caracterizan por la opacidad y la ausencia de control sobre el trato que reciben los internos. De hecho, aún no ha sido aprobado ningún tipo de reglamento sobre su funcionamiento e incluso existen centros que se utilizan como CIE sin estar reconocidos por el Estado español.

Teniendo en cuenta además que, tal y como denuncia el último informe de la red euroafricana Migreurop, que integra a 40 organizaciones de 14 países, titulado ₫CIE, derechos vulnerados₻, las personas recluidas en estos centros se ven privadas injustamente de derechos fundamentales tan primordiales como la intimidad, la asistencia jurídica, la integridad moral y la propia dignidad,

¿Piensa la Comisión solicitar al Gobierno español el cierre de estos centros para poner fin a la vulneración de los derechos fundamentales de las personas allí recluidas? ¿Dispone la Comisión de información sobre estos centros o piensa solicitarla al Gobierno español? ¿Piensa investigar la Comisión Europea la muerte de este joven y las condiciones a las que se enfrentan las personas recluidas? ¿Puede informar la Comisión sobre centros de este tipo en otros países miembros de la UE?

Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de febrero de 2012)

La evaluación de incidentes específicos y la persecución de posibles delitos cometidos en centros de internamiento nacionales es, ante todo, competencia de las autoridades y los órganos jurisdiccionales nacionales.

Se llama la atención de Su Señoría sobre la Directiva 2008/115/CE relativa a normas y procedimientos comunes en los Estados miembros para el retorno de los nacionales de terceros países en situación irregular  (54), que contiene salvaguardias importantes para garantizar unas condiciones de internamiento humanas y dignas en los Estados miembros, en particular, en sus artículos 15 a 17. Esta Directiva debía ser incorporada por los Estados miembros a su legislación nacional a más tardar el 24 de diciembre de  2010.

En 2011 España notificó a la Comisión Europea la transposición plena de dicha Directiva sobre el retorno. Como ya señaló en su respuesta a la pregunta escrita 11745/2011, la Comisión examinará sistemáticamente la compatibilidad de la legislación nacional de ejecución notificada con las obligaciones impuestas por la Directiva sobre el retorno, incluidas sus disposiciones relacionadas con el internamiento. Para ese examen podrá contarse con un estudio a nivel de la UE sobre las posibles deficiencias, cuyos resultados se darán a conocer a lo largo del presente año. Además, durante 2013 se llevará a cabo otro estudio sobre la aplicación práctica en los Estados miembros de la Directiva sobre el retorno. Ambos estudios servirán de base para la incoación, en caso necesario, de procedimientos de infracción, centrándose también en la situación de los centros de internamiento.

La Comisión lamenta no disponer de suficiente información en este momento para responder a las preguntas de Su Señoría acerca de la situación en los centros de internamiento en los Estados miembros de la UE en general.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000333/12

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(19 January 2012)

Subject: Death of Idrissa Diallo in the Detention Centre for Foreigners (CIE) in Barcelona. Permanent violation of human rights, mistreatment and repression in Spanish Detention Centres.

In the early hours of 6 January 2012, Idrissa Diallo, a young African man of 21 years of age, died in the Detention Centre for Foreigners in Barcelona’s Zona Franca. He had been transferred to Barcelona from the Detention Centre in Melilla on 22 December 2011. This follows the death of three other people in mysterious circumstances in the same Detention Centre, as well as one other death in Valencia’s Detention Centre. Moreover, there have been numerous complaints regarding deficiencies in treatments of illnesses and addictions in these centres.

The Detention Centres are used to incarcerate people who have no residence permit; an irregularity classed as an administrative offence that, despite being akin to a speeding fine in Spanish law, carries a prison sentence of up to 60 days. The existence of these centres is in response to current European immigration policy, supported by both social democrats and conservatives, which dehumanises foreign people and treats them as cheap labour, expelling those the market does not need.

Several social organisations have complained that these centres are uninhabitable. Conditions are worse than in common prisons, and confined people have their fundamental human rights violated and face acts of political repression and mistreatment that are seldom punished, since those who do dare to report such acts are deported.

The management of these centres and the conditions to which people confined there are exposed are characterised by opaqueness and the absence of control over the treatment of detainees. In fact, there is still no kind of regulation regarding their day-to-day operation and there are even centres used as CIEs that are not recognised by the Spanish State.

Moreover, we should take into account that people confined in these centres are deprived unjustly of their most basic, fundamental rights such as privacy, legal assistance, moral integrity and personal dignity, as shown in the most recent report from the Euro-African network Migreurop, which involves 40 organisations from 14 countries, titled ‘CIE, violated rights’.

Will the Commission call on the Spanish Government to close down these centres in order to end the violation of fundamental rights of the people confined in them? Does the Commission have any information on these centres, or will it request information from the Spanish Government? will the Commission investigate the death of this young man and the conditions faced by those confined in such centres? Can the Commission provide information on centres of this kind in other EU Member States?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2012)

The assessment of individual incidents and pursuit of possible criminal offences which take place in national detention centres is a matter primarily for the national authorities and courts concerned.

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third‐country nationals (55) which contains important safeguards to ensure humane and dignified detention conditions in Member States, notably in its Articles 15-17. This directive was due to be transposed by Member States into national legislation by 24 December 2010.

In 2011, Spain notified the full transposition of the Return Directive to the European Commission. As already set out in its reply to written question 11745/2011, the Commission will systematically check the compatibility of the notified national implementing legislation with the obligations imposed by the Return Directive, including its detention related provisions. This examination will benefit from an EU‐wide study on identifying possible shortcomings, the results of which will be available in the course of this year. In addition, a study relating to the practical application of the Return Directive in Member States will be carried out in the course of 2013. Both studies will serve as factual basis for launching — if necessary — infringement procedures focusing also in particular on the situation in detention centres.

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information at this moment to be able to answer the questions of the Honourable Member related to the situation in detention centres in EU Member States in general.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000344/12

an die Kommission

Hermann Winkler (PPE)

(19. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Kommunale Abwasserpolitik: Umsetzung der Richtlinien 91/271/EWG, geändert durch 98/15/EG und 2000/60/EG

Die notwendige Zweitbehandlung von kommunalem Abwasser vor der Einleitung in die Kanalisation, wie sie in der Richtlinie 91/271/EWG in Artikel 4 statuiert wird, wird in der Region Sachsen gerade in den ländlichen Regionen mithilfe der Umrüstung privater Kleinkläranlagen für eine solche biologische Reinigung bzw. mit dem Angebot von Gruppenkläranlagen gegen sogenannte „freiwillige Baukostenzuschüsse“ gewährleistet. Gerade der Landbevölkerung, die auf solche Kleinkläranlagen zurückgreifen muss, werden damit unverhältnismäßig hohe finanzielle und andere Belastungen, auch im Vergleich zur Stadtbevölkerung, auferlegt. (Sachsen hat offensichtlich alle Gebiete als „empfindlich“ deklarieren lassen, mit der Konsequenz, dass in ganz Sachsen eine Zweitbehandlung erfolgen muss.)

Nun sind dies im Einzelnen natürlich keine Vorgaben der EU, da dieses spezielle Instrument nicht vorgeschrieben wird bzw. werden kann. Für Gebiete unter 2 000 Einwohnern gibt es dort außerdem gar keine Vorgaben. Jedoch ist laut zuständigem Ministerium zumindest der Zeitpunkt der spätmöglichsten Nachrüstung vorhandener Kleinkläranlagen im Rahmen der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG mit dem Jahr 2015 vorgegeben, welche bis dahin einen „guten Zustand“ aller Gewässer fordert.

— Ist dies korrekt oder hätte Deutschland von einer Verlängerungsmöglichkeit gemäß Artikel 4 Absatz 4 Gebrauch machen können? Und in welchem Verhältnis stehen die Richtlinien 91/271/EWG und 2000/60/EG und ihre jeweiligen Fristen zueinander?

— Ist der Kommission die o. g. Problematik bekannt, und ist der Kommission bekannt, wie die Umsetzung dieser Vorschrift in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten erfolgt ist?

— Die betroffenen Bürger sehen in dieser Form der Umsetzung neben den finanziellen Belastungen das Ziel der Richtlinie sowie der gesamten EU-Klima— und Ressourcenschutzpolitik konterkariert, da der Energieverbrauch extrem hoch sei. Sieht die Kommission u. a. deshalb eine Möglichkeit, gegen diese spezifische Umsetzung vorzugehen sowie bei der für 2012 anstehenden Revision der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG und der gesamten Wasserpolitik der EU das o. g. Problem zu verhindern?

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(28. Februar 2012)

Ziel der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie 2000/60/EG (56) ist es, dass alle Gewässer bis 2015 in gutem Zustand sind. Alle Maßnahmen müssen bis Ende 2012 anwendungsbereit sein.

In der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie sind alle Belastungen der aquatischen Umwelt erfasst, einschließlich kleiner Abwassereinleitungen, wenn diese erhebliche Auswirkungen haben. Die Richtlinie stützt sich u. a. auf die Richtlinie 91/271/EWG über die Behandlung von kommunalem Abwasser (57). Nach Artikel 7 der letztgenannten Richtlinie sollten die Mitgliedstaaten sicherstellen, dass Einleitungen in Binnengewässer und Ästuare aus Gemeinden mit weniger als 2 000 Einwohnern zur Erreichung der in den EU-Vorschriften festgelegten Ziele eine geeignete Behandlung erfahren.

Es ist Sache der Mitgliedstaaten, die einzelnen Maßnahmen festzulegen, mit denen sie die Ziele der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie erreichen wollen, und wie sie die Finanzierungsbedingungen hierfür gestalten wollen. Artikel 9 der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie verpflichtet die Mitgliedstaaten, die Wasserpreise auf Basis des Kostendeckungs— und des Verursacherprinzips festzusetzen. Bei der Festlegung dieser Verfahren können die Mitgliedstaaten die sozialen, ökologischen und wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Kostendeckungsprinzips berücksichtigen.

Was den Energieverbrauch anbelangt, so obliegt es den Mitgliedstaaten, dafür zu sorgen, dass die sachgemäße Behandlung des Abwassers energieeffizient und in Übereinstimmung mit der EU-Klima— und Energiepolitik erfolgt.

Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie sieht die Möglichkeit vor, die Ziele nach 2015 zu verwirklichen, wenn sich dies bis 2015 aus Gründen der technischen Durchführbarkeit oder unverhältnismäßig hoher Kosten nicht erreichen lässt. Die Kommission bewertet zurzeit die Bewirtschaftungspläne für die Flusseinzugsgebiete, die von den Mitgliedstaaten übermittelt wurden, und prüft die Anträge auf Ausnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass sie mit den Verpflichtungen aus der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie vereinbar sind. Sie wird ihre Feststellungen im November 2012 veröffentlichen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000344/12

to the Commission

Hermann Winkler (PPE)

(19 January 2012)

Subject: Urban waste-water policy: implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC, as amended by Directives 98/15/EC and 2000/60/EC

The required secondary treatment of urban waste-water before it is discharged into sewers, as set down in Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC, is currently being implemented specifically in the rural parts of Saxony through the conversion of small private sewage treatment plants for biological purification and the provision of group sewage treatment plants in return for so-called ‘voluntary construction cost grants’. Thus, in comparison with urban dwellers, rural communities, which are dependent on these small sewage treatment plants, are subject to disproportionately high financial costs and other burdens. (Saxony has obviously had all its territories declared ‘environmentally sensitive’, so that secondary treatment is required throughout the region.)

Naturally these are not requirements of the EU, because this special instrument is not, and cannot be, prescribed. Furthermore, the EU has no requirements in relation to areas with populations of less than 2 000. According to the responsible Ministry, however, 2015 marks the deadline for the upgrading of existing small sewage treatment plants under Directive 2000/60/EC, which requires all waters to achieve ‘good status’.

— Is this correct, or could Germany have availed itself of an extension according to Article 4(4)? What is the relationship between Directives 91/271/EEC and 2000/60/EC and their respective deadlines?

— Is the Commission familiar with this problem and does the Commission know how this provision has been implemented in the other Member States?

— As well as suffering a financial burden, the affected citizens also believe that this form of implementation runs counter to the objectives of the directive and the entire EU climate and resource protection policy because the level of energy consumption is extremely high. Does the Commission therefore see any way of proceeding against this specific implementation and preventing the aforementioned problem when it comes to the pending revision of Directive 2000/60/EC and the entire water policy of the EU planned for 2012?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2012)

The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC (58)) aims to achieve good status of all waters by 2015. All measures need to be operational by the end of 2012.

The WFD covers all pressures on the aquatic environment, including small waste water discharges, if these are causing significant impacts. The WFD objective builds, among others, on the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD 91/271/EEC (59)). According to Article 7 of UWWTD Member States should ensure that any discharge to freshwater or estuaries from agglomerations smaller than 2 000 population equivalents is subject to appropriate treatment to meet the objectives under EU legislation.

It is for the Member States to define the precise measures to achieve the WFD objectives and to establish the financing modalities. Article 9 of the WFD establishes the obligation for Member States to set up water pricing policies based on the principles of recovery of costs and polluter pays. However, in setting the policies, Member States may have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the cost recovery.

As regards energy consumption, it is for Member States to ensure that the proper treatment of waste water is energy efficient and compatible with the EU Climate and Energy policy.

The WFD includes the possibility to delay the achievement of the objectives to later than 2015 for reasons of disproportionate cost and technical unfeasibility. The Commission is assessing the river basin management plans reported by Member States and will scrutinise the application of exemptions to ensure they are in line with the obligations of the WFD. The Commission will publish its findings in November 2012.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000365/12

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(20 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: VP/HR — Caso urgente — Violación de los derechos humanos en Rusia — Situación de la libertad de expresión y el Estado de Derecho en Rusia — Sentencia judicial de prohibición de materiales de Falun Gong

El 22 de diciembre de  2011, el tribunal regional de Krasnodar (Rusia) confirmó la sentencia del tribunal de distrito en virtud de la cual los materiales de Falun Gong (incluida su obra principal, Zhuan Falun, libro traducido a más de 39 lenguas y distribuido libremente en más de cien países, el Informe sobre presuntos robos de órganos de practicantes de Falun Gong en China, del que son autores los juristas canadienses David Matas y David Kilgour, y diversos opúsculos sobre la persecución de Falun Gong en China) seguirán en la lista de publicaciones extremistas mantenida por el Ministerio de Justicia de la Federación de Rusia.

Durante el juicio se produjeron numerosas violaciones de principios procesales, ya que no se respetó ni se tuvo en cuenta el derecho de los practicantes de Falun Gong a defenderse. Hasta hoy, el sistema judicial ruso no protege los derechos de las personas, sino que sirve a los objetivos políticos de las autoridades rusas, que en este caso actúan presionadas por el régimen chino. En esta ocasión, la sentencia puede dar lugar a medidas restrictivas contra los practicantes rusos de Falun Gong: sanciones penales, sanciones administrativas y multas, registros y requisas de materiales relacionados con Falun Gong, cierre de locales para prácticas en grupo, prohibición de actividades públicas, detenciones de participantes, etc.

Las asociaciones Falun Gong están legalmente registradas en varias ciudades de Rusia y sus miembros son residentes que respetan la ley, en consonancia con la práctica de meditación de Falun Gong. Esta decisión judicial constituye una violación evidente de los derechos humanos de los practicantes de Falun Gong: la libertad de expresión y la libertad religiosa, garantizadas en virtud de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, de los que Rusia es signataria.

Después de las palabras pronunciadas por la Alta Representante, Lady Ashton, en relación con el Informe anual sobre Derechos Humanos el 13 de diciembre de  2011 en Estrasburgo, la Unión Europea no puede mantener su postura de business as usual en sus relaciones con el Gobierno ruso.

¿Es conocedora la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de estas violaciones de derechos humanos? En tal caso, ¿qué medidas ha adoptado hasta la fecha la Delegación de la UE en Rusia para proteger los derechos fundamentales de los practicantes de Falun Gong?

¿Piensa la Vicepresidente/Alta Representante suscitar esta cuestión ante el Gobierno ruso durante la próxima cumbre UE-Rusia e incluirla en el capítulo de condiciones de los acuerdos con Rusia en todos los niveles del diálogo bilateral?

Los firmantes pedimos a la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante que investigue los casos de malos tratos sufridos por los practicantes de Falun Gong en Rusia y adopte todas las medidas necesarias para garantizar sus derechos.

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

(27 de marzo de 2012)

Estamos muy pendientes del asunto Falun Gong en Rusia. Miembros del personal del SEAE se han reunido con los representantes de Falun Gong de Rusia, en numerosas ocasiones, para obtener información de primera mano sobre el asunto. La AR/VP está al tanto de la sentencia judicial que confirma la decisión de incluir el material de Falun Gong en una lista del Ministerio de Justicia de publicaciones extremistas y de medidas restrictivas, como procesamientos, registros, multas y decomisos, que se derivan de la misma. La AR/VP está muy preocupada por este asunto y por las consecuencias que podría tener en un contexto más amplio.

Tanto la libertad de expresión como la aplicación de la legislación antiextremista y el respeto a las leyes en los tribunales rusos son cuestiones que se están planteando a las autoridades rusas. El tema del uso y abuso de la Ley Antiextremista se ha abordado durante las tres últimas consultas sobre derechos humanos con Rusia. La cuestión de la lista de publicaciones extremistas del Ministerio de Justicia ha formado parte de las discusiones. El SEAE planteó el tema de los materiales prohibidos del movimiento Falun Gong en la consulta del 29 de noviembre. La delegación de la UE en Moscú realizará el seguimiento de los procesos judiciales sobre los materiales prohibidos, asunto que Falun Gong ha llevado al Tribunal Supremo de la Federación de Rusia.

Además de los debates de estos asuntos en diferentes foros, la UE hace uso de otros instrumentos para fomentar cambios positivos en las estructuras institucionales de Rusia y de la sociedad en general. Uno de dichos instrumentos es nuestra Asociación para la Modernización con Rusia, cuya piedra angular es el Estado de Derecho. La UE anima a Rusia a que, entre otras cosas, prosiga sus reformas del sistema judicial también en este contexto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000365/12

to the Commission (Vice-President / High Representative)

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(20 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Urgent case regarding violation of human rights in Russia — Situation of freedom of expression and the rule of law in Russia, court case banning Falun Gong materials

On 22 December 2011, the regional court in Krasnodar, Russia, upheld the decision by the district court that Falun Gong materials, including its main book ‘Zhuan Falun’, translated into over 39 languages and distributed freely in more than 100 countries, ‘Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China’, authored by two Canadian lawyers David Matas and David Kilgour, and leaflets about the persecution of Falun Gong in China, are to remain on the Russian Ministry of Justice’s list of extremist publications.

There were numerous violations in the court proceedings, in which the rights of Falun Gong practitioners to defend themselves were not respected and taken into account. So far, the Russian judiciary system has not defended people’s rights, but has instead served the political agenda of the Russian authorities, which in this case are acting under the pressure from the Chinese regime. This court decision may result in restrictive measures against Russian Falun Gong practitioners: criminal prosecution; administrative arrests and fines; searches and confiscation of Falun Gong-related materials; prohibition of group practice sites and public activities, and the arrest of participants.

The Falun Gong association has been legally registered in several cities in Russia and Falun Gong practitioners in Russia are law-abiding residents, who follow the peaceful meditation practice of Falun Gong. This court case is an obvious violation of the fundamental human rights of Falun Gong practitioners — freedom of expression and freedom of belief, which are guaranteed by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russia has signed.

Following the speech by the High Representative, Lady Ashton, on the Annual Human Rights Report in Parliament in Strasbourg on 13 December 2011, the EU cannot continue with its ‘business as usual’ approach to its relations with the Russian Government.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of these human rights violations? If so, what action has the EU Delegation in Russia taken so far to protect the fundamental rights of Russian Falun Gong practitioners?

Will the Vice-President/High Representative raise this issue with the Russian Government during the next EU‐Russia summit and include this issue as one condition in the agreements with Russia at all levels of bilateral dialogue?

We call on the Vice-President/High Representative to investigate the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners in Russia and to take all necessary action to guarantee their rights.

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

(27 March 2012)

The case of Falun Gong in Russia is being followed closely. Staff from the EEAS have met with the Falun Gong representatives from Russia on numerous occasions to get the firsthand information on this case. The HR/VP is thus aware of the court ruling upholding a decision to include Falun Gong material on a Ministry of Justice’s list of extremist publications, and of restrictive actions, including prosecutions, searches, fines and confiscations, that ensue from this and such decisions. The HR/VP remains very concerned about this case and about its broader implications.

Issues relating to the freedom of expression, the application of the anti-extremist law, and the due process of law in the Russian courts are all being raised with the Russian authorities. The issue of the use and abuse of the Law of the Anti-Extremism has been raised during the last three consecutive human rights consultations with Russia. The issue of the Ministry of Justice’s list of extremist publications has been part of those discussions. The EEAS raised the case of the banned Falun Gong materials at the November 29 meeting of the consultations. The EU Delegation in Moscow will be monitoring the judicial proceedings on the banned material, which Falun Gong has now brought to the level of the Supreme Court of the RF.

In addition to discussions of these questions in different fora, the EU uses a number of other instruments to encourage positive change in Russia’s institutional structures and the society at large. One of such is our Partnership for Modernisation with Russia. Rule of law is at the core of this Partnership; the EU encourages Russia to inter alia pursue reforms of the judiciary system also in this context.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000367/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto rappresentante)

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(20 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Condanna dell'Ex Primo Ministro ucraino, condizioni di detenzione disumane

È sempre più difficile sostenere che quella contro l'ex Primo Ministro Ucraino, Yulia Tymoshenko, non sia una persecuzione politica. Il Primo Ministro è stato condannato lo scorso 11 ottobre a 7 anni di carcere per un accordo su una fornitura di gas alla Russia di Putin, ed è ora sottoposta a un rigidissimo regime di carcerazione.

Yulia Tymoshenko è filmata contro il suo volere in carcere, trasferita in una colonia penale dove deve dormire con la luce accesa sotto costante controllo di una telecamera, privata, secondo i suoi avvocati, delle cure di cui avrebbe bisogno. Dalle ultime notizie, sembrerebbe che il governo ucraino abbia deciso anche di prendersela con la sua famiglia, per aumentare la pressione sulla Tymoshenko. Il governo della Repubblica Ceca ha concesso asilo politico al marito, contro il quale sarebbe stato aperto un procedimento penale. Non è escluso che nel prossimo futuro anche la figlia decida di riparare all'estero. L'attuale presidente ucraino Viktor Yanukovich e, naturalmente, i tribunali sostengono che l'ex Primo Ministro ha danneggiato il Paese firmando l'accordo sul gas con il premier russo Vladimir Putin.

Tutto ciò premesso, si chiede all'Alto Commissario:

se ritiene che i modi in cui si è svolto il processo e la successiva pena detentiva possano essere considerati legittimi e rispettosi dei diritti umani fondamentali;

se così non fosse, se s'intende intervenire, e in che modo, per salvaguardare la dignità di una persona che più volte è venuta a riferire davanti alle istituzioni europee e a noi Deputati;

quale posizione sta mantenendo l'UE nelle relazioni con l'Ucraina, soprattutto a seguito del blocco del trattato di associazione che doveva dar vita a relazioni più strette tra l'UE e codesto Paese, e se si prevede già una prossima data in agenda per la ridiscussione del negoziato.

Risposta data dall'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione

(4 maggio 2012)

L'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente Ashton ha espresso, a nome dell'UE, il suo forte disappunto per la sentenza del Tribunale distrettuale di Pechersk in Ucraina nel processo a Yulia Tymoshenko. La sentenza è giunta dopo un processo che non ha rispettato le norme internazionali da applicare a un procedimento giudiziario equo, trasparente e indipendente. Le relative dichiarazioni dell'Alta rappresentante e del suo portavoce possono essere consultate online.

L'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente si è inoltre detta preoccupata del fatto che il processo di appello non abbia affrontato adeguatamente le lacune del processo iniziale. Considerato che è stato segnalato un peggioramento delle condizioni di salute di Yulia Tymoshenko, l'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente ha più volte sollecitato un esame medico indipendente e la prestazione delle opportune cure mediche in tempi rapidi. Il 12 dicembre 2011 il commissario Füle ha visitato in cella la signora Tymoshenko, che ha potuto così informarlo delle sue condizioni di detenzione. Di recente, medici tedeschi e canadesi sono stati autorizzati ad effettuare una visita medica indipendente.

L'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente si rallegra che l'Ucraina abbia accettato di pubblicare le osservazioni preliminari della recente visita nel paese del comitato del Consiglio d’Europa per la prevenzione della tortura e delle pene e trattamenti inumani o degradanti, che ha preso in esame anche l'assistenza sanitaria prestata ad alcuni detenuti, tra cui Yulia Tymoshenko.

Nei suoi interventi pubblici, l'Alta rappresentante/vicepresidente ha sottolineato il nesso tra il grado di rispetto dello Stato di diritto e dei diritti fondamentali da parte dell'Ucraina e lo sviluppo delle relazioni bilaterali tra il paese e l'UE, anche per quanto riguarda la firma e la conclusione dell'accordo di associazione e la sua successiva attuazione.

I negoziati dell'accordo di associazione UE-Ucraina sono ormai conclusi ed è possibile completare, dal punto di vista tecnico, l'ultima versione consolidata dell’accordo, anche per gli aspetti relativi alla zona di libero scambio globale e approfondito, da siglare non appena possibile.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000367/12

to the Commission (Vice-President / High Representative)

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(20 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — The conviction of the former Prime Minister of Ukraine and the inhumane conditions in which she is being detained

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain that the way the former Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, is being treated does not amount to political persecution. On 11 October last year, she was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment in connection with an agreement to supply gas to Putin’s Russia. She is now being subjected to harsh prison conditions.

Yulia Tymoshenko is being filmed in prison against her will, and has been transferred to a penal colony where she is forced to sleep with the lights on and kept under constant CCTV surveillance. According to her lawyers, she is being denied access to the medical treatment she needs. According to recent reports, it seems that the Ukrainian government has also decided to increase the pressure on Tymoshenko by victimising her family. The Government of the Czech Republic has granted political asylum to her husband, against whom criminal proceedings have reportedly been initiated. There is a possibility that her daughter will also decide to move abroad in the near future The current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and, of course, the courts claim that the former Prime Minister damaged the country by signing the gas deal with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

In view of the foregoing:

Does the High Commissioner regard the conduct of Yulia Tymoshenko’s trial, and the way she is being treated in prison, as lawful and in accordance with fundamental human rights?

If not, would the High Commissioner state whether, and in what way, she intends to intervene to uphold the dignity of a person who has appeared on several occasions before the European institutions and the Members of the European Parliament?

What position is the EU adopting in its relations with Ukraine, especially following the stalling of the association agreement which was intended to establish closer relations between the EU and Ukraine, and has an early date been set for the resumption of negotiations?

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

(4 May 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President Ashton has expressed on behalf of the EU her deep disappointment with the verdict of the Pechersk District Court in Ukraine in the case of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko. The verdict came after a trial which did not respect the international standards as regards fair, transparent and independent legal process. Relevant statements by the High Representative and her spokesperson are available online (60).

The HR/VP also expressed concern that the appeals process did not adequately address failings in the original trial. Against the background of a reported deteriorating health condition of Ms Tymoshenko, the HR/VP called on several occasions for timely and independent medical examination and medical care, as appropriate. Commissioner Füle visited Ms Tymoshenko in her cell on 12 December 2011. This gave the chance for Ms Tymoshenko to inform Commissioner Füle about her situation in detention. Recently, German and Canadian doctors were allowed to undertake an independent medical examination.

The HR/VP welcomes Ukraine’s agreement to publication of the preliminary comments of the recent visit of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to the country which also examined the healthcare being provided to certain prisoners, including to Mrs Tymoshenko.

The HR/VP stressed in her public interventions the relation between Ukraine’s performance in respecting the Rule of Law and fundamental rights and the development of EU‐Ukraine bilateral relations, including as regards the signature and conclusion of the Association Agreement and its subsequent implementation.

The negotiations on the EU‐Ukraine Association Agreement have been finalised and the way is now open for technical completion of the final consolidated version of the Agreement, including its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, with a view to its initialling as soon as possible.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000385/12

to the Commission

Mairead McGuinness (PPE)

(23 January 2012)

Subject: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers — differentiated responsibility of food business operators

Article 8, paragraphs 1-4 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers rightly has the objective of clarifying the responsibilities of each food business operator vis-à-vis the information obligations imposed, in particular, by European food legislation.

Paragraph 5 appears to be intended to cover those cases that are not covered by the preceding paragraphs.

Taking account of Article 37 of the regulation, does the Commission believe that paragraph 5 of Article 8 allows a Member State, by way of a national rule or regulatory practice, to consider any food business operator on its territory to be responsible for, and bound by, an obligation to verify the correctness of the mandatory information that must accompany a food product which originates from another Member State?

Notwithstanding paragraphs 1-4 of Article 8, which clearly define the respective responsibilities of each food business operator concerning such information, does the Commission take the view that any incorrect information supplied to consumers would be misleading?

Paragraph 5 of Article 8 states that, without prejudice to paragraphs 2-4, food business operators are bound to ensure and verify compliance with the requirements of (European Union) food information law and relevant national provisions.

In order to avoid any confusion, and with a view to determining clearly who must do what, leaving aside the obligations concerning the use of languages, can the Commission indicate to what precise circumstances paragraph 5 refers?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2012)

Article 8 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 (61) establishes distinct responsibilities of food-business operators. In accordance with (1) and (2) the EU operator under whose name, or business name, the food is marketed, or the importer into the Union, must ensure the presence and accuracy of the food information. Pursuant to paragraph (3), food business operators who are not involved in the labelling of food information are only obliged to refrain from supplying food which they know, or presume, on the basis of the information in their possession as professionals, to be non-compliant with EU and national food information law.

Given that the aim of the article is to prevent a fragmentation of the rules on the responsibility of food business (62)operators, paragraph 5 cannot be used in conjunction with Article 38 to invalidate the legal effect of paragraphs 1 to 4. This is further explained by the use of the wording ‘without prejudice to ’ in that paragraph. Thus, Member States may not, through national law, require that a food-business operator who is not involved in the labelling of food information be obliged to check for the presence or accuracy of food information.

Paragraph 5 would cover all cases not directly falling within paragraphs 2 to 4, for instance the use of language, obliging food-business operators who are not involved in the labelling of food information to ensure that national language requirements are satisfied. Due to the complexity of interactions and contractual obligations, and in particular the potential for future technical developments or logistical synergies in the food supply chain, this general provision operates mainly as a ‘safety net’ against legal gaps.

The misleading character of any food information is to be assessed by the national competent authorities on a case-by-case basis.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-000408/12

an die Kommission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(20. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Dringende europäische Initiativen im Kampf gegen die Lebensmittelteuerung: gegen Finanzmarkt-Spekulation und gegen das Diktat unterschiedlicher Einstandspreise

Europa leidet seit einigen Monaten an einer überproportionalen Teuerungswelle bei Lebensmitteln, welche die Kaufkraft unserer Bevölkerung zunehmend bedroht. Die Preisexplosion bei Gütern des täglichen Bedarfs ist mir, als Sozialsprecher der österreichischen EVP‐Delegation, vor allem angesichts der sich in ganz Europa anbahnenden Sparpakete und Steuererhöhungen sowie des dadurch zu befürchtenden Rückgangs der Reallöhne ein Anliegen allerhöchster Priorität. Es sind speziell die Personen niedrigen Einkommens, wie etwa Senioren, für die das eine oft unüberwindbare Bürde in der Bewältigung des Lebensalltags darstellt.

1.

Finanzmarkt-Spekulation: Einen inakzeptablen Faktor stellen die Auswüchse der Finanzmarkt-Spekulationen auf Lebensmittelrohstoffe dar. Das Wetten auf höhere Preise führt hier oft auch tatsächlich zum Preisanstieg im Supermarktregal. Bei vollster Kenntnis der für die Lebensmittelversorgung wichtigen Funktion der internationalen Rohstoffmärkte sowie der bereits durch die Kommission veranlassten Regulierung der Finanzmärkte im Allgemeinen stellt sich dennoch die dringende Frage:

Wie wird die Kommission die Missstände in der Lebensmittelspekulation ab sofort unterbinden?

2.

Binnenmarkt: Besonders irritierend ist die Tatsache, dass Lebensmittel in Österreich oft um ein Vielfaches teurer gehandelt werden als in wirtschaftlich vergleichbaren Ländern wie Deutschland (Preisanstieg seit 1996: Ö 33 %, D 18,5 %).

Aufgrund uns vorliegender vertraulicher Informationen seitens führender Handelsmanager steht fest, dass dies in hohem Ausmaß auf die Praxis internationaler Lebensmittelproduzenten zurückzuführen ist, beim Verkauf identischer Waren an österreichische Handelsunternehmen signifikant höhere Einstandspreise als in anderen EU-Staaten zu verlangen. Gegen diesen „Österreich-Aufschlag“ sind Handelsbetriebe nicht nur in Österreich machtlos, weil ihnen von den internationalen Lebensmittelherstellern verboten wird, die identischen Markenartikel aus anderen EU-Staaten zum oft niedrigeren Preis zu importieren.

Wie wird die Kommission eine derart den Zielsetzungen des Binnenmarktes und des freien Handels krass widersprechende Praxis unterbinden, damit der Binnenmarkt nicht nur für Endverbraucher, sondern endlich auch für Handelsunternehmen zur Realität wird?

Wie wird die Kommission bei ihren zukünftigen Maßnahmen die europäischen Sozialpartner einbinden und die nationalen Regierungen in ihrem jeweiligen Zuständigkeitsbereich in die Verantwortung nehmen?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(20. Februar 2012)

1.

Besser funktionierende Rohstoffmärkte sind ein zentrales Anliegen der Kommission: Dies hat sie unter anderem mit ihren am 20. Oktober 2011 angenommenen Vorschlägen zur Änderung der Richtlinie über Märkte für Finanzinstrumente (MiFID) und der Richtlinie über Insider-Geschäfte und Marktmanipulationen (MAD) zum Ausdruck gebracht. Die Vorschläge zielen auf eine maßgebliche Verbesserung der Marktstabilität, der Transparenz und der Aufsichtsmodalitäten auf den Rohstoffderivatemärkten ab und beinhalten eine Reihe von Maßnahmen, die sich konkret auf diese Märkte beziehen, z. B. Abbau von Ausnahmeregelungen, mehr Transparenz, vorgeschriebene Positionsmeldungen, Positionslimits und Positionsmanagementbefugnisse sowie strengere Vorschriften, um Marktmissbrauch einzudämmen.

2.

Die Preisgestaltung auf den Lebensmittelmärkten richtet sich nach externen und internen Faktoren wie Inputpreisen, Marktstrukturen und den jeweils geltenden Vorschriften. Diese Faktoren werden von den Kommissionsdienststellen und den Mitgliedern des Hochrangigen Forums für die Verbesserung der Funktionsweise der Lebensmittelversorgungskette geprüft. Im Rahmen dieses Forums haben sich Unternehmensverbände, die die Lebensmittelversorgungskette vertreten, auf Grundsätze guten Geschäftsgebarens geeinigt. 2012 wird sich das Forum mit den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten für die konkrete Umsetzung dieser Grundsätze befassen.

3.

Sollte es Anzeichen dafür geben, dass Marktbeteiligte der Lebensmittelbranche innerhalb der Union eine Preisdiskriminierung oder Marktsegmentierung verfolgen, kann die Kommission diesen nachgehen, sobald ihr Anscheinsbeweise für ein solches Verhalten vorliegen. Die Kommission und die mitgliedstaatlichen Wettbewerbsbehörden sind bereits in Fällen tätig geworden, in denen die Wettbewerbsbedingungen in der Lebensmittelversorgungskette aufgrund einer Verletzung von Artikel

 101 bzw. 102 AEUV beeinträchtigt wurden. Die Kommission arbeitet zur Zeit an einem ausführlichen Bericht über die wichtigsten Durchsetzungs-, Aufklärungs— und Monitoringmaßnahmen, die die mitgliedstaatlichen Wettbewerbsbehörden und die Kommission in den letzten Jahren in Bezug auf die Lebensmittelbranche ergriffen haben. Die Kommission wird dem Parlament mitteilen, wann der Bericht, dessen Veröffentlichung für dieses Jahr geplant ist, vorliegt.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000408/12

to the Commission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(20 January 2012)

Subject: Urgent European initiatives to combat rising food prices: combating speculation on the financial markets and the imposition of different cost prices

For some months, Europe has been experiencing a disproportionate wave of price rises involving foodstuffs, representing an increasing threat to the purchasing power of our population. The explosion in the prices of daily comestibles is a matter of the highest priority for me as the social affairs spokesperson of the Austrian EPP delegation, particularly in view of the forthcoming austerity packages and tax increases throughout Europe, and the consequent fears of a decline in income in real terms. Those on low incomes, such as the elderly, often find it impossible to get by on a day-to-day basis.

1.

Financial market speculation: the excesses which are occurring in speculation in raw foodstuffs as commodities is an unacceptable factor. Betting on higher prices often leads to actual price rises on the supermarket shelves. While fully acknowledging the important function of the international raw materials markets for food supplies, and the general regulation of the financial markets already implemented by the Commission, one urgent question remains:

How does the Commission intend to put an end to the irregularities in foodstuff speculation with immediate effect?

2.

The internal market: it is particularly irritating that foodstuffs in Austria are often traded at prices which are many times higher than in economically comparable countries, such as Germany (since 1996, prices have risen by 33 % in Austria compared with 18.5 % in Germany). Confidential information that has been made available to us by leading distribution managers indicates that this can mainly be explained by the practices of international food producers, who demand significantly higher cost prices when selling identical goods to Austrian distributors than in other EU countries. Like similar businesses in other countries, distributors in Austria are powerless in the face of this

‘Austria surcharge’ because they are prohibited by the international food manufacturers from importing the identical branded articles from other EU countries at prices which are often lower.

How does the Commission intend to put a stop to this practice, which flies in the face of the objectives of the internal market and free trade, so that the internal market will finally become a reality not just for consumers, but also for retail distributors?

How does the Commission intend to involve the European social partners in its future activities and induce national governments to take responsibility in their respective areas of competence?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2012)

1.

Improving the functioning of the commodity markets is one of the Commission's priorities, as shown by its proposals on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and the Market Abuse Directive (MAD) reviews adopted on 20 October 2011. The proposals are intended to significantly improve market stability, transparency and supervisory oversight in commodity derivative markets, and include a number of measures specific to the commodity derivatives markets, such as reducing exemptions, enhancing transparency, position reporting requirements, limits and management powers, and improved provisions to reduce abuse.

2.

Price formation in food markets depends on

external and internal factors, such as the cost of inputs, market structures and regulatory frameworks. These are being examined by Commission services and stakeholders in the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain. Within the Forum, business organisations representing the food supply chain agreed principles of good practice. In 2012, the Forum will work on options for the implementation of these principles in business practice.

3.

The Commission stands ready to investigate any indications of intra-EU price discrimination or market segmentation by food sector operators, if it is provided with prima facie evidence of such behaviour. The Commission and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) have intervened where access to competitive supplies in the food supply chain has been jeopardised in violation of Article 101 or 102 TFEU. The Commission is preparing a detailed report of the most significant enforcement, advocacy and monitoring actions taken by NCAs and the Commission in recent years in the food sector. The Commission will inform Parliament of this report when published this year.

(Slovenské znenie)

Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-000610/12

Komisii

Vladimír Maňka (S&D)

(26. januára 2012)

Vec: Trh s hračkami

Vedecký výbor pre zdravotné a environmentálne riziká dôrazne upozorňuje, že norma EN 71-3, predpísaná na meranie migrácie chemických prvkov, nie je spoľahlivá.

Aké kroky a v akom časovom rámci podnikne Komisia na riešenie tohto problému?

Aké sú iniciatívy Komisie v oblasti dohľadu nad trhom s hračkami?

Odpoveď pána Tajaniho v mene Komisie

(29. februára 2012)

Komisia spolu s členskými štátmi a zainteresovanými stranami, a najmä s Európskym výborom pre normalizáciu (CEN), zastáva názor výboru SCHER (63), pokiaľ ide o revíziu normy EN 71-3. Táto norma sa v súčasnosti reviduje v rámci novej smernice o bezpečnosti hračiek 2009/48/ES (64). Nová norma sa očakáva v júli 2013 (dátum nadobudnutia účinnosti chemických požiadaviek novej smernice o bezpečnosti hračiek).

Pokiaľ ide o dohľad nad trhom, je to predovšetkým zodpovednosť členských štátov. Podľa smernice o bezpečnosti hračiek musia členské štáty uskutočňovať kontroly, prijímať príslušné opatrenia proti hračkám, ktoré nie sú v súlade s predpismi a nachádzajú sa na trhu, a zodpovedajúcim spôsobom informovať Komisiu a iné členské štáty.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000610/12

to the Commission

Vladimír Maňka (S&D)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: The toy market

The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks stresses that the EN 71‐3 standard, which is prescribed to measure the migration of chemical elements, is not reliable.

What steps will the Commission take to resolve this problem, and in what timeframe?

What are the Commission’s initiatives in the area of market surveillance for toys?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

The Commission shared the SCHER’s (65) opinion with Member States and stakeholders, and in particular with CEN, dealing with the revision of EN 71-3. This standard is currently being revised, in the framework of the new Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC (66). The new standard is expected for July 2013 (date of the entry into application of the chemical requirements of the new toy safety directive).

As regards market surveillance, it is primarily the responsibility of Member States. According to the Toy Safety Directive, Member States have to perform checks, take appropriate measures against non‐compliant toys found on the market and inform the Commission and other Member States accordingly.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000611/12

à Comissão

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(26 de janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Envolvimento de entidades portuguesas nos Agrupamentos Europeus de Cooperação Territorial

Tendo em conta que:

A Cooperação Territorial Europeia tem como principal objetivo estimular uma maior coesão territorial entre Estados-Membros ou entre estes e países terceiros;

No Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2007/2013, a Comissão Europeia deu um novo impulso à coesão territorial, estimulando o desenvolvimento de projetos a nível transfronteiriço (vertente A), transnacional (vertente B) e inter-regional (vertente C);

Portugal possui uma participação ativa nos programas do Objetivo 3, nomeadamente na vertente transfronteiriça (vertente A) e transnacional (vertente B), como é o caso dos programas: ₫Bacia do Mediterrâneo₻, ₫Espaço Mediterrâneo₻, ₫Espaço Atlântico₻, ₫Sudoeste Europeu₻, ₫Madeira-Açores-Canárias₻ e ₫Portugal-Espanha₻. As regiões portuguesas participam ainda em projetos de cooperação inter-regional;

O Regulamento (CE) n.° 1082/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 5 de julho de 2006, estabeleceu a possibilidade de serem criados Agrupamentos Europeus de Cooperação Territorial (AECT) com o objetivo de eliminar obstáculos que subsistiam a uma eficaz e eficiente cooperação territorial.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Quantos AECT foram constituídos a nível europeu para gerir projetos de cooperação territorial europeia no período 2007/2013?

Quais os AECT em que Portugal ou as suas regiões possuem uma posição ativa e quais são efetivamente as entidades portuguesas envolvidas e com responsabilidade na gestão?

Tem a Comissão conhecimento de possíveis novos AECT que venham a ser constituídos e que envolvam entidades a nível nacional ou regional?

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(29 de fevereiro de 2012)

O âmbito das atividades atualmente desenvolvidas pelos agrupamentos europeus de cooperação territorial (AECT) é muito amplo e abarca desde a gestão conjunta de recursos naturais a um melhor acesso a sistemas de transportes transfronteiras ou a uma gestão de serviços públicos de interesse geral (como a saúde ou a educação).

1.

De acordo com as informações prestadas pela Plataforma AECT, gerida pelo Comité das Regiões, alguns dos 24 AECT atualmente existentes participaram nos convites para a apresentação de propostas no âmbito de vários programas de cooperação territorial europeia (CTE). Atualmente, o AECT Pyrénées-Méditerrannée é o único que executa um projecto (CreaMed), no âmbito do programa Interreg IV B SUDOE. Contudo, o AECT Grande Région (Luxemburgo, Région Wallonne da Bélgica, região Lorraine de França e os Länder alemães de Rhineland-Pfalz e Saarland) constitui um exemplo de AECT que funciona na qualidade de autoridade de gestão para um programa transfronteiriço de cooperação territorial europeia. Do mesmo modo, o AECT Ister-Granum desenvolveu um fundo de solidariedade utilizado por alguns dos seus parceiros para cofinanciar as ações de diferentes programas do FEDER.

2.

Entre os AECT que envolvem entidades portuguesas, destaca-se o Galicia-Norte de Portugal que executa o planeamento operacional da cooperação territorial entre Espanha e Portugal no domínio em causa.

3.

Entre os AECT mais recentemente estabelecidos que envolvem organismos nacionais ou regionais encontram-se o AECT Abaúj-Abaújban, que inclui 14 autoridades locais e regionais da Hungria e da Eslováquia

,

e o AECT Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino, que envolve parceiros regionais de Itália e Áustria.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000611/12

to the Commission

Nuno Teixeira (PPE)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: Involvement of Portuguese bodies in European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation

Given that:

European Territorial Cooperation is mainly aimed at promoting greater territorial cohesion among Member States or between Member States and third countries;

in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007‐13, the Commission gave new impetus to territorial cohesion, with a view to promoting crossborder (component A), transnational (component B) and interregional (component C) project development;

Portugal participates actively in the programmes under Objective 3, especially in the crossborder and transnational aspects (components A and B); this applies to such programmes as those for the Mediterranean basin, the Mediterranean area, the Atlantic area, south-west Europe, Madeira/the Azores/the Canary Islands, and Portugal/Spain; the Portuguese regions also participate in interregional cooperation projects;

Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 lays down the possibility of creating European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), with the aim of removing obstacles to effective and efficient territorial cooperation,

can the Commission state:

how many EGTCs have been established in Europe for purposes of managing European territorial cooperation projects for the period 2007‐13;

which EGTCs in Portugal or its regions have an active role, and which Portuguese bodies are actively involved in management responsibilities;

whether it is aware of any new EGTCs that have been established involving national or regional bodies?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

The scope of activities currently undertaken by European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) is very broad, ranging from the joint management of natural resources, to improved access to cross-border transport systems or management of services of general interest (such as health or education).

1.

According to the information provided by the EGTC Platform managed by the Committee of the Regions, there are currently 24 EGTCs in existence, of which several have applied to calls for proposals under various European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes. At present, Pyrénées-Méditerrannée is the only EGTC running a project (CreaMed), in the framework of the Interreg IV B SUDOE Programme. However, EGTC

Grande Région (Luxembourg, the Région Wallonne (Belgium), Lorraine (France) and the German

Länder

of Rhineland-Pfalz and Saarland) is an example of an EGTC acting as managing authority for an ETC cross-border cooperation programme. Likewise, EGTC Ister-Granum has developed a solidarity fund used by some of its partners to co-finance different actions under ERDF programmes.

2.

Among EGTCs involving Portuguese entities, EGTC Galicia-Norte de Portugal implements the Operational Planning of territorial cooperation between Spain and Portugal in the area concerned.

3.

Some of the most recently established EGTCs involving national or regional bodies are EGTC Abaúj-Abaújban, which includes 14 local and regional authorities from

Hungary

and

Slovakia

,

and EGTC Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino, with regional partners from Italy and Austria.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000614/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Violazione della direttiva uccelli da parte della Regione Sardegna per approvazione del calendario venatorio 2011/2012 senza il parere obbligatorio dell'I.S.P.R.A.

In Sardegna (Italia), su ricorso di varie associazioni ambientaliste come Gruppo d'intervento giuridico, Lega per l'abolizione della caccia e Amici della terra, il Consiglio di Stato il 21 dicembre 2011 (67) ha disposto la sospensiva del calendario venatorio regionale sardo, riformando l'ordinanza cautelare del T.A.R. Sardegna del 14 novembre 2011 (68) .

Nonostante tale decisione, la Regione autonoma ha fissato ugualmente il calendario della stagione venatoria 2011-2012, con decreto dell'Assessore difesa ambiente del 23 dicembre 2011 (69) e con decreto dell'Assessore difesa ambiente del 4 gennaio 2012 (70) , senza il previsto parere vincolante dell' I.S.P.R.A. (l'Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale) e senza procedere al censimento faunistico alternativo validato scientificamente, in violazione della direttiva uccelli, n. 2009/147/CE e degli articoli 7 e 18 della legge italiana sulla tutela della fauna selvatica, la n. 157/1992.

1.

È la Commissione a conoscenza dei fatti esposti?

2.

Intende chiedere chiarimenti e prendere opportuni provvedimenti nei confronti dell'autorità regionale sarda che, come già accaduto in passato, non ottempera agli obblighi previsti nella direttiva uccelli e nella normativa italiana di recepimento?

Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(5 marzo 2012)

1.

Sì, la Commissione è a conoscenza del fatto che la Regione Sardegna ha approvato il calendario venatorio per il 2011/2012 stabilendo, per determinate specie, periodi di caccia più lunghi di quanto previsto dalla normativa nazionale. La Commissione deduce, anche dal testo delle citate decisioni dei tribunali amministrativi regionali e nazionali, che tale decisione è stata adottata dalla Regione Sardegna senza il parere dell’Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale, che è previsto dalla legislazione nazionale. La Commissione ha inoltre ricevuto informazioni riguardo alle più recenti decisioni regionali citate dall’onorevole parlamentare (decreti del 23.12.2011 e del 7.1.2012).

2.

La Commissione valuterà tutte le informazioni disponibili e determinerà le eventuali misure appropriate, al fine di assicurare il rispetto delle disposizioni pertinenti della direttiva sugli uccelli

2.

La Commissione valuterà tutte le informazioni disponibili e determinerà le eventuali misure appropriate, al fine di assicurare il rispetto delle disposizioni pertinenti della direttiva sugli uccelli

 (71)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000614/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Violation of the Birds Directive by the Region of Sardinia in approving the 2011/2012 hunting calendar without the obligatory opinion of I.S.P.R.A (Institute for Environmental Protection and Research)

In Sardinia, Italy, following appeals by various environmental associations such as the Gruppo d'intervento giuridico (Italian Legal Intervention Group), the Italian League for the Abolition of Hunting and Friends of the Earth, on 21 December 2011 the Italian Council of State (72) ordered the suspension of the Sardinian regional hunting calendar, amending the precautionary order by the Regional Administrative Court of Sardinia of 14 November 2011 (73)

Despite this decision, the Sardinia Region set its calendar for the 2011‐12 hunting season all the same, by an executive order of the environmental protection councillor of 23 December 2011 (74) and by a further order of 4 January 2012 (75) from the same councillor, without the required binding opinion of I.S.P.R.A. (Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) and without conducting a scientifically validated alternative faunal census. This is in breach of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and of Articles 7 and 18 of Italian Law No 157/1992 on the protection of wildlife.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

2.

Does it intend to seek clarification and take appropriate measures with respect to the Sardinian regional authority which, as in the past, is failing to comply with the requirements laid down in the Birds Directive and in the Italian implementing regulations?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2012)

1.

Yes, the Commission is aware that the region of Sardinia has approved its hunting calendar for 2011/2012 setting, for certain species, longer hunting periods than foreseen in the national law. The Commission understands, also from the text of the mentioned decisions of the regional and national administrative courts that such a decision by the region of Sardinia was taken without the opinion of the national Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, which is required by national law. The Commission has also received information about the more recent regional decisions mentioned by the Honourable Member (decrees of 23.12.2011 and of 7.1.2012).

2.

The Commission will assess all the available information and will determine any further appropriate steps in order to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Birds Directive

2.

The Commission will assess all the available information and will determine any further appropriate steps in order to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Birds Directive

 (76)

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000615/12

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(26. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Schiffsunglück der „Costa Concordia“ am 13.1.2012 vor der toskanischen Küste

Das tragische Schiffsunglück dieser Tage vor der toskanischen Küste (Italien) indiziert, dass trotz modernster Technologie nach wie vor menschliches Versagen derartige Katastrophen verursachen kann. Die Frage ist, inwieweit verbesserte Trainings-, Qualifikations‐ und Schulungsmaßnahmen (Zertifizierungen) einen Beitrag zu mehr Sicherheit für Passagiere, Seeverkehr und Umwelt leisten können.

1.

Welche Maßnahmen (Regulierungen etc.) hat die Kommission ergriffen, um die Qualität der Ausbildung des seefahrenden Personals innerhalb der Union zu standardisieren und damit zu verbessern?

2.

Gedenkt die Kommission, im Nachgang zu oben geschildertem Unglück diesbezüglich tätig zu werden?

3.

Wenn ja, welche Maßnahmen gedenkt die Kommission zu unternehmen?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(24. Februar 2012)

1.

Im EU-Recht sind bereits detaillierte einheitliche Anforderungen für die Ausbildung von Seeleuten und die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen vorgeschrieben, die exakt den auf internationaler Ebene vereinbarten Normen entsprechen. Die Ausbildung von Seeleuten und die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen sind im Übereinkommen der Internationalen Seeschifffahrts-Organisation (IMO) von 1978 über Normen für die Ausbildung, die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen und den Wachdienst von Seeleuten (

1.

Im EU-Recht sind bereits detaillierte einheitliche Anforderungen für die Ausbildung von Seeleuten und die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen vorgeschrieben, die exakt den auf internationaler Ebene vereinbarten Normen entsprechen. Die Ausbildung von Seeleuten und die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen sind im Übereinkommen der Internationalen Seeschifffahrts-Organisation (IMO) von 1978 über Normen für die Ausbildung, die Erteilung von Befähigungszeugnissen und den Wachdienst von Seeleuten (

 (77)

2 und 3.

Hinsichtlich weiterer Maßnahmen auf diesem Gebiet möchte die Kommission die Frau Abgeordnete auf ihren Vorschlag aus dem Jahr 2011

2 und 3.

Hinsichtlich weiterer Maßnahmen auf diesem Gebiet möchte die Kommission die Frau Abgeordnete auf ihren Vorschlag aus dem Jahr 2011

 (78)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000615/12

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: The ‘Costa Concordia ’ shipwreck on 13 January 2012 off the Tuscan coast.

The recent tragic shipwreck off the coast of Tuscany (Italy) goes to show that despite the latest technology, human error can still cause disasters of this sort. The question is to what extent improved training, qualification and educational measures (certification) can contribute to greater safety for passengers, maritime transport and the environment.

1.

What measures (regulations, etc.) has the Commission taken in order to standardise and thereby improve the quality of training for ships’ crews within the Union?

2.

Does the Commission intend to take action in this area following the abovementioned shipwreck?

3.

Is so, what measures does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2012)

1.

EC law already contains detailed mandatory common standards for training and certification of seafarers, which strictly reflect the ones agreed upon at an international level. Training and certification of seafarers is the subject-matter of the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (

1.

EC law already contains detailed mandatory common standards for training and certification of seafarers, which strictly reflect the ones agreed upon at an international level. Training and certification of seafarers is the subject-matter of the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (

 (79)

2 and 3. Regarding further measures in this area, the Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to its 2011 proposal (80) to update the above directive in order to bring this into line with the latest amendment to the STCW Convention (the 2009 Manila Amendment). This proposal is currently under consideration by the European Parliament. In addition to certification and training, the Commission has started work on a review of the rules on passenger safety which may lead to appropriate proposals.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000617/12

alla Commissione

Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Il segreto bancario

Dopo la pubblicazione — avvenuta l'estate scorsa — di un'inchiesta del New York Time nella quale si denuncia che nelle more della ₫War on Terror₻ il governo americano acquisisce ormai da anni la totalità dei dati del consorzio interbancario SWIFT, ci si interroga su che cosa è accaduto al segreto bancario degli europei. Dall'inchiesta risulta infatti che non solo vengono acquisiti i dati bancari dei cittadini americani, ma che anche quelli dei cittadini europei che usufruiscono del sistema SWIFT vengono intercettati. Già il governo del Belgio, dove ha sede il consorzio SWIFT, ha dichiarato illegale il trasferimento di questi dati all'amministrazione americano. La Svizzera, a quanto pare, ha riconosciuto la morte del segreto bancario e la stessa UE ha chiesto di discutere la cosa con urgenza.

1.

Può la Commissione riferire se questa discussione abbia avuto luogo e, in caso affermativo, con quale esito?

2.

Non ritiene che la scomparsa del segreto bancario rappresenti un grave attentato alla privacy ed al sacrosanto principio della proprietà privata?

3.

Ritiene ammissibile che dei

₫burocrati₻, americani od europei, possano violare il segreto bancario senza essere autorizzati da un magistrato nell'ambito di una ipotesi di reato?

4.

Quali iniziative intende intraprendere per garantire il diritto a tale segreto ai cittadini europei?

Risposta data da Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione

(8 marzo 2012)

In generale, la Commissione riconosce l’importanza della riservatezza delle informazioni finanziarie personali dei clienti delle banche; tuttavia ciò non deve ostacolare la lotta a reati gravi quali il riciclaggio di denaro o il finanziamento del terrorismo. La raccomandazione 9 del Gruppo di azione finanziaria, l’organismo che definisce gli standard globali nell’ambito del contrasto al riciclaggio di denaro e al finanziamento del terrorismo, chiede infatti esplicitamente agli Stati di assicurare che la legislazione sul segreto bancario non ostacoli l’attuazione di tali standard. Inoltre, l’articolo 26 della terza direttiva antiriciclaggio (direttiva 60/2005/CE) stabilisce che la comunicazione in buona fede, conformemente all’obbligo di segnalare le operazioni sospette, non costituisce una violazione di eventuali restrizioni alla comunicazione di informazioni.

I dati bancari delle persone fisiche costituiscono dati personali e pertanto sono tutelati dal diritto fondamentale alla protezione dei dati di carattere personale, sancito dall’articolo 8 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea. Tuttavia, ai sensi dell’articolo 52 della Carta, e nel rispetto del principio di proporzionalità, possono essere apportate limitazioni a tale diritto fondamentale laddove ciò sia necessario per combattere il riciclaggio di denaro o il finanziamento del terrorismo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000617/12

to the Commission

Cristiana Muscardini (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Banking secrecy

Following the publication last summer of an investigation by the New York Times in which it reported that as part of its ‘War on Terror’, the US Government had for many years had access to the entire database of the interbank consortium SWIFT, we question what has happened to the banking secrecy of Europeans. The investigation showed that not only had the banking details of US citizens been acquired, but that those of EU citizens using the SWIFT system were also being intercepted. The government of Belgium, where the headquarters of the SWIFT consortium are located, has already declared the transfer of these data to the US administration to be illegal. Switzerland, it would appear, has acknowledged the death of banking secrecy and the EU itself has asked for the matter to be discussed with urgency.

1.

Can the Commission say whether these discussions have taken place and, if so, what the outcome was?

2.

Does it not consider that the disappearance of banking secrecy represents a serious attack on privacy and the sacrosanct principle of private property?

3.

Does it consider it acceptable that American or European

‘bureaucrats’ are able to contravene banking secrecy without the authorisation of a magistrate in the context of an alleged offence?

4.

What measures does it intend to take to guarantee the right of European citizens to banking secrecy?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

While the Commission is in no doubt of the importance of bank customers' wish for confidentiality of personal financial information in general, this must not thwart efforts to effectively fight serious crime such as money laundering or the financing of terrorism. Consequently Recommendation 9 of the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard setter in the context of anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing, explicitly asks countries to ensure that financial institution secrecy laws do not inhibit the implementation of these global standards. In addition, Article 26 of the 3rd Anti-Money Laundering Directive (Directive 2005/60/EC) stipulates that a disclosure in good faith to comply with the obligation to report suspicious transactions shall not constitute the breach of any restriction on disclosure of information.

Banking details of natural persons constitute personal data, and are protected by the fundamental right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, in accordance with Article 52 of the Charter, and subject to the principle of proportionality, this fundamental right may be restricted when this is necessary to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000618/12

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(26 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Modificación de la Ley de costas española

El Informe sobre el impacto de la urbanización extensiva en España en los derechos individuales de los ciudadanos europeos, el medio ambiente y la aplicación del Derecho comunitario, con fundamento en determinadas peticiones recibidas —conocido como Informe Auken—, aprobado la pasada legislatura en el Parlamento Europeo, hizo una precisa descripción de las graves consecuencias sociales y ambientales de la presión urbanística en las costas del Estado español, especialmente en la mediterránea. Sin lugar a dudas, algunos aspectos de la Ley de costas se han aplicado con arbitrariedad y de forma caótica, afectando a centenares de propietarios que adquirieron sus viviendas legalmente, tal y como reconoce el citado informe.

Es decir, una reforma parcial de la Ley podría estar justificada. Sin embargo, la reforma anunciada por el nuevo ministro de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente del Estado Español, plantea una reforma integral de la Ley, desprotegiendo al litoral y permitiendo la urbanización sin restricciones. Esta reforma, además, se integra dentro de una estrategia gubernamental de potenciación del sector de la construcción para contribuir a la salida de la crisis económica.

¿Qué opinión tiene la Comisión respecto a la anunciada reforma de la Ley de costas, que podría desproteger el litoral español?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(16 de marzo de 2012)

La Comisión está preocupada por el aumento en el litoral mediterráneo de presiones medioambientales que amenazan los ecosistemas costeros.

La UE ha establecido varios instrumentos legislativos para preservar los recursos costeros. Entre esos instrumentos se cuentan la Directiva marco sobre la Estrategia Marina (81), las Directivas de Aves y de Hábitats (82) y la Directiva marco del Agua (83). La Comisión, además, adoptó en 2011 la Estrategia de Biodiversidad 2020, que reviste particular importancia para el litoral de la UE, ya que sólo el 8 % de los hábitats costeros presenta un estado de conservación favorable y que únicamente el 11 % de las especies que habitan esas zonas se encuentra en buenas condiciones.

Habida cuenta de la importancia de las zonas costeras como fuente de recursos ecológicos, económicos y sociales y con el fin de impulsar una respuesta integrada, la Unión Europea adoptó en 2002 la Recomendación sobre la gestión integrada de las zonas costeras (ICZM) (84) y ratificó en 2010 el Protocolo ICZM (85) del Convenio de Barcelona para el Mar Mediterráneo.

El Gobierno español no ha publicado todavía los textos legales para la anunciada reforma de la Ley de Costas. Hasta que tenga acceso a ellos, la Comisión no podrá evaluar los cambios que se han anunciado. En esa evaluación, la Comisión tendrá presentes las obligaciones internacionales que incumben a España en virtud del Convenio de Barcelona, así como el acervo existente en materia de ecosistemas costeros.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000618/12

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: Amendment to Spanish Coastal Law

The report on the impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain on individual rights of European citizens, on the environment and on the application of EC law, based upon petitions received — the Auken Report — approved in Parliament’s last parliamentary term, gave a detailed description of the serious social and environmental consequences of urban planning pressure on coasts in Spain, and especially on the Mediterranean coast. It is certainly the case that some aspects of the Coastal Law have been applied arbitrarily and chaotically, affecting hundreds of owners of legally acquired homes, as the aforementioned report acknowledges.

Partial reform of the law could therefore be justified. However, the reform announced by the new Spanish Government Minister for Agriculture, Food and Environment envisages a complete reform of the law, leaving the coast unprotected and allowing unrestricted urbanisation. This reform, moreover, is part of a government strategy to strengthen the construction sector to help with recovery from the economic crisis.

What is the Commission’s opinion of the proposed reform of the Coastal Law, which could leave the Spanish coast unprotected?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2012)

The Commission is concerned about the increase in environmental pressures on the Mediterranean Sea Coast which is threatening coastal ecosystems.

In order to preserve coastal resources, the EU has established several legislative instruments, including the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (86), the Birds and Habitat Directives (87) and the Water Framework Directive (88). In 2011, the Commission adopted the Biodiversity Strategy 2020, particularly relevant for coastal areas as only 8 % of EU coastal habitats have a favourable conservation status, and only 11 % of EU coastal species are in a favourable condition.

Given the importance of coastal zones as ecological, economic and social resources, and in order to support an integrated response, the European Union has adopted the recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (89) (ICZM) in 2002, and ratified the ICZM Protocol (90) to the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean in 2010.

The Spanish Government has not yet published the legal texts relating to the announced reform of the Coastal law. The Commission will only be in a position to assess the announced changes once the legal texts become available. The Commission's assessment will take into account the international obligations of Spain resulting from the Barcelona Convention as well as the existing acquis relating to coastal ecosystems.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000619/12

à Comissão

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(19 de janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Privatização da REN

No quadro do Programa de Assistência Financeira UE/FMI/BCE a Portugal, o Governo português vendeu a sua participação na empresa EDP (Energias de Portugal) à Three Gorges Corporation, empresa do Estado chinês, e já anunciou a venda de 25 % do capital da REN (Rede Elétrica Nacional, S.A.) à State Grid, que é igualmente uma empresa controlada pelo Estado chinês.

Ao poder controlar as duas empresas, o Estado chinês adquire uma capacidade de acesso e de interferência num setor de tecnologia avançada e de importância estratégica para Portugal e, consequentemente, para a Europa. Assume, assim, uma posição que pode pôr em causa a autonomia estratégica da UE e, portanto, de vantagem no que respeita às necessidades e interesses energéticos da UE e às relações UE/China.

Tendo em atenção o facto de a China ser uma potência mundial cujo Governo despreza os direitos humanos básicos do seu povo, assim como a proteção do ambiente no seu próprio território, e ser obviamente guiada por interesses estratégicos e não apenas procurando retorno financeiro de curto prazo no investimento que escolhe fazer na rede de distribuição energética europeia, em vez de o fazer na rede chinesa, muito apreciaria saber se a Comissão não tem qualquer recomendação, objeção ou prevenção a fazer ao Governo de Portugal no que respeita a estas ₫privatizações₻ em favor do Partido comunista chinês, nomeadamente face às implicações para a política externa e a segurança energética da UE.

Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão

(27 de abril de 2012)

O Tratado da União Europeia define claramente o compromisso da UE de abertura ao investimento direto estrangeiro (IDE), inclusive de países terceiros. Estabelece igualmente a competência exclusiva da UE pelo IDE, no âmbito da política comercial comum, e pela supressão progressiva das restrições ao IDE. Na sua qualidade de maior fonte e destino mundial de investimento estrangeiro direto, a União Europeia é um dos grandes beneficiários de um sistema económico mundial aberto e está empenhada em garantir que os seus mercados se mantenham abertos. Esta abertura deve ser sustentada pelo esforço de cooperação das empresas estatais, a fim de melhorar o seu nível de governação e a qualidade das informações que facultam aos mercados. Qualquer empresa estrangeira que adquira uma sociedade europeia ou uma participação numa sociedade europeia tem de agir em conformidade com as regras em matéria de concorrência e de transparência aplicáveis na UE e no Estado-Membro em questão, incluindo, neste caso, as regras específicas aplicáveis ao setor da energia.

Tem vindo a verificar‐se um aumento dos investimentos por parte de investidores controlados pelo Estado, como sejam fundos soberanos ou empresas públicas, mas a União Europeia congratula‐se com o investimento desses investidores com fins comerciais e assinala a importância da transparência das políticas de investimento. Se esses investimentos tiverem sido motivados por objetivos não comerciais, mas políticos, poderão ser fonte de preocupações legítimas de segurança nacional. No entanto, as medidas nacionais em caso de preocupações de segurança devem ser transparentes, previsíveis e proporcionais ao problema de segurança nacional identificado e circunscrito de forma precisa, a fim de evitar a perturbação indevida do fluxo de investimento e de maneira a manter o forte empenho da UE num enquadramento de abertura ao investimento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000619/12

to the Commission

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(19 January 2012)

Subject: Privatisation of REN

Within the framework of the EU/IMF/ECB Assistance Programme to Portugal, the Portuguese Government sold its stake in the EDP (Energias de Portugal) to the Three Gorges Corporation, a state-owned Chinese company, and has just announced the sale of a 25 % stake in REN (Rede Elétrica Nacional, S.A.) to State Grid, which is also a state-owned Chinese company.

In gaining control of these two companies, the Chinese State has acquired the potential to access and control an advanced technology sector of strategic importance to Portugal and hence to Europe. It is thereby in a position which might jeopardise the European Union’s strategic autonomy, and put it in an advantageous position as regards the EU’s energy needs and interests, and EU‐China relations. 

China is a world power whose Government has no respect for its people’s basic human rights, or for protecting the environment within its territory, and which is clearly guided by strategic interests, not just by the short-term financial return on the investment it has chosen to make in the European energy distribution network rather than in its domestic network. Given the above, will the Commission state whether it intends to make any recommendations, raise any objections or issue any warnings to the Portuguese Government as regards these ‘privatisations’ in favour of the Chinese Communist Party, particularly given the implications for the EU’s foreign policy and energy security.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2012)

The Treaty on the European Union sets out clearly the EU's commitment to openness towards foreign direct investment (FDI) including from third countries. It also establishes the EU's exclusive competence for FDI under the Common Commercial Policy and to progressively abolish restrictions to FDI. As the world's largest source and destination of FDI, the EU is a major beneficiary of an open world economic system and is committed to ensuring that its markets remain open. The case for openness must be sustained by engaging state controlled companies in a cooperative effort to enhance their governance standards and the quality of information they provide to markets. Any foreign company that acquires a European company or a stake in it has to act in accordance with the rules on competition and transparency applicable in the EU and the Member State in question, including in this case specific rules applicable to the energy sector.

There has been a growth of investments by government-controlled investors such as sovereign wealth funds or state-owned enterprises but the EU welcomes commercially-driven investment from these investors and notes the importance of transparent investment policies. If such investments were motivated by political rather than commercial objectives, they could be a source of legitimate national security concerns. However, measures that address national security concerns should be transparent, predictable and proportionate to the national security issue identified, and precisely circumscribed so as to avoid unduly disrupting the flow of investment and maintaing the EU's strong commitment to an open investment environment.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000620/12

à Comissão

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(26 de janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Privatização da REN

No quadro do Programa de Assistência Financeira UE/FMI a Portugal, o Governo português vendeu a sua participação na empresa EDP à Three Gorges Corporation, empresa do Estado chinês.

Uma das companhias concorrentes à privatização da portuguesa REN — Rede Elétrica Nacional — é também uma empresa estatal chinesa, a State Grid.

Tendo em atenção que, ao controlar como principal acionista a EDP e a REN, o Estado chinês adquirirá uma capacidade de acesso e de interferência num setor de tecnologia avançada e de importância estratégica, incluindo para a segurança e defesa, de Portugal e da UE, muito apreciaria saber se a Comissão não tem qualquer recomendação, objeção ou prevenção a fazer ao Governo de Portugal no que respeita a estas ₫privatizações₻.

Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão

(12 de março de 2012)

A liberdade de circulação de capitais na UE permite que os investimentos de capital estrangeiro se realizem sem entraves em toda a UE. Quando os Estados-Membros decidem vender ações em empresas estatais, cabe aos Estados-Membros avaliar as propostas e escolher o investidor. Do ponto de vista da legislação da UE relativa ao mercado interno da energia, é possível a aquisição de operadores de redes de transporte, desde que sejam respeitadas as regras em matéria de dissociação, nomeadamente o artigo 9.° das Diretivas Eletricidade e Gás (91). O modelo aplicável a REN, em conformidade com a legislação da UE e a legislação portuguesa, é a plena dissociação da propriedade. Nesse modelo, os acionistas que exercem direitos nos operadores de redes de transporte não podem exercer, ao mesmo tempo, direitos sobre uma empresa que exerça quaisquer atividades de produção ou de abastecimento no domínio da eletricidade ou do gás. A situação de independência efetiva entre as duas empresas chinesas em causa terá de ser avaliada em pormenor pela entidade reguladora portuguesa no contexto do procedimento de certificação previsto para a REN.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000620/12

to the Commission

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: Privatisation of REN

In the framework of the EU‐IMF Financial Assistance Programme for Portugal, the Portuguese Government sold its shareholding in EDP to Three Gorges Corporation, a company of the Chinese State.

One of the companies tendering for the privatisation of the Portuguese REN — Réde Electrica Nacional — is also a state-owned Chinese company, State Grid.

Given that, by taking control of EDP and REN as the majority shareholder, the Chinese State will acquire the ability to access and interfere with a sector which is technologically advanced and strategically important, not least for Portuguese and EU security and defence, would the Commission state whether it intends to make any recommendations, raise any objections or issue any warnings to the Portuguese Government as regards these ‘privatisations’?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

Freedom of movement of capital within the EU enables unhindered foreign capital investments across the EU. When Member States decide to sell shares in state owned companies it is up to the Member States to assess the bids and chose the investor. From the perspective of the EU internal energy market legislation, the acquisition of transmission system operators is possible, provided that the rules on unbundling, in particular Article 9 of the Electricity Directive and Gas Directives (92), are respected. The unbundling model applicable to REN, in accordance with EU and Portuguese law, is full ownership unbundling. In this model, shareholders exercising rights in the Transmission System Operators cannot at the same time exercise any rights over an undertaking performing any production or supply activities in the electricity or gas field. The effective independence between the two Chinese companies concerned will have to be assessed in detail by the Portuguese Regulator in the context of the certification procedure foreseen for REN.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000624/12

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Interventi per favorire l'utilizzo dei pagamenti elettronici

Il governo italiano, presieduto da Mario Monti, nella lotta all'evasione fiscale sta cercando di diffondere l'utilizzo di bancomat e pagamenti elettronici, facendo diminuire nella popolazione il ricorso all'utilizzo del contante, come nel caso delle pensioni superiori ai mille euro che non potranno più essere riscosse in contanti. A questa misura, però, non corrispondono incentivi alla diffusione della moneta elettronica, che addirittura ha dei costi maggiori per la popolazione.

Ad esempio, per pagare il bollo auto e il canone della televisione pubblica se si opta per il pagamento elettronico con carta di credito si spenderà una commissione superiore a quella applicata da Poste Italiane con il contante.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, si chiede quindi alla Commissione quanto segue:

quali misure intende adottare per calmierare i costi dei pagamenti elettronici ed uguagliarli in tutta Europa, portandoli sui livelli del contante, e quindi per favorire l'utilizzo di strumenti alternativi alle banconote, considerato che anche un recente studio della Banca centrale europea (BCE) ha certificato una tendenza per gli italiani all'utilizzo di denaro contante che evidenzia come gli abitanti del nostro paese fatichino ad acquisire confidenza e fiducia con i pagamenti elettronici?

Risposta data da Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(13 marzo 2012)

Nell'area dei pagamenti elettronici, la Commissione si sta attualmente impegnando a creare un quadro giuridico che stimoli la crescita, la competitività e l'innovazione, e promuova l'uso di norme e infrastrutture tecniche comuni. Tali sforzi dovrebbero contribuire alla creazione di un mercato unico dei pagamenti che sia moderno, rispettoso dei consumatori e delle imprese e che possa offrire il miglior rapporto qualità/prezzo. Sono già stati compiuti passi importanti nel cammino verso questo obiettivo, il più recente dei quali consiste nell'adozione del regolamento che fissa i requisiti tecnici e operativi per i bonifici e gli addebiti diretti in euro (93) e l'avvio di una consultazione pubblica sul Libro verde ₫Verso un mercato europeo integrato dei pagamenti tramite carte, internet e telefono mobile₻ (94).

La Commissione è del parere che i pagamenti elettronici possano offrire molti vantaggi per i consumatori, le imprese e gli Stati membri, grazie al fatto che tali operazioni posso essere registrate. L'uso dei mezzi di pagamento elettronici comporta una protezione globale dei diritti degli utenti dei servizi di pagamento in caso di errore nell’operazione e, diversamente dai contanti, in caso di frodi o furti. Se dal punto di vista di un consumatore i pagamenti con carta di credito sono in alcune situazioni più costosi da usare rispetto ai contanti, altre forme di pagamento, quali i bonifici e gli addebiti diretti, sono pienamente equiparabili. In alcuni Stati membri, è ancora più vantaggioso usare bonifici e addebiti diretti rispetto ai contanti.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000624/12

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Measures to promote the use of electronic payments

In the fight against tax evasion, the Italian Government — headed by Mario Monti — is working to increase the use of cash dispensers and of electronic payments so as to reduce the need for cash; for example, pensions worth more than EUR 1 000 will no longer be able to be drawn in cash. However, this measure is not coupled with incentives for using electronic currency, which actually costs people more.

For example, if a person to pay his or her road tax and television licence fee by electronic means, using a credit card, he will pay a higher fee than that charged by the Italian post office for cash payments.

In the light of the above, can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to contain the cost of electronic payments and harmonise it across the EU by bringing into line with the cost of cash payments, thereby promoting the use of alternatives to cash? It should be borne in mind that, among other things, a recent study by the European Central Bank (ECB) highlighted a tendency among Italians to use cash, demonstrating the extent to which they find it difficult to accept that electronic payments are reliable?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2012)

In the area of electronic payments, the Commission concentrates its current efforts on the creation of a legal environment that stimulates growth, competitiveness, innovation and promotes the use of common standards and technical infrastructures. These efforts should contribute to the creation of a single market for payments which is modern, consumer and business‐friendly, and which offers the best value for money. Several important steps have been already taken on the way toward this aim, the most recent being the adoption of Regulation establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros (95) and the launch of a public consultation on a Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, Internet and mobile payments’ (96).

The Commission is of the opinion that electronic payments may offer many advantages to consumers, businesses and Member States thanks to the registered nature of such transactions. The use of electronic payment means entails a comprehensive protection of rights of payment services users in case of any transaction error and, unlike cash, in case of fraud or theft. While from the perspective of a consumer credit card payments are in some situations more expensive to use than cash, other forms of payment, such as credit transfers and direct debits, are fully comparable. In some Member States it is even more advantageous to use credit transfers and direct debits than cash.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000625/12

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Esplosione di una condotta del metano a Massa Carrara

Una condotta del metano saldata male, il gas che fuoriesce, la scintilla e poi il boato. E così il borgo di Barbaresco, nel comune di Tresana in provincia di Massa Carrara, è diventato un inferno. Fiamme alte fino a cento metri, case e fienili sventrati, auto in fiamme, una colonna di fumo sopra al cielo della Lunigiana e un cratere largo fino a 25 metri e profondo quasi 10.

Questione di secondi, poi il boato con una lingua di fuoco che ha aggredito i tecnici al lavoro in subappalto. Il bilancio è tragico: quattro feriti con ustioni gravissime in tutto il corpo, altri sei ricoverati in ospedale e poi dimessi in serata, mucche stecchite dentro le stalle saltate in aria. Cinque operai stavano lavorando per sostituire un tubo del metanodotto che serve la linea La Spezia-Parma e alcuni comuni abbarbicati tra le Alpi Apuane e il mare. Ma qualcosa è andato drammaticamente storto. Con la ruspa la squadra stava posizionando la nuova conduttura quando questa si è tranciata, cadendo a terra e provocando la scintilla che ha causato l’esplosione. In poco tempo la fuoriuscita del gas è stata letale.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, può la Commissione far sapere:

se può verificare che il sistema in questione per la condotta del metano fosse stato omologato in base alla normativa europea stabilita dalla direttiva 90/396/CEE riguardante il ravvicinamento delle legislazioni degli Stati membri in materia di apparecchi a gas;

e, se così non fosse, quali azioni può la Commissione intraprendere per accertare le cause e per evitare situazioni simili in futuro?

Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(5 marzo 2012)

Non vi è alcuna normativa UE che disciplini la sicurezza dei metanodotti.

1.

La direttiva 2009/142/CE in materia di apparecchi a gas (versione codificata della direttiva 90/396/CEE)

1.

La direttiva 2009/142/CE in materia di apparecchi a gas (versione codificata della direttiva 90/396/CEE)

 (97)

2.

Le condotte sono anche espressamente escluse dall'ambito di applicazione della direttiva 96/82/CE (Seveso II) sul controllo dei pericoli di incidenti rilevanti connessi con determinate sostanze pericolose

2.

Le condotte sono anche espressamente escluse dall'ambito di applicazione della direttiva 96/82/CE (Seveso II) sul controllo dei pericoli di incidenti rilevanti connessi con determinate sostanze pericolose

 (98)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000625/12

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Methane pipeline explosion in Massa Carrara

A poorly welded methane pipeline, leaking gas, a spark and then an explosion — and the village of Barbaresco, in Tresana, province of Massa Carrara, became an inferno. Flames shot up to nearly a hundred metres, houses and barns were gutted, cars set ablaze, a column of smoke reached up to the skies above Lunigiana and a 25-metre wide, 10-metre deep crater was formed.

All of this took place within a matter of seconds, followed by the explosion and a tongue of flame that reached the subcontractor engineers at work. The toll was tragic: four people were injured, with very serious burns all over their bodies; six others were hospitalised and later discharged, and cows were blown up instantly inside their cowsheds. Five labourers had been working to replace a section of the methane pipeline that serves the line between La Spezia and Parma and some hillside municipalities between the Apuan Alps and the sea, when something went dramatically wrong. The team had been using an excavator to position the new pipeline when it broke in two, falling to the ground and creating the spark that caused the explosion. The amount of gas that leaked in just a short time was lethal.

In the light of the above, can the Commission say:

whether it is able to verify that the methane pipeline system in question had been approved under the EU rules laid down in Directive 90/396/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels;

if not, what measures can the Commission take to establish the causes of this explosion and to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2012)

There is no EU legislation that addresses the safety of methane pipelines.

1.

Directive 

1.

Directive 

 (99)

2.

P

2.

P

 (100)

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000626/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Δράσεις για την στήριξη της νεολαίας και Ελλάδα

Η Επιτροπή χρηματοδοτεί άμεσα δράσεις για την στήριξη των νέων ανθρώπων. Μεταξύ αυτών, παρέχει 4 εκατομμύρια μέσω του πλαισίου των εγγυήσεων για την νεολαία (Youth guarantee), και 3 εκατομμύρια ευρώ για την ενίσχυση των νέων που αποφασίζουν να ιδρύσουν την δική τους επιχείρηση.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει αξιοποιήσει η Ελλάδα πόρους από τα συγκεκριμένα προγράμματα; Ποιο είναι το ύψος τους και ποια η θέση της χώρας σε σχέση με τον ευρωπαϊκό μέσο όρο;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(12 Μαρτίου 2012)

Όπως αναφέρεται στην ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής Πρωτοβουλία Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους  (101), η Επιτροπή θα παράσχει στα κράτη μέλη τεχνική βοήθεια για τη χρήση των κονδυλίων της ΕΕ, έτσι ώστε να υποστηριχτούν τα προγράμματα μαθητείας και το επιχειρηματικό πνεύμα. Η Επιτροπή διαχειρίζεται την εν λόγω τεχνική βοήθεια και οι χώρες που θα αποτελέσουν τον στόχο της πρωτοβουλίας θα καθοριστούν ανάλογα με τις πιο επείγουσες ανάγκες.

Κατά τη διάρκεια του 2012 η Επιτροπή θα εφαρμόσει επίσης την προπαρασκευαστική δράση, την οποία πρότεινε το Κοινοβούλιο σχετικά με την ₫Εγγύηση για τους νέους₻. Η δράση αυτή έγκειται σε μια έννοια πολιτικής που έχει σκοπό να διασφαλίσει ότι οι νέοι, το αργότερο τέσσερις μήνες αφότου εγκαταλείψουν το σχολείο, είτε κατέχουν μια θέση απασχόλησης είτε συμμετέχουν σε πρόγραμμα εκπαίδευσης ή (εκ νέου) κατάρτισης. Στο πλαίσιο της εν λόγω δράσης θα υποστηριχτεί περιορισμένος αριθμός πιλοτικών μέτρων στα κράτη μέλη, έτσι ώστε να υλοποιηθεί η ₫Εγγύηση για τους νέους₻ σε τοπικό επίπεδο. Ιδίως τα κράτη μέλη και οι περιφέρειες όπου η ανεργία των νέων είναι πολύ υψηλή, όπως είναι η Ελλάδα, θα ενθαρρυνθούν να συμμετάσχουν στη δράση αυτή.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000626/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Action to support young people in Greece

The Commission is providing funding for immediate action to support young people, EUR 4 million being earmarked for the youth guarantee scheme and EUR 3 million for measures to support young people who decide to start up their own businesses, for example.

I would like to ask the Commission:

Has Greece utilised funding from the programmes in question? What has been the take-up of funding by Greece and what is its ranking in this respect compared to the compared to the European average?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

As the Commission communication on the Youth Opportunities Initiative (102) states, the Commission will provide the Member States with technical assistance for the use of EU funds to support apprenticeship schemes and entrepreneurship. Such technical assistance is managed directly by the Commission and the target countries will be identified depending on the most urgent needs.

In the course of 2012 the Commission will also implement the preparatory action which Parliament has proposed on the ‘Youth Guarantee’, which is a policy concept to ensure that young people are either in a job, education or (re-)training within four months of leaving school. As part of this action support will be provided to a limited number of pilot measures in Member States to establish a ‘Youth Guarantee’ locally. In particular Member States and regions where unemployment among young people is very high, as is the case for Greece, will be encouraged to participate in the action.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000627/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αναξιοποίητοι πόροι από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο για την απασχόληση των νέων στην ΕΕ και στην Ελλάδα

Στην πρόσφατη έκθεση πρωτοβουλίας της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τις ευκαιρίες για την νεολαία, τα κράτη μέλη καλούνται να αντιμετωπίσουν, μεταξύ άλλων, την ανεργία των νέων και ιδίως να βοηθήσουν τους νεοεισελθόντες στην αγορά εργασίας προκειμένου να βρουν την πρώτη τους δουλειά. Σημειώνεται ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο διαθέτει ακόμα 30 δις ευρώ γι’ αυτούς τους σκοπούς, πόροι που δεν έχουν ακόμα αξιοποιηθεί από τα κράτη μέλη.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Πόσα χρήματα έχει απορροφήσει η Ελλάδα από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο για την στήριξη της απασχόλησης των νέων ανθρώπων; Ποιος είναι ο ευρωπαϊκός μέσος όρος;

Για ποιο λόγο, και παρά τις επιπτώσεις της οικονομικής κρίσης στους νέους, παρατηρούνται τόσο χαμηλά ποσοστά απορρόφησης τόσο από την Ελλάδα όσο και από τα υπόλοιπα κράτη μέλη;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Μαρτίου 2012)

1.

Η ένταξη των νέων στην αγορά εργασίας είναι θέμα ύψιστης προτεραιότητας για την Επιτροπή, λόγω του ότι η κρίση επιδείνωσε την ανεργία των νέων. Το ελληνικό επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα

₫Ανάπτυξη ανθρώπινου δυναμικού₻ (2,26 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (ΕΚΤ)) παρέχει βοήθεια, μεταξύ άλλων, για την προώθηση της απασχόλησης των νέων. Η συνολική δημόσια δαπάνη που προβλέπεται για τα ειδικά μέτρα με σκοπό την προώθηση της απασχόλησης των νέων ανέρχεται περίπου σε 295 εκατ. ευρώ. Επιπλέον, οι νέοι (κάτω των 25 ετών) είναι ομάδα προτεραιότητας που πρέπει να επωφεληθεί από τα γενικά μέτρα προώθησης της απασχόλησης που εφαρμόζονται από την Ελληνική Δημόσια Υπηρεσία Απασχόλησης.

Σε πολλά προγράμματα του ΕΚΤ περιλαμβάνονται πρωτοβουλίες για τους νέους μεταξύ των μέτρων στο πλαίσιο ευρύτερων προτεραιοτήτων και επομένως είναι δύσκολο να δοθούν ακριβή στοιχεία για τις δαπάνες ή τη συμμετοχή των νέων. Σύμφωνα με την ετήσια έκθεση εκτέλεσης οι συμμετέχοντες κάτω των 25 ετών αντιπροσωπεύουν σχεδόν το 30 % του συνολικού αριθμού των συμμετεχόντων το 2010 (όμως μερικά σχέδια δεν αναφέρονται σε ηλικιακές ομάδες). Επιπλέον, το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ) κατά τα έτη 2007-2013 υποστήριξε μια ειδική ενέργεια για την προώθηση της Επιχειρηματικότητας των Νέων στην Ελλάδα· για την ενέργεια αυτή προκηρύχθηκε διαγωνισμός με προϋπολογισμό ύψους 39,2 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ ο οποίος ολοκληρώθηκε με την έγκριση δράσεων και τη σύναψη συμβάσεων ύψους 44,11 εκατ. (εκ των οποίων 6,6 εκατ. ευρώ για πιστοποιημένες δαπάνες έχουν ήδη εκταμιευθεί). Η Επιτροπή θα υποστηρίξει τις ελληνικές αρχές στην περαιτέρω εκτέλεση αυτού του μέτρου.

2.

Το ελληνικό επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα

₫Ανάπτυξη Ανθρώπινου Δυναμικού₻ ξεκίνησε με βραδύ ρυθμό, επίσης διότι έπρεπε να εγκριθεί κατά τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να συμβάλλει καλύτερα στην αντιμετώπιση των επιπτώσεων της κρίσης. Ωστόσο, η εκτέλεση των προγραμμάτων του ΕΚΤ βελτιώθηκε σημαντικά το 2011.

Πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι είναι συνηθισμένο σ’ αυτό το στάδιο της περιόδου προγραμματισμού το ύψος των πόρων που δεν έχουν ακόμη διατεθεί για σχέδια να αντιπροσωπεύει το 30 % περίπου της συνολικής χορήγησης του ΕΚΤ για το σύνολο της περιόδου προγραμματισμού.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000627/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Unused European Social Fund appropriations earmarked for youth employment in the EU and in Greece

In its recent own-initiative report on youth opportunities, the Commission calls on Member States to confront issues such as youth unemployment and in particular measures to help newcomers to the job market in finding their first job. The European Social Fund still has 30 billion euros earmarked for these purposes, which has not yet been utilised by the Member States.

Will the Commission answer the following:

What has been the take-up by Greece of European Social Fund appropriations for measures to encourage youth employment? What is the European average?

What is the reason for such low take-up of funding by Greece and the other Member States, despite the impact of the economic crisis on young people?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

1.

The integration of young people into the labour market is an issue of the highest priority for the Commission given the negative impact of the crisis on youth unemployment. The Greek Human Resources Development operational programme (EUR 2.26 billion of European Social Fund (ESF)) provides assistance

inter alia

for the promotion of youth employment. The total foreseen public expenditure for the specific measures dedicated to the promotion of youth employment stands approximately at EUR 295 million. Moreover, young people (below 25 years of age) are a priority group to benefit from the general employment promotion measures implemented by the Greek Public Employment Service.

In many ESF programmes initiatives to help young people are included in measures under wider priorities so it is difficult to give exact figures on spending or participation of young people. The Annual Implementation Report on participants below 25 years shows that they represent nearly 30 % of total participants in 2010 (but some projects do not report on age groups). In addition, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2007-2013 supported a specific operation to promote Youth Entrepreneurship in Greece, for which a call published with a budget of EUR 39.2 million was concluded with actions approved and contracted for EUR 44.11 million (of which EUR 6.6 million of certified expenditure has already been disbursed). The Commission will support the Greek authorities in increasing this measure further.

2.

The Greek Human Resources Development operational programme had a slow start, also because it had to be adopted to better respond to the impact of the crisis. However, implementation of the ESF programmes has improved significantly in 2011.

It is to be noted that the amount of resources that are yet to be allocated to projects standing at around 30 % of the total ESF allocation for the whole programming period is not exceptional at this stage of the programming period.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000628/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Eγκατάσταση και αναβάθμιση πληροφοριακών συστημάτων στις υπηρεσίες του δημοσίου στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με τις αρμοδιότητες που έχουν ανατεθεί στην ομάδα δράσης για την Ελλάδα (Task Force) επιχειρείται, μεταξύ άλλων, ο περιορισμός της γραφειοκρατίας και ταυτόχρονα η βελτίωση των ελεγκτικών μηχανισμών του κράτους.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Παρατηρείται βελτίωση στην Ελλάδα στα ποσοστά απορρόφησης πόρων από τα ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για την αναβάθμιση των πληροφοριακών συστημάτων του δημόσιου τομέα, τον περιορισμό της γραφειοκρατίας και την βελτίωση των ελεγκτικών μηχανισμών του κράτους;

Καθώς μέχρι πέρυσι η Ελλάδα βρισκόταν στην τελευταία θέση στην Ε.Ε. ως προς την παροχή ηλεκτρονικών υπηρεσιών στους πολίτες και παρουσίαζε μέτριες επιδόσεις στον τομέα της ηλεκτρονικής διακυβέρνησης, ποια είναι τα πιο πρόσφατα δεδομένα; Υπήρξε βελτίωση;

Απάντηση του κ. Hahn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(21 Μαρτίου 2012)

1.

 Η Επιτροπή κρίνει ότι υπήρξε βελτίωση, όπως αποδεικνύεται από τα στοιχεία και τις ενέργειες που αναλαμβάνονται. Έως το τέλος του 2011, η απορρόφηση πόρων από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για την Ελλάδα ήταν 35 % (μέσος όρος ΕΕ: 33,5 %). Επιπλέον, οι συνολικές πληρωμές για το πρόγραμμα του ΕΤΠΑ ₫Ψηφιακή Σύγκλιση₻ ανέρχονταν σε 250 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου εκ των οποίων 79 εκατ. ευρώ δηλώθηκαν το 2010 και 104 εκατ. ευρώ το 2011.

Για την αναβάθμιση των πληροφοριακών συστημάτων του δημόσιου τομέα από το 2011 απαιτήθηκαν τα εξής:

Ένα εργαλείο ανοικτού πηγαίου κώδικα βασισμένο στο διαδίκτυο το οποίο αναπτύχθηκε για την τήρηση ηλεκτρονικών βιβλίων πρωτοκόλλου και για τη δημιουργία ενός συστήματος διαχείρισης υποθέσεων για τις υπηρεσίες του δημοσίου.

Μια πύλη πληροφόρησης και δικτύωσης, η ₫Startup Greece₻, με στόχο την υποστήριξη της επιχειρηματικότητας στην Ελλάδα.

Η συνεχής ανάπτυξη ενός συστήματος ηλεκτρονικής σύναψης συμβάσεων για να εξασφαλιστεί η αποτελεσματική και διαφανής σύναψη δημοσίων συμβάσεων.

2.

 Η ανάπτυξη της ηλεκτρονικής διακυβέρνησης στην Ελλάδα είναι ένας σημαντικός πυλώνας των διοικητικών μεταρρυθμίσεων. Έχει στόχο τη βελτίωση της ποιότητας των υπηρεσιών προς τους πολίτες. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό υλοποιούνται έργα σε τέσσερις βασικούς τομείς ηλεκτρονικής διακυβέρνησης: διαχείριση επιχειρησιακών πόρων, διαχείριση σχέσεων με τον πολίτη, ηλεκτρονικές δημόσιες συμβάσεις και διαχείριση ανθρωπίνων πόρων. Σύμφωνα με τις διαθέσιμες πληροφορίες, το ποσοστό του πληθυσμού που πραγματοποίησε ηλεκτρονικές συναλλαγές με τη δημόσια διοίκηση ανέρχεται σε 16 % (2010) (13 % το 2008· μέσος όρος ΕΕ 41 %). Το ποσοστό των πολιτών που υπέβαλαν ηλεκτρονικά έγγραφα στη δημόσια διοίκηση (π.χ. δήλωση εισοδήματος) ανέρχεται σε 7 % (2010) (5 % το 2008· μέσος όρος ΕΕ 21 %).

Πληροφορίες σχετικά με την ηλεκτρονική διακυβέρνηση και τις υπηρεσίες ΤΠΕ διατίθενται από το διαδίκτυο στη διεύθυνση http://epractice.eu. Οι τελευταίες εξελίξεις των υπηρεσιών ηλεκτρονικής διακυβέρνησης στην ΕΕ-27+ παρουσιάζονται στο διαδίκτυο στη διεύθυνση http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/pillars/societalbenefits/index_en.htm

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000628/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Installation and upgrading of IT systems in Greek Government departments

Under the powers granted to the Task Force for Greece, an undertaking has been made to restrict bureaucracy while at the same time improving the government monitoring mechanisms.

In view of this:

Has the Commission noted any improvement in Greece regarding the take-up of European Structural Fund appropriations for upgrading public sector IT systems restricting bureaucracy and improving government monitoring mechanisms?

Up to last year, Greece was in last place in the EU with regard to the supply of electronic services for citizens and had a modest record in the field of e-government. What are the recent data? Has there been any improvement?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2012)

1.

The Commission considers that there has been an improvement, as evidenced from the figures and the actions undertaken. By end 2011, the Structural Funds absorption for Greece was 35

 % (EU average: 33.5 %). In addition, total payments for the ERDF programme ‘Digital Convergence’ amounted to about EUR 250 million of which EUR 79 million was declared in 2010 and EUR 104 million in 2011.

The upgrading of public sector IT systems since 2011 has involved:

a web-based open source tool was developed to maintain electronic protocol books and to create a case management system for public sector services;

‘Startup Greece’, an information and networking portal aimed at supporting entrepreneurship in Greece;

ongoing development of an e-procurement system to ensure efficient and transparent public procurement.

2.

The deployment of e-Government in Greece is a major pillar of the administrative reforms aiming to improve the quality of services to citizens. As part of this, projects in four key e-government areas are being implemented: Enterprise Resource Planning, Citizen Relationship Management, e-Procurement and Human Resource management. According to the available information, the percentage of the population that made electronic transactions with the public administration stands at 16

 % (2010) (13 % in 2008; EU average 41 %). The percentage of citizens that submitted electronic files to the public administration (e.g. income declaration) stands at 7 % (2010) (5 % in 2008; EU average 21 %).

Information on e-Government and ICT services is online at http://epractice.eu. The latest progress of e-Government services in the EU‐27+ is online at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/pillars/societalbenefits/index_en.htm

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000629/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Oικονομική στήριξη νέων που αναζητούν εργασία σε άλλο κράτος μέλος

Στην πρόσφατη έκθεση — πρωτοβουλία της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τις ευκαιρίες για την νεολαία, η Επιτροπή αναφέρει ότι κατά την περίοδο 2012-2013 θα προσφέρει οικονομική υποστήριξη σε 5 000 νέους προκειμένου να βρουν εργασία σε άλλο κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ.

1.

Ποια είναι τα κριτήρια με τα οποία θα επιλεχθεί η χρηματοδότηση των νέων;

2.

Αντιστοιχεί συγκεκριμένος αριθμός για κάθε κράτος μέλος;

3.

Ποιο είναι το ύψος αυτής της οικονομικής υποστήριξης και από ποιους παράγοντες επηρεάζεται;

4.

Η επιλογή των νέων θα πραγματοποιείται αποκλειστικά μέσω της πύλης

EURES; Πώς διασφαλίζεται η αντικειμενικότητα της επιλογής;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(2 Μαρτίου 2012)

₫Η πρώτη σας θέση εργασίας μέσω του EURES₻ είναι ένα νέο στοχοθετημένο πρόγραμμα επαγγελματικής κινητικότητας (με τη μορφή προπαρασκευαστικής δράσης), το οποίο έχει ως στόχο να βελτιώσει τις ευκαιρίες απασχόλησης για τους νέους στις ευρωπαϊκές αγορές εργασίας και να ενθαρρύνει τους εργοδότες να καλύψουν κρίσιμες ελλείψεις προσωπικού με νέους μετακινούμενους εργαζομένους. Είναι μία από τις καίριας σημασίας δράσεις της εμβληματικής πρωτοβουλίας ₫Νεολαία σε κίνηση₻ της στρατηγικής ₫Ευρώπη 2020₻ (103) και της πρωτοβουλίας ₫Ευκαιρίες για τους νέους₻ (104).

Αυτό το πρόγραμμα θα παρέχει πληροφόρηση, στήριξη στην αναζήτηση εργασίας, στήριξη στην αντιστοίχιση προσφοράς και ζήτησης εργασίας και οικονομική στήριξη τόσο σε νέους ηλικίας 18-30 ετών που αναζητούν εργασία και οι οποίοι επιθυμούν να εργαστούν σε άλλο κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ όσο και σε επιχειρήσεις (ιδίως ΜΜΕ) που προσλαμβάνουν νέους ευρωπαίους μετακινούμενους εργαζόμενους και προσφέρουν προγράμματα επαγγελματικής ένταξης. Οι θέσεις εργασίας πρέπει να είναι ελάχιστης συμβατικής διάρκειας 6 μηνών. Οι νέοι και οι ΜΜΕ είναι οι τελικοί αποδέκτες της κατ' αποκοπήν χρηματοδοτικής στήριξης. Τα ποσά κυμαίνονται από 500 έως 1 200 ευρώ σύμφωνα με τη χώρα προορισμού. Αυτό αντιπροσωπεύει τη συνεισφορά στα έξοδα ταξιδίου για συνέντευξη στο εξωτερικό και/ή τη μετακίνηση σε άλλη χώρα της ΕΕ για την ανάληψη της θέσης εργασίας, καθώς και τη συνεισφορά στα έξοδα που βαρύνουν τις ΜΜΕ για το πρόγραμμα ένταξης μετακινούμενων εργαζομένων (π.χ. μαθήματα γλώσσας, κατάρτιση σε ήπιες δεξιότητες κ.λπ.).

Το πρόγραμμα αυτό αποσκοπεί στην αντιμετώπιση των ανισορροπιών της αγοράς εργασίας της ΕΕ, με τη διευκόλυνση της προσφοράς και της ζήτησης εργατικού δυναμικού. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι οι προσλήψεις δεν θα διέπονται από προκαθορισμένες εθνικές ποσοστώσεις, αλλά θα είναι το αποτέλεσμα των αναγκών και της προσφοράς των αγορών εργασίας της ΕΕ. Το πρόγραμμα θα υλοποιηθεί από ευρωπαϊκές υπηρεσίες απασχόλησης που επιλέγονται βάσει προσκλήσεων υποβολής προτάσεων. Ένα ευρύ φάσμα υπηρεσιών με προσανατολισμό τον πελάτη θα παρέχεται επιπλέον των επιγραμμικών (online) υπηρεσιών, όπως για παράδειγμα η δικτυακή πύλη EURES. Όπως συμβαίνει με άλλα προγράμματα κινητικότητας που συγχρηματοδοτούνται από την Επιτροπή, οι όροι πρόσβασης για τις ομάδες στόχους θα δημοσιευτούν.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000629/12

to the Commission

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Financial support for young people looking for work in another Member State

In its recent initiative report on opportunities for young people, the Commission states that over the period 2012‐13 it intends to provide financial assistance for 5 000 young people seeking work in another EU Member State.

1.

What criteria will be used to select which young people receive this funding?

2.

Is there a specific number for each Member State?

3.

What is the level of this financial assistance and what factors will influence it?

4.

Given that the choice of the young people involved will be made exclusively via the EURES portal, how can the objectivity of this choice be guaranteed?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2012)

‘Your first EURES job’ is a new targeted job mobility scheme (in the form of a preparatory action) which aims to enhance job opportunities for young people in the European labour markets and to encourage employers to fill bottleneck vacancies with young mobile workers. It is one of the key actions of the Europe 2020 flagship initiative ‘Youth on the Move’ (105) and of the ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’ (106).

This scheme will provide information, job search, job matching and financial support to both young jobseekers aged 18-30 willing to work in another EU Member State and businesses (SME in particular) recruiting young European mobile workers and providing them with an integration programme. Jobs must have a minimum contractual duration of 6 months. Young people and SMEs are the end-recipients of flat-rate financing support. The rates vary from 500 to 1200 EUR according to the country of destination. This represents a contribution to the costs of an interview trip abroad and/or of moving to another EU country to take up the job as well as to the costs borne by SMEs for the mobile worker's integration programme (e.g. language course, soft skills training, etc.).

This scheme is designed to address EU labour market imbalances by facilitating supply and demand of labour. This means that job placements will not be governed by pre-established country quotas but will be the result of EU labour markets' needs and vacancy offers. It will be implemented by European employment services selected through calls for proposals. A broad range of customer-oriented services will be provided in addition to online services e.g. EURES portal. As is the case with other mobility schemes co-financed by the Commission, access conditions for target groups will be made widely known.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000630/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Rilancio del progetto FAST sulla fusione nucleare

La fusione nucleare è considerata una delle opzioni utili a garantire una fonte di energia di larga scala, sicura, sostenibile e inesauribile. L'Unione europea si è impegnata nella costruzione di ITER, reattore sperimentale a fusione, frutto di una collaborazione internazionale che ha coinvolto Cina, India, USA, Giappone e Corea del Sud.

ITER costituisce un passo deciso verso la dimostrazione della fattibilità scientifica e tecnologica della produzione di energia da fusione termonucleare controllata, mentre il progetto FAST nasce dalla creatività e competenza delle industrie italiane e si pone come obiettivo quello di accompagnare ITER nella sua fase operativa.

In vista del nuovo programma quadro 2014-2018, intende la Commissione destinare risorse alla realizzazione di impianti sperimentali, esistenti o in fase di costruzione come FAST, garantendo un impegno a livello europeo nel rispetto del programma quadro dell'Euratom?

Risposta data da Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione

(27 febbraio 2012)

Il 30 novembre 2011 la Commissione ha adottato una proposta di ₫regolamento del Consiglio sul programma di ricerca e formazione della Comunità europea dell'energia atomica (2014-2018) che integra il programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione Orizzonte 2020₻ (107) concernente le attività di ricerca in campo nucleare (fusione e fissione) e in materia di radioprotezione. Uno degli obiettivi del programma è ₫avanzare verso la dimostrazione di fattibilità della fusione quale fonte di energia sfruttando impianti di fusione esistenti e futuri₻ (titolo I, articolo 3, paragrafo 2, lettera e)).

La Commissione sta coinvolgendo esperti esterni e le principali parti interessate nella pianificazione strategica del futuro programma di ricerca europeo sulla fusione. Nel 2011 un panel indipendente è stato incaricato di riesaminare ₫l'orientamento strategico del programma dell'Unione europea sulla fusione₻, un documento che illustra l'evoluzione futura del programma sulla fusione al fine di collaborare alla preparazione della proposta della Commissione relativa a Orizzonte 2020. Conformemente alle conclusioni del panel in questione, la Commissione avvierà un dibattito con i suoi partner internazionali sull'eventuale cooperazione in vista dell'avvio di ITER, considerando anche la gestione di JET (108), JT60-SA (109) (nell'ambito dell'accordo sull'approccio allargato con il Giappone) e eventualmente di altri impianti futuri tra cui FAST, a condizione che possa inserirsi in questa più ampia collaborazione dei dispositivi di fusione. Oggi, tuttavia, non è possibile anticipare le conclusioni di queste deliberazioni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000630/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Acceleration of the FAST nuclear fusion project

Nuclear fusion is considered to be one of the useful options for ensuring a large-scale, safe, sustainable and inexhaustible source of energy. The European Union is committed to the construction of ITER, the international thermonuclear experimental reactor, which is the result of international collaboration involving China, India, the USA, Japan and South Korea.

ITER is a decisive step towards demonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of the production of energy using controlled thermonuclear fusion, while the FAST project was born from the creativity and competence of Italian industries and aims to accompany ITER in its operational phase.

In view of the new framework programme 2014-2018, does the Commission intend to allocate resources to the development of existing experimental facilities or those that are under construction, such as FAST, ensuring commitment at European level in compliance with the Euratom framework programme?

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

(27 February 2012)

On 30 November 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal for a ‘Council Regulation on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing the Horizon 2020 proposals’ (110) concerning research activities in nuclear energy (fusion and fission) and radiation protection. One of the objectives of this programme is to ‘move towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source by exploiting existing and future fusion facilities’ (Title I, Art. 3.2(e)).

The Commission is involving external experts and principal stakeholders in the strategic planning of the future European fusion research programme. An independent panel was asked, in 2011, to review the proposed ‘strategic orientation of the EU fusion programme’, a document outlining the future directions of the fusion programme to assist in the preparation of the Commission proposal for Horizon 2020. In agreement with the conclusions of this panel, the Commission will initiate discussions with its international partners on possible cooperation to prepare for ITER operation, which will take into consideration the exploitation of JET (111), JT60-SA (112) (under the Broader Approach Agreement with Japan) and possible future facilities, of which FAST may be one option provided it can fit into this wider collaboration of fusion devices. However, it is not possible today to anticipate the conclusions of these deliberations.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000631/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Un nuovo Stato in Sudafrica?

Un recente appello da parte di un attivista sudafricano richiede all'Unione europea di riconoscere l'indipendenza dello Stato Afrikaner in Sudafrica.

A detta dell'attivista, ogni giorno vi sono numerosi abusi e violenze da parte del governo sudafricano nei confronti della popolazione ₫boera₻.

Il gruppo indipendentista Afrikaner propone uno Stato indipendente nella provincia di Gauteng, Sudafrica, che comprenda le città di Heidelberg, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Deneysville, Sasolburg, Parys, Fochville e altre piccole città limitrofe. Inoltre, aziende e industrie situate nella provincia menzionata e operanti in diversi settori formerebbero un primo tessuto economico del neo-Stato.

Considerato quanto sopra e che:

l'attivista ha dichiarato che il 14 aprile 2012 sarà proclamata l'indipendenza del nuovo Stato sovrano;

il principio di autodeterminazione dei popoli è sancito dall'articolo 1 della Convenzione internazionale sui diritti civili e politici delle Nazioni Unite,

può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante riferire quale siano la strategia e la posizione dell'Unione Europea in merito?

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

(10 aprile 2012)

In merito alla questione degli atti di violenza nei confronti degli agricoltori boeri e del razzismo in Sud Africa, si rimanda cortesemente l'onorevole parlamentare alle risposte dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton alle interrogazioni scritte E-003506/2010, E-003505/2010 e E-005051/2011. L'AR/VP è a conoscenza della situazione riferita dall'onorevole parlamentare.

L'AR/VP ritiene che la costituzione sudafricana offra solide garanzie per combattere gli abusi dei diritti umani e per la salvaguardia dei diritti delle minoranze e sostiene quindi l'integrità territoriale del Sud Africa.

Il dialogo politico serrato con il Sud Africa, anche sui diritti umani, stabilito nell'ambito del partenariato strategico UE-Sud Africa, fornisce all'Unione la possibilità di trasmettere alle autorità sudafricane, quando ritenuto opportuno, messaggi su varie questioni che suscitano preoccupazione come quelle descritte dall'onorevole parlamentare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000631/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — A new state in South Africa?

A recent appeal by a South African activist calls on the EU to recognise the independence of the ‘Afrikaner State’ in South Africa.

According to the activist, every day there are many incidents of abuse and violence by the South African government towards the Boer population.

An Afrikaner pro-independence group proposes an independent state in the province of Gauteng, South Africa, which would include the cities of Heidelberg, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Deneysville, Sasolburg, Parys, Fochville and other small neighbouring towns. In addition, companies and businesses located in the aforementioned province and operating across various sectors would make up the initial economic fabric of the new ‘state’.

Considering the above and that:

the activist states that the independence of the new sovereign state will be declared on 14 April 2012;

the principle of self-determination of peoples is sanctioned in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations,

can the Vice‐President/High Representative report on the EU’s strategy and position on this matter?

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

(10 April 2012)

With regard to the issues of violence against white farmers and racism in South Africa, the Honourable Member is kindly referred to answers provided by HR/VP Ashton to Questions E‐003506/2010, E‐003505/2010, E‐005051/2011. The HR/VP is aware of the issue referred to by the Honourable Member.

The HR/VP considers that the South African Constitution offers strong guarantees against human rights' abuses, and safeguards to minorities' rights, and therefore supports the territorial integrity of South Africa.

Close political dialogue with South Africa, including a dialogue on human rights, established under the framework of the EU‐South Africa Strategic Partnership, provides the EU with the opportunity to convey messages to the South African authorities on various issues of concern such as those described by the Honourable Member whenever appropriate.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000632/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — I residenti di Camp Ashraf potrebbero essere trasferiti a Camp Liberty

Secondo le ultime notizie riportate dal Consiglio nazionale della resistenza iraniana (NCRI), il governo di Al Maliki sta equipaggiando l'area di Camp Liberty con materiale da spionaggio per intercettare e controllare i futuri residenti.

Camp Liberty era stato costruito per ospitare giovani soldati statunitensi per un breve periodo. A detta dell'esercito americano, il campo non è adatto a lunghe permanenze e potrebbe causare disordini psicologici a chi vi risiede per tanto tempo.

Inoltre, il governo iracheno intende trasferire gli abitanti di Camp Ashraf in un'area pari solo all'1,5 % del territorio di Camp Liberty. Oltre a limitare lo spazio fisico e ad installare strumenti di controllo e spionaggio, Al Maliki vuole far costruire dei muri che isolino quella parte del campo da tutto il resto. Il governo iracheno intende trasformare il nuovo campo in una vera e propria prigione per gli abitanti di Ashraf.

Al Maliki ritiene che i residenti di Camp Ashraf siano terroristi e criminali, pertanto non vuole che restino nel suo territorio. Entro aprile, a detta del leader iracheno, Camp Ashraf non esisterà più.

La signora Rajavi e l'NCRI denunciano ormai quasi quotidianamente le provocazioni di Al Maliki e la situazione di disagio in cui versano i residenti di Camp Ashraf. Un trasferimento a Camp Liberty potrebbe arrecare uno shock ai più vulnerabili.

Considerati i numerosi appelli alla comunità internazionale e le recenti azioni intraprese da Al Maliki, chiedo al Vicepresidente / Alto Rappresentante quale sia la posizione dell'Unione europea sul trasferimento a Camp Liberty e sulla chiusura di Camp Ashraf.

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

(7 maggio 2012)

L'Unione europea segue attentamente la questione dei profughi di Camp Ashraf, il cui futuro continua a destare preoccupazione. Trattandosi di una questione di diritti umani, occorre che l'UE e la comunità internazionale facciano tutto il possibile per aiutare le Nazioni Unite e il governo iracheno a trovare una soluzione pacifica e legittima.

Per questo motivo l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha più volte ribadito il suo pieno sostegno al processo in corso guidato dalla Missione di assistenza delle Nazioni Unite per l'Iraq e dall'Alto Commissariato per i rifugiati, poiché è chiaro che questa è l'unica strada da seguire affinché l'evacuazione di Camp Ashraf avvenga in modo legittimo.

È essenziale che tutte le parti interessate, così come ogni singolo o gruppo che possa portare un proprio contributo alla questione, collabori pienamente e costruttivamente con le Nazioni Unite.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000632/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Residents of Camp Ashraf could be transferred to Camp Liberty

According to the latest news reports by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), al-Maliki’s government is equipping the Camp Liberty area with surveillance equipment in order to eavesdrop on and monitor future residents.

Camp Liberty was built to accommodate young American soldiers for a short period of time. According to the American army, the camp is not suitable for long stays and may cause psychological problems in those who reside there for a long time.

In addition, the Iraqi Government intends to transfer the residents of Camp Ashraf to an area equal to just 1.5 % of the area of Camp Liberty. In addition to limiting the physical space and installing monitoring and surveillance equipment, al-Maliki wants to build walls to isolate that part of the camp from the rest. The Iraqi Government intends to transform the new camp into a real prison for the residents of Ashraf.

Al-Maliki maintains that the residents of Camp Ashraf are terrorists and criminals and, as such, does not want them to remain on his territory. According to the Iraqi leader, by April, Camp Ashraf will no longer exist.

Ms Rajavi and the NCRI denounce the provocations by al-Maliki and the situation of hardship faced by the residents of Camp Ashraf almost daily. Transfer to Camp Liberty could cause shock to those who are most vulnerable.

Given the numerous appeals to the international community and the recent actions taken by al-Maliki, I ask the Vice‐President/High Representative, what is the position of the European Union on the transfer to Camp Liberty and the closure of Camp Ashraf?

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

(7 May 2012)

The EU follows the issue of the Camp Ashraf residents very closely. Their future continues to be a cause for concern. As a human rights issue, it requires the EU and the international community to do all we can to help the United Nations and the Government of Iraq to find a peaceful and orderly solution.

This is why the High Representative/Vice-President has repeatedly stressed her full support to the ongoing process led by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. It is clear that this is the only way forward to bring about an orderly evacuation of Camp Ashraf.

It is essential that all concerned parties, as well as every individual or group who can bring any influence to bear on this matter, now cooperate fully and constructively with the United Nations.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000633/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Maree nere: normativa di prevenzione e protezione contro i disastri ambientali

Al largo di Livorno il 17 dicembre 2011 la nave cargo della Grimaldi Lines ha perso in mare 34 tonnellate di catalizzatori contenenti metalli pesanti utilizzati per la lavorazione del petrolio. Ancora oggi ben 198 fusti di sostanze pericolose sono dispersi davanti alle coste toscane, con rischi non ancora ben identificati.

Le 2 300 tonnellate di olio combustibile contenute nello scafo della Costa Concordia arenatosi il 13 gennaio 2012 davanti all'isola del Giglio tengono sotto scacco un’area naturale marina protetta di interesse internazionale.

Tali vicende mostrano ancora una volta la rilevanza dell'intervento dell'Unione europea per la tutela ambientale marina. L'attuale normativa europea necessita di armonizzazione e applicazione uniforme da parte di tutti gli Stati membri, in particolare sotto il profilo della sicurezza, della dissuasione e delle potenzialità reattive di fronte alle emergenze delle ₫maree nere₻, del miglioramento dei controlli da parte delle autorità pubbliche, del rafforzamento delle potenzialità reattive ai disastri, nonché di una maggiore cooperazione internazionale.

Può la Commissione riferire sul processo di armonizzazione e sull'estensione del campo di applicazione delle principali direttive comunitarie in materia di responsabilità ambientale, in particolare della direttiva 2003/105/CE sul controllo di incidenti connessi con sostanze pericolose, della direttiva 2004/35/CE sulla prevenzione e riparazione dei danni, della direttiva 2005/35/CE (modificata dalla direttiva 2009/23/CE) sull’inquinamento dei mari provocato dalle navi, della direttiva 2008/56/CE sulla strategia marina e della direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente?

Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(28 marzo 2012)

La Commissione non dispone di informazioni in merito all’incidente del 17 dicembre 2011.

All’incidente della Costa Concordia avvenuto il 13 gennaio 2012 non si può applicare, allo stadio attuale, la direttiva sulla responsabilità ambientale (113) poiché tale evento rientra nel campo di applicazione della convenzione sull’inquinamento provocato dal carburante delle navi (114), relativa ai danni provocati dalla fuoriuscita o dallo scarico di carburante dalle navi e ai costi per l’adozione di misure ragionevoli di ripristino e prevenzione. Nel 2013-2014 la Commissione intende tuttavia riesaminare le disposizioni che escludono le convenzioni internazionali dal campo di applicazione della direttiva sulla responsabilità ambientale (115).

L’estensione del campo di applicazione dei danni provocati alle acque marine nell’ambito della direttiva sulla responsabilità ambientale è attualmente sottoposta all’iter della procedura legislativa ordinaria (116).

Si applicano inoltre le seguenti direttive: direttiva 2005/35/CE relativa all’inquinamento provocato dalle navi e all’introduzione di sanzioni per violazioni (117), quale modificata dalla direttiva 2009/123/CE (118), al fine di imporre sanzioni efficaci, proporzionate e dissuasive. In linea di principio il diritto penale può essere applicato in tutti gli Stati membri in caso di scarichi illeciti di sostanze inquinanti in mare, qualora ciò avvenga intenzionalmente, per imprudenza o negligenza grave. La direttiva sui reati contro l’ambiente (119) definisce come reati in tutti gli Stati membri gli atti quelli commessi illecitamente, per negligenza grave e che provochino o possano provocare danni rilevanti alla qualità delle acque, della fauna o della flora.

La direttiva quadro sulla strategia per l’ambiente marino (120) non ha una rilevanza diretta nel caso degli incidenti citati, in quanto definisce il quadro per una strategia marina e contiene disposizioni per conseguire un buono stato ambientale delle acque entro il 2020. La proposta di una direttiva Seveso III (121) presentata dalla Commissione non ha l’obiettivo di ampliarne il campo di applicazione rispetto all’attuale direttiva Seveso II (122), che esclude il trasporto di sostanze pericolose.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000633/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Oil spills: rules for prevention and protection against environmental disasters

On 17 December 2011 off the coast of Livorno, a Grimaldo Lines cargo ship lost 34 tonnes of catalysts containing heavy metals used for the processing of oil. Still today, no fewer than 198 containers of dangerous substances remain dispersed off the Tuscan coast, with risks not yet well identified.The 2 300 tonnes of fuel oil held in the hull of the Costa Concordia, which ran aground on 13 January 2012 off the island of Giglio, pose a threat to a protected natural marine area of international interest.

Such events once again demonstrate the importance of intervention by the European Union to ensure the protection of the marine environment. Current European regulations require harmonisation and uniform application by all Member States, particularly in terms of safety, deterrence and response capabilities in the face of oil spill emergencies, the improvement of checks by public authorities, the strengthening of disaster response capabilities and greater international cooperation.

Can the Commission report on the harmonisation process and on the extension of the scope of the main Community directives on environmental responsibility, in particular of Directive 2003/105/EC on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, Directive 2004/35/EC on the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, Directive 2005/35/EC (as amended by Directive 2009/23/EC) on ship-source pollution, Directive 2008/56/EC on marine strategy and Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2012)

The Commission is not aware of the incident of 17 December 2011.

As to the Costa Concordia incident of 13 January 2012, the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) (123) is currently not applicable as this issue is covered by the Bunker Oil Convention (124). The latter Convention applies to damage from the escape or discharge of bunker oil from ships, covering costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement and prevention. The Commission will however review in 2013-2014 inter alia the application of the exclusion of international Conventions from the scope of the ELD (125).

The extension of the scope of marine water damage under the ELD is currently subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (126).

The following directives are also applicable: Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (127) as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC (128) in order to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. In principle, criminal law can be imposed in all Member States for all illegal discharges of polluting substances into the sea, when committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence. The Environmental Crime Directive (129) defines such acts in all Member States as criminal offences, when committed with serious negligence, unlawfully and causing or likely to cause substantial damage to the quality of water, animals or plants.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (130) is not directly relevant to the mentioned incidents as it establishes a framework for a marine strategy and provides for a good environmental status of water in 2020. The Commission Proposal for a Seveso III Directive (131) does not seek to extend its scope beyond that of the current Seveso II Directive (132) which excludes transport of dangerous substances.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000634/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Teleriscaldamento: un monopolio da regolare e monitorare

Il teleriscaldamento è una forma di riscaldamento che consiste nella distribuzione di un fluido termovettore attraverso una rete di tubazioni isolate e interrate. Il fluido, che può essere acqua calda surriscaldata o vapore, proviene da una centrale di produzione e arriva alle utenze per poi tornare alla centrale. Quando arriva a destinazione, riscalda l'acqua dell'impianto di riscaldamento delle utenze attraverso uno scambiatore e può anche produrre acqua di uso sanitario. In pratica, lo scambiatore sostituisce la caldaia.

Tra i vantaggi principali vi sono una maggior sicurezza, maggiori benefici ambientali, risparmio energetico e la possibilità di ricorrere alle energie rinnovabili. Significativi sono gli aiuti che arrivano dalla legislazione comunitaria e dagli incentivi nazionali. Un'ulteriore crescita del teleriscaldamento è prevista nei prossimi anni, nel quadro delle politiche europee per il clima, con la valorizzazione di risorse di vario tipo, quali biomasse, rifiuti, calore di scarto di impianti industriali esistenti.

Si tratta, però, di un esemplare caso di monopolio naturale esercitato a livello locale, sia sul piano della teoria economica, sia nella valutazione da parte delle Autorità di regolazione nazionali (Antitrust o Autorità per l’energia) dei Paesi ove il servizio è maggiormente diffuso. Questo perché l'utente finale, una volta effettuato l'allacciamento, non ha, di fatto, la facoltà di cambiare fornitore e, per di più, si trova spesso a dover pagare un servizio la cui tariffa, oltre a differire da rete a rete, non sempre è calcolata o comunicata in maniera trasparente. Infatti, sono già diversi i casi di ricorsi di utenti contro l’innalzamento delle tariffe da parte degli operatori. Purtroppo, il settore sembra ricevere una scarsa regolamentazione a livello nazionale.

In considerazione di quanto sopra esposto, è necessario un successivo attento monitoraggio del settore per evitare comportamenti opportunistici da parte dei fornitori del servizio ed è, conseguentemente, necessaria una regolamentazione europea per promuovere maggiori trasparenza e protezione degli utenti.

Si chiede, quindi, alla Commissione di riferire in merito alla necessità di regolare il settore, considerando le classiche attività di produzione, trasmissione, distribuzione e consumo, per tutelare l'utente finale. Il compito potrebbe essere assegnato ad un soggetto terzo, come l’Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas.

Risposta data da Günther Oettinger a nome della Commissione

(5 marzo 2012)

La Commissione è consapevole della necessità di migliorare la trasparenza delle norme per la fornitura di servizi di teleriscaldamento e di rafforzare i diritti dei consumatori, in particolare per quanto concerne chiare e precise misurazioni e fatturazioni del riscaldamento e dell'acqua calda sanitaria forniti dalle imprese di teleriscaldamento. La proposta della Commissione di una nuova direttiva sull'efficienza energetica (133) prevede l'obbligo per gli Stati membri di fornire maggiori informazioni sul consumo e sui prezzi tramite la misurazione e la fatturazione e di introdurre regole trasparenti in materia di ripartizione dei costi legati al consumo di calore nei condomini alimentati da sistemi di riscaldamento centralizzati.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000634/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: District heating: a monopoly to be regulated and monitored

District heating is a form of heating that distributes a heat transfer fluid through a network of insulated, buried pipes. The fluid, which may be superheated water or steam, is sourced from a central power station, from where it reaches the consumers before then returning. When it reaches its destination, it heats the water in the consumer’s heating system by means of a heat exchanger and can also produce water for sanitary use. In practice, the heat exchanger replaces the boiler.

Among the main advantages are increased safety, greater environmental benefits, energy savings and the possibility of using renewable energy. Significant aid is received as a result of Community legislation and national incentives. The district heating industry is expected to undergo further growth in the next few years, within the framework of European policies on climate, by making use of various types of resources, such as biomass, waste and waste heat from existing industrial facilities.

It does, however, serve as an exemplary case of a natural monopoly exercised at a local level, both in terms of economic theory and in terms of the assessment by national regulatory authorities (Antitrust or the Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas) in countries where use of the service is most widespread. This is because, once connected, the end user is not in fact able to change supplier and, moreover, often has to pay for a service whose price, in addition to varying from network to network, is not always calculated or communicated in a transparent manner. In fact, several cases already exist of complaints from consumers about the increasing of rates by operators. Unfortunately, the sector appears to be poorly regulated at a national level.

In view of the above, subsequent careful monitoring of the sector is necessary in order to avoid opportunistic behaviour by service providers and European regulation is, therefore, necessary in order to promote greater transparency and consumer protection.

The Commission is therefore asked to report on the need to regulate the sector, with reference to traditional production, transmission, distribution and consumption activities, in order to protect the end user. The task could be assigned to a third party, such as the Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas.

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2012)

The Commission is aware of the need to improve the transparency of rules for the provision of district heating services and to strengthen consumers’ rights, especially as regards clear and accurate metering and billing of heating and domestic hot water provided by district heating companies. The Commissions’ proposal for a new Energy Efficiency Directive (134) includes an obligation for Member States to strengthen the provision of information on consumption and prices through metering and billing, and to introduce transparent rules on cost allocation for heat consumption in multi-apartment buildings supplied with centralised heat.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000635/12

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Impiego di prodotti GM in Europa e finanziamenti «Horizon 2020»

1.

Visto l'abbandono delle attività di sviluppo di piante GM in Europa da parte di una società chimica multinazionale in seguito all'opposizione dei consumatori, quali conclusioni trae la Commissione dal fatto che un'ampia maggioranza di consumatori europei continua a rifiutare l’impiego di colture GM negli alimenti (cfr. Eurobarometro n. 354, 2010), specialmente per quanto attiene alle politiche e al finanziamento della ricerca dell’UE?

2.

I dati pubblicamente diffusi sul finanziamento delle biotecnologie nell'ambito del capitolo Alimenti e coltivazioni mostrano come il Sesto programma quadro fosse eccessivamente ambizioso e non riflettesse per nulla le aspettative dei cittadini europei. Come valuta la Commissione la distribuzione dei finanziamenti tra gli approcci biotecnologici, gli approcci che mirano a una visione olistica del sistema di coltivazione e gli approcci agro-ecologici, come quello rappresentato dall’agricoltura biologica?

3.

Come intende la Commissione gestire i fondi a disposizione per la ricerca alimentare e agricola nel prossimo programma quadro

₫Horizon 2020₻ e come propone di assicurare che le esigue risorse economiche rispondano all’orientamento dei cittadini europei sul futuro degli alimenti e dell’agricoltura?

Risposta data da Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione

(29 marzo 2012)

1.

In linea di massima le imprese private sono libere di scegliere. Sebbene la grande maggioranza dei consumatori dell'UE sia in generale contraria agli alimenti geneticamente modificati, dall'indagine Eurobarometro n. 24537 del 2010 è risultato che più del 50 % è generalmente favorevole alle biotecnologie. Di conseguenza la Commissione contempla una gamma molto più ampia di attività di ricerca sulle biotecnologie, al fine di offrire soluzioni alle sfide a carattere sociale nonché a quelle poste dalla salute dei cittadini dell'UE, dallo scarseggiare delle risorse, dall'inquinamento, dalla tutela dell'ambiente ecc.

2.

L’UE ha finanziato tre ampie attività di ricerca nell'ambito del Sesto programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico (6°PQ, 2002-2006) che trattano temi quali la coesistenza di piante geneticamente e non geneticamente modificate a livello di colture e di filiere di approvvigionamento e il contenimento biologico delle piante transgeniche. Questi progetti sono stati avviati a sostegno delle politiche dell'UE in materia che rispondono alle preoccupazioni dei consumatori in ordine agli organismi geneticamente modificati (OGM). L’UE ha inoltre speso più di 300 milioni di euro nella ricerca sulla biosicurezza degli OGM

2.

L’UE ha finanziato tre ampie attività di ricerca nell'ambito del Sesto programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico (6°PQ, 2002-2006) che trattano temi quali la coesistenza di piante geneticamente e non geneticamente modificate a livello di colture e di filiere di approvvigionamento e il contenimento biologico delle piante transgeniche. Questi progetti sono stati avviati a sostegno delle politiche dell'UE in materia che rispondono alle preoccupazioni dei consumatori in ordine agli organismi geneticamente modificati (OGM). L’UE ha inoltre speso più di 300 milioni di euro nella ricerca sulla biosicurezza degli OGM

 (135)

3.

La ricerca sui prodotti alimentari e le aziende agricole sarà trattata in Orizzonte 2020 nell’ambito della sfida sociale

₫Sicurezza alimentare, agricoltura sostenibile, ricerca marina e marittima e bioeconomia₻. Le attività di ricerca nell’ambito della sfida suddetta riflettono molte delle aspettative contenute nella proposta di riforma della PAC sul futuro dei prodotti alimentari e dell’attività agricola, ad esempio ponendo l’accento su sistemi di coltivazione più sostenibili.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000635/12

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Use of GM products in Europe and ‘Horizon 2020’ funds

1.

In light of the withdrawal of GM plant development activities from Europe by a multinational chemical company as a result of consumer resistance, what consequences does the Commission draw from the fact that a large majority of consumers in the EU continue to reject the use of GM crops in food (see e.g. Eurobarometer 354, 2010), especially with regard to EU research policies and funding?

2.

The publicly disclosed figures on funding for biotechnology under the food and farm section indicate that FP6 was disproportionately high and did not at all reflect the expectations of EU citizens. What is its assessment of the distribution of funds between biotechnological approaches, approaches that target a holistic farm system view and agro-ecological approaches, such as the one expressed by organic farming?

3.

How does the Commission intend to manage the funds available for food and farm research in the next Framework Programme

‘Horizon 2020’, and how does it propose to guarantee that the scarce economic resources respond to European citizens’ orientations on the future of food and farming?

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

(29 March 2012)

1.

In general, private companies are free to make their own choices. Although GM foods are generally opposed by the large majority of EU consumers, the Eurobarometer survey 24537 of 2010 has shown that more than 50 % of them are generally supportive about biotechnology. In line with this level of support, the Commission covers a far broader range of research activities involving biotechnologies, intended to provide solutions for societal challenges, the health of EU citizens, dwindling resources, environmental pollution and protection, etc.

2.

The EU has funded three large research activities under the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6, 2002-2006) addressing issues such as coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, coexistence along supply chains and biological containment of transgenic plants. These projects were launched in support of relevant EU policies addressing consumer concerns in relation to GMO. The EU has also spent more than EUR 300 million on research regarding the biosafety of genetically modified organisms

2.

The EU has funded three large research activities under the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6, 2002-2006) addressing issues such as coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, coexistence along supply chains and biological containment of transgenic plants. These projects were launched in support of relevant EU policies addressing consumer concerns in relation to GMO. The EU has also spent more than EUR 300 million on research regarding the biosafety of genetically modified organisms

 (136)

3.

Food and farm research will be addressed in Horizon2020 as part of the societal challenge

‘Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, Marine and Maritime Research, and the Bio-Economy’. The research activities under this societal challenge will reflect upon many of the aspirations set out in the proposed CAP reform on the future of food and farming. This will include e.g. an emphasis upon more sustainable farming systems.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000636/12

προς το Συμβούλιο

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(1 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Συμμετοχή ιδιωτικού τομέα στην αναδιάρθρωση του ελληνικού χρέους

Οι διαπραγματεύσεις μεταξύ της ελληνικής πλευράς και των ιδιωτών ομολογιούχων για το PSI συνεχίζονται και αρκετά hedge funds που έχουν επενδύσει σε ελληνικούς τίτλους, απειλούν ότι θα προσφύγουν σε Ευρωπαϊκά Δικαστήρια, σε περίπτωση που η Ελλάδα εισάγει Ρήτρες Συλλογικής Δράσης (Collective Action Clauses — CAC). Ένα από τα βασικά επιχειρήματα που χρησιμοποιούν, είναι η εξαίρεση από το κούρεμα του 50 % των ελληνικών ομολόγων που έχει στην κατοχή της η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Είναι πράγματι οξύμωρο να ζητείται σήμερα ένα κούρεμα 50 % από τους ιδιώτες επενδυτές και να εξαιρείται η ΕΚΤ, η οποία μάλιστα αν εισπράξει το 100 % της αξίας των ελληνικών ομολόγων που αγόρασε στη δευτερογενή αγορά σε τιμές μάλιστα πολύ χαμηλές, θα αποκομίσει υπεραξίες σκανδαλώδους ύψους.

Με δεδομένα τα παραπάνω, ερωτάται το Συμβούλιο:

Σκοπεύει να προτείνει άμεσα την υπαγωγή και των ομολόγων που έχει η ΕΚΤ στην κατοχή της, σε ανάλογη διαδικασία, ώστε να μειωθεί το χρέος και να αφαιρεθούν τα ₫νομικά₻ επιχειρήματα όσων προτίθενται να προσφύγουν στα διεθνή δικαστήρια;

Απάντηση

(2 Απριλίου 2012)

Στις 26 Οκτωβρίου 2011, οι αρχηγοί κρατών και κυβερνήσεων της ευρωζώνης δήλωσαν ότι είναι ζωτικός ο ρόλος της συμμετοχής του ιδιωτικού τομέα στην εξασφάλιση της βιωσιμότητας του ελληνικού χρέους. Όσον αφορά τη γενική προσέγγιση ως προς τη συμμετοχή του ιδιωτικού τομέα, επιβεβαίωσαν την απόφαση της 21ης Ιουλίου 2011 σύμφωνα με την οποία η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας απαιτεί έκτακτη και μοναδική λύση. Στις 30 Ιανουαρίου 2012, οι αρχηγοί κρατών και κυβερνήσεων υπενθύμισαν ότι η συμμετοχή του ιδιωτικού τομέα στην Ελλάδα αποτελεί έκτακτη και μοναδική περίπτωση.

H φύση και οι όροι του μηχανισμού στήριξης της οικονομικής σταθερότητας διέπονται από διεθνή συμφωνία μεταξύ ορισμένων κρατών μελών της ευρωζώνης, η οποία δεν εμπίπτει στο πεδίο εφαρμογής των συνθηκών της ΕΕ. Οι προϋποθέσεις εκταμίευσης ορίζονται στο Μνημόνιο Συνεννόησης που επισυνάπτεται στη δανειακή σύμβαση μεταξύ των δανειστών και της Ελλάδας. Κατά συνέπεια, το Συμβούλιο δεν είναι σε θέση να σχολιάσει ή να παράσχει πληροφορίες σχετικά με τους όρους του δανείου που εγκρίθηκε δυνάμει της διεθνούς συμφωνίας.

Επιπλέον, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 130 της ΣΛΕΕ, η ΕΚΤ, κατά την άσκηση των εξουσιών της και την εκτέλεση των καθηκόντων και υποχρεώσεών της, δεν ζητάει ούτε δέχεται υποδείξεις από τα θεσμικά ή λοιπά όργανα ή οργανισμούς ή από την κυβέρνηση κράτους μέλους· τα θεσμικά και λοιπά όργανα ή οργανισμοί της Ένωσης καθώς και οι κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών δεν επιδιώκουν να επηρεάζουν τα μέλη των οργάνων λήψης αποφάσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας κατά την άσκηση των καθηκόντων τους.

Δεν είναι επομένως αρμόδιο το Συμβούλιο να καθορίσει ειδική αντιμετώπιση για τα ομόλογα που έχει η ΕΚΤ στην κατοχή της, αν δε το Συμβούλιο ή άλλο θεσμικό όργανο της Ένωσης επεδίωκε να επηρεάσει τα μέλη των οργάνων λήψης αποφάσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας κατά την άσκηση των καθηκόντων τους, μεταξύ άλλων όσον αφορά τη διαμόρφωση της στρατηγικής ή πολιτικής της σε σχέση με πράξεις αγοράς, αυτό θα αποτελούσε σαφή και άμεση παράβαση της ΣΛΕΕ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000636/12

to the Council

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(1 February 2012)

Subject: Participation by the private sector in restructuring the Greek debt

Negotiations between the Greek Government and private counterparts on the PSI are continuing, and several hedge funds that have invested in Greek bonds are threatening to resort to the European courts if Greece introduces Collective Action Clauses — CAC. One of the basic arguments for this threat is the exemption from the 50 % ‘haircut’ for the Greek bonds held by the European Central Bank. It is really perverse to request a 50 % cut in value from private investors but to exempt the ECB from this measure: if the ECB collects 100 % of the value of bonds sold on the secondary market at what will certainly be very low prices, it will make scandalous levels of gains.

Given the above:

Does the Council intend to immediately classify the bonds the ECB holds under a similar procedure, in order to reduce the debt and remove the ‘legal’ undertakings which have led to this threat to resort to the international courts?

Reply

(2 April 2012)

The Heads of State and Government of the euro area stated on 26 October 2011 that private sector involvement has a vital role in establishing the sustainability of Greek debt. As far as the general approach to private sector involvement is concerned, they reiterated their decision taken on 21 July 2011 that Greece requires an exceptional and unique solution. On 30 January 2012 the Heads of State and Government recalled that private sector involvement in Greece is an exceptional and unique case.

The nature and the conditions of the stability support are governed by an international agreement among certain Member States whose currency is the euro, which does not fall within the scope of the EU Treaties. The conditions for disbursement are stipulated in a memorandum of understanding attached to the loan agreement between the lenders and Greece. The Council is not therefore in a position to comment or provide information on the conditions agreed under the international agreement.

Moreover, according to Article 130 of the TFEU, the ECB, in exercising its powers and carrying out its tasks and duties, shall not seek or take instructions from Union institutions, bodies or agencies or from governments of Member States; Union institutions, bodies or agencies and the governments of Member States shall not seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB in the performance of their tasks.

It is therefore not within the scope of the Council's responsibilities to determine a specific treatment to be applied to holdings of bonds by the ECB, and it would be explicitly and directly contrary to the TFEU for the Council or any other Union institution to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB in the performance of their tasks, including the definition of its strategy or policy with regard to its market operations.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000637/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Συμμετοχή ιδιωτικού τομέα στην αναδιάρθρωση του ελληνικού χρέους

Οι διαπραγματεύσεις μεταξύ της ελληνικής πλευράς και των ιδιωτών ομολογιούχων για το PSI συνεχίζονται και αρκετά hedge funds που έχουν επενδύσει σε ελληνικούς τίτλους, απειλούν ότι θα προσφύγουν σε Ευρωπαϊκά Δικαστήρια, σε περίπτωση που η Ελλάδα εισάγει Ρήτρες Συλλογικής Δράσης (Collective Action Clauses — CAC). Ένα από τα βασικά επιχειρήματα που χρησιμοποιούν, είναι η εξαίρεση από το κούρεμα του 50 % των ελληνικών ομολόγων που έχει στην κατοχή της η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Είναι πράγματι οξύμωρο να ζητείται σήμερα ένα κούρεμα 50 % από τους ιδιώτες επενδυτές και να εξαιρείται η ΕΚΤ, η οποία μάλιστα αν εισπράξει το 100 % της αξίας των ελληνικών ομολόγων που αγόρασε στη δευτερογενή αγορά σε τιμές μάλιστα πολύ χαμηλές, θα αποκομίσει υπεραξίες σκανδαλώδους ύψους.

Με δεδομένα τα παραπάνω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Σκοπεύει να προτείνει άμεσα την υπαγωγή και των ομολόγων που έχει η ΕΚΤ στην κατοχή της, σε ανάλογη διαδικασία, ώστε να μειωθεί το χρέος και να αφαιρεθούν τα ₫νομικά₻ επιχειρήματα όσων προτίθενται να προσφύγουν στα διεθνή δικαστήρια;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(19 Μαρτίου 2012)

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να σχολιάσει τη διαχείριση των χαρτοφυλακίων ομολόγων της από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα (ΕΚΤ), σεβόμενη την ανεξαρτησία της ΕΚΤ όπως κατοχυρώνεται στη Συνθήκη.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000637/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Participation by the private sector in restructuring the Greek debt

Negotiations between the Greek Government and private bondholders regarding the PSI are continuing, and several hedge funds that have invested in Greek bonds are threatening to take the matter to the European courts if Greece introduces Collective Action Clauses — CAC. One of their fundamental objections is the exemption from the 50 % ‘haircut’ for Greek bonds held by the European Central Bank. It is totally unreasonable to expect private investors to accept losses of 50 % while exempting the ECB. If the ECB collects 100 % of the value of the Greek bonds purchased by it on the secondary market at what were certainly very low prices, it will make an outrageous profit.

In view of this:

Does the Commission intend immediately to apply similar procedures with regard to the bonds held by the ECB in order to reduce the debt and remove the ‘legal’ objections of those envisaging proceedings before the international courts?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2012)

The European Commission is not in a position to comment on the European Central Bank (ECB)'s management of its bond portfolios, in respect of the ECB's independence as enshrined in the Treaty.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000638/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Σχέδιο Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για μεταρρύθμιση του τραπεζικού συστήματος

Στο Agence Europe στις 16.1.2012 αναφέρθηκε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και συγκεκριμένα η Γενική Διεύθυνση Εσωτερικής Αγοράς, σχεδιάζει την εφαρμογή νέων μέτρων και μεταρρυθμίσεων που θα αφορούν την ενδυνάμωση του τραπεζικού τομέα στην ΕΕ, την επίτευξη χρηματοοικονομικής σταθερότητας και την αποφυγή τυχόν αρνητικών συνεπειών σε περιόδους στενότητας και κρίσης. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, στο άρθρο του ειδησεογραφικού πρακτορείου, γίνεται λόγος για ₫προετοιμασία ενός σχεδίου για την επίλυση τραπεζικών κρίσεων, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει μια σειρά μέτρων για την αποφυγή πανικού στις αγορές και οικονομικής κατάρρευσης, σε περίπτωση που μια τράπεζα πτωχεύσει₻.

Με δεδομένα τα παραπάνω, αλλά και το γεγονός ότι μια τέτοια πρωτοβουλία από την πλευρά της Επιτροπής είναι και ενδιαφέρουσα και σημαντική, ειδικά στην τρέχουσα συγκυρία, όπου το ευρωπαϊκό τραπεζικό και χρηματοπιστωτικό σύστημα αντιμετωπίζει μια πολυεπίπεδη κρίση με άμεσα αποτελέσματα στις οικονομίες και τις κοινωνίες των κρατών μελών, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποια είναι τα βασικά σημεία του σχεδίου που έχει προετοιμάσει η Γενική Διεύθυνση Εσωτερικής Αγοράς για τη μελλοντική διαχείριση τραπεζικών κρίσεων; Τι μπορεί να κοινοποιηθεί σήμερα από το συγκεκριμένο σχέδιο;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(5 Μαρτίου 2012)

Τον καιρό αυτό οι υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής ετοιμάζουν πρωτοβουλία για την ανάκαμψη και εξυγίανση των τραπεζών.

Το νέο πλαίσιο αναμένεται να έχει ευρύ πεδίο εφαρμογής. Στόχος του θα είναι να εφοδιάσει τις αρχές με ευρύ φάσμα κοινών και αποτελεσματικών εξουσιών αντιμετώπισης τραπεζικών κρίσεων σε πρώιμο στάδιο και να αποφύγει, στο μέτρο του δυνατού, τη χρήση χρημάτων των φορολογουμένων για τη διάσωση τραπεζών. Η Επιτροπή αναλύει τη σκοπιμότητα ένταξης στο πλαίσιο αυτό των εξής παραμέτρων:

έγκαιρη παρέμβαση εποπτικών αρχών για τον προσδιορισμό και την αντιμετώπιση εξελισσομένων προβλημάτων σε τραπεζικά ιδρύματα·

προπαρασκευαστικά μέτρα, συμπεριλαμβανομένης απαίτησης για σχέδια ανάκαμψης και εξυγίανσης (₫εν ζωή διαθήκες₻) για όλες τις τράπεζες, ώστε να διασφαλισθεί ότι οι τράπεζες έχουν προβλέψει ρεαλιστικά σχέδια και διακανονισμούς για την αντιμετώπιση χρηματοπιστωτικών πιέσεων, ενώ οι αρχές έχουν αναλύσει τον τρόπο κατά τον οποίο τα ιδρύματα θα μπορούσαν να εξυγιανθούν εάν είναι αναπόφευκτη η αφερεγγυότητα, με ελάχιστο συστημικό αντίκτυπο·

εναρμονισμένα εργαλεία και εξουσίες διάσωσης ώστε να διασφαλίζεται ότι οι εθνικές αρχές διαθέτουν κοινή σειρά εργαλείων για να διαχειριστούν την αφερεγγυότητα των τραπεζών·

πλαίσιο για συνεργασία και συντονισμό μεταξύ εθνικών αρχών στο έργο του σχεδιασμού και της διενέργειας της εξυγίανσης διασυνοριακών τραπεζικών ομίλων· αυτό θα περιλαμβάνει πλαίσιο για συνεργασία επίσης με τρίτες χώρες·

χρηματοδοτικοί διακανονισμοί με στόχο τη διασφάλιση ότι το κόστος της εξυγίανσης των τραπεζών βαρύνει το ίδιο τον τραπεζικό κλάδο.

Όλες οι σχετικές πληροφορίες και έγγραφα δημόσιας διαβούλευσης έχουν αναρτηθεί στον δικτυακό τόπο της Επιτροπής, στη διεύθυνση:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/crisis_management/index_en.htm

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000638/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: The European Commission's banking system reform plan

Agence Europe reported on 16.1.2012 that the European Commission, specifically the Directorate-General for the internal market, is planning to implement new measures and reforms aimed at strengthening the banking sector in the EU, achieving financial stability and avoiding negative impacts in downturn and crisis periods. More specifically, the news agency’s article refers to the ‘preparation of a plan to solve banking crises, consisting of a series of measures to avoid panic in the markets and economic failure when a bank becomes bankrupt’.

In view of the above points, and considering the fact that such an initiative by the Commission is both interesting and important, especially in the current situation, with the European banking and financial system facing a crisis on many fronts — a crisis which is having immediate impacts on the economies and societies of the Member States:

What are the basic points in the plan prepared by the Directorate-General for the future management of banking crises? What can it announce about this plan today?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2012)

An initiative on Bank Recovery and Resolution is currently being prepared by the Commission services.

The new framework should have a broad scope of application. Its objective will be to equip authorities with a wide range of common and effective powers to deal with banking crises at an early stage and to avoid, as far as possible, the use of taxpayers' money to rescue banks. The Commission is analysing the feasibility that the framework includes:

early supervisory intervention to indentify and address developing problems in banking institutions;

preparatory measures, including a requirement for recovery and resolution plans (‘living wills’) for all banks to ensure that the banks have in place realistic plans and arrangements to deal with financial stress, and authorities have analysed how the institutions could be resolved if failure is inevitable with minimum systemic impact;

harmonised resolution tools and powers to ensure that national authorities have a common toolkit to manage the failure of banks;

a framework for cooperation and coordination between national authorities in planning for and carrying out resolution of cross-border banking groups; this will include a framework for cooperation also with third countries;

funding arrangements which aim to ensure that the cost of bank resolution is borne by the bank sector itself.

All related information and public consultation documents can be found on the Commission's website at:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/crisis_management/index_en.htm

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000639/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Αδειοδότηση χωρίς Μελέτη Περιβαλλοντικών Επιπτώσεων για έργα ανάκτησης και διάθεσης αποβλήτων

Η Ελληνική Βουλή επεξεργάζεται νομοσχέδιο που ενσωματώνει, μεταξύ άλλων, τις οδηγίες 2008/99/EK και 2008/98/EK. Το άρθρο 47 του νομοσχεδίου, προβλέπει ότι ₫μπορεί σε εξαιρετικές περιπτώσεις όταν 1) τίθεται σε σοβαρό και προφανή κίνδυνο η δημόσια υγεία ή ασφάλεια ή 2) διακυβεύεται ουσιαστικά το γενικότερο δημόσιο συμφέρον, να εξαιρείται με απόφαση του υπουργού περιβάλλοντος και κλιματικής αλλαγής, εν όλω ή εν μέρει, ένα έργο ανάκτησης ή διάθεσης αποβλήτων₻ … ₫από τη διαδικασία περιβαλλοντικής αδειοδότησης έργων και δραστηριοτήτων₻. Σε αυτή την περίπτωση η αρμόδια Υπηρεσία για την περιβαλλοντική αδειοδότηση … ₫α) εξετάζει αν ενδείκνυται άλλη μορφή εκτίμησης των επιπτώσεων στο περιβάλλον, β) θέτει στη διάθεση του ενδιαφερομένου κοινού τις πληροφορίες που έχουν αποκτηθεί στο πλαίσιο άλλων μορφών εκτίμησης … γ) ενημερώνει αμελλητί την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για τους λόγους που δικαιολογούν την παρεχόμενη εξαίρεση₻.

Δεδομένου ότι, μια τέτοια διάταξη, αν περιληφθεί στον τελικό νόμο, εισάγει εξαιρέσεις από την υποχρέωση πραγματοποίησης Μελέτης Περιβαλλοντικών Επιπτώσεων, για έργα ανάκτησης και διάθεσης αποβλήτων, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι σύμφωνη με το κοινοτικό δίκαιο η αδειοδότηση έργου ανάκτησης ή διάθεσης αποβλήτων χωρίς μελέτη εκτίμησης περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων; Αν ναι, σε ποιες περιπτώσεις; Τι είδους έργα, και σε ποιες περιπτώσεις, θα μπορούσαν να εξαιρεθούν; Ποιες άλλες μορφές εκτίμησης των επιπτώσεων στο περιβάλλον υπάρχουν;

Απάντηση του κ. Potočnik εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(7 Μαρτίου 2012)

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 παράγραφος 4 της οδηγίας 2011/92/ΕΕ για την εκτίμηση των επιπτώσεων ορισμένων σχεδίων δημοσίων και ιδιωτικών έργων στο περιβάλλον (137), τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν, σε εξαιρετικές περιπτώσεις, να εξαιρούν το σύνολο ή μέρος συγκεκριμένου έργου από τις διατάξεις της οδηγίας. Στην εν λόγω οδηγία καθορίζονται οι διαδικασίες τις οποίες οφείλουν να ακολουθούν τα κράτη μέλη και η Επιτροπή, σε περίπτωση εξαίρεσης από την εκτίμηση περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων με επίκληση των διατάξεων του άρθρου 2 παράγραφος 4.

Η Επιτροπή έχει εκδώσει έγγραφο κατευθύνσεων (138), για να βοηθήσει τις εθνικές αρχές στη λήψη αποφάσεων σχετικά με τον χρόνο και τον τρόπο εφαρμογής της παραγράφου 4 του άρθρου 2 της οδηγίας για την εκτίμηση των περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων.

Η πείρα που έχει αποκτηθεί από την εφαρμογή δείχνει ότι γίνεται χρήση της ανωτέρω εξαίρεσης όταν υπάρχει επείγουσα και ουσιαστική ανάγκη για κάποιο έργο, κυρίως σε περιπτώσεις έκτακτης ανάγκης προστασίας των πολιτών. Στα είδη έργων που εξαιρούν τα κράτη μέλη περιλαμβάνονται κυρίως έργα προστασίας ακτών ή αποκατάστασης ζημιών σε λιμένες μετά από πλημμύρες ή θύελλες, καθώς και η κατασκευή εγκαταστάσεων διαχείρισης αποβλήτων.

Μέχρι σήμερα, η Επιτροπή δεν έχει ενημερωθεί για το νομοσχέδιο. Δεδομένου ότι ο συγκεκριμένος νόμος αποσκοπεί στην ενσωμάτωση της οδηγίας 2008/98/EC (139) στο εθνικό δίκαιο, η Ελλάδα οφείλει να κοινοποιήσει τις διατάξεις του στη Επιτροπή σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 40 της ίδιας οδηγίας. Η Επιτροπή θα τις εξετάσει τότε λεπτομερώς για να κρίνει αν συμβιβάζονται με την ενωσιακή νομοθεσία.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000639/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Authorisation for waste recovery and disposal project without an environmental impact assessment

The Greek Parliament is drawing up a bill to incorporate Directives 2008/99/EC and 2008/98/EC, among others. Article 47 of the bill states that ‘in exceptional circumstances, where (1) a serious and clear danger to public health and safety is posed or (2) the general public interest is essentially at stake, a waste recovery and disposal project may be exempted, in whole or in part, by decision of the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change,…..from the procedure to authorise works and activities’. In this situation, the relevant department for environmental planning… ‘(a) shall examine whether another form of environmental impact assessment is advisable, (b) shall make available to the members of the public concerned the information it has obtained using other forms of assessment…(c) shall promptly inform the European Union of the reasons justifying the exemption in question’.

Given that such a provision, if it becomes law, introduces exemptions from the obligation to carry out environmental impact assessments for waste recovery and disposal works:

Does the Commission consider that the authorisation of waste recovery and disposal works without an environmental impact assessment complies with Community law? If so, under what circumstances? What type of project could be exempted and under what circumstances? What other environmental impact assessment procedures are available?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2012)

Article 2(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (140) provides that Member States may, in exceptional cases, exempt specific projects in whole, or in part, from the provisions of the directive. The directive specifies which procedures must be followed by Member States and by the Commission when an exemption from environmental impact assessment is invoked under Article 2(4).

The Commission has issued a guidance document (141), in order to assist national authorities in deciding when and how Article 2(4) of the EIA Directive should be applied.

On the basis of the implementation experience, it appears that this exemption is used when there is an urgent and substantial need for a project, mainly in situations of civil emergency; the types of projects exempted by Member States mainly include works for protecting coasts or rehabilitating ports following flooding or storms, as well as the construction of waste management installations.

The Commission has no information so far on the proposed bill. As this law aims at transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (142), Greece would have to communicate it to the Commission, in accordance with Article 40 of the directive. The Commission would then assess its compatibility with the EU legislation in detail.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000640/12

alla Commissione

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Furto di materiale radioattivo da una centrale nucleare egiziana

Il 19 gennaio, il quotidiano britannico Daily Telegraph ha riportato la notizia secondo cui è stata sottratta una cassa contenente materiale radioattivo dalla centrale nucleare di Dabaa, mentre un'altra cassa è stata invece forzata e ne è stata prelevata una parte del contenuto. La centrale, attualmente in costruzione, si trova lungo la costa nord-occidentale dell’Egitto.

Secondo il quotidiano egiziano al-Ahram, il governo ha allertato le autorità di sicurezza e ha chiesto l’intervento di squadre specializzate nella ricerca del materiale sottratto. Almeno dieci persone sono rimaste ferite la settimana scorsa, quando la polizia militare è intervenuta per cercare di disperdere i manifestanti e gli abitanti della zona, principalmente beduini, secondo i quali, per costruire l’impianto nucleare, è stata confiscata loro la terra. Un agente delle forze di sicurezza ha riferito che vi sono stati lanci di pietre tra la polizia e i manifestati, a cui è seguito uno scontro a fuoco dopo che i manifestanti hanno demolito un muro che circonda il sito.Secondo al-Ahram,il personale dell’impianto si è rifiutato di recarsi sul posto visto il peggioramento delle condizioni di sicurezza.

1.

È la Commissione al corrente di tale situazione?

2.

Può la Commissione offrire sostegno logistico alle autorità egiziane per rintracciare il materiale radioattivo sottratto?

3.

Può la Commissione consultarsi con i funzionari dell’UE in Egitto per determinare i potenziali rischi per la sicurezza causati da tale incidente?

Risposta data da Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione

(13 marzo 2012)

La Commissione è stata informata dell'accaduto dall'Agenzia internazionale dell'energia atomica, secondo la quale, in base alle informazioni in suo possesso, l'incidente riguarda quattro sorgenti di calibrazione a bassa attività. Il tasso di radiazioni emesso da queste sorgenti di piccole dimensioni sarebbe quindi molto ridotto e non rappresenterebbe un pericolo per la sicurezza pubblica, ammesso che i cittadini vengano adeguatamente informati della situazione.

La Commissione non ha ricevuto richieste di assistenza per il caso e al momento non sta valutando azioni da intraprendere.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000640/12

to the Commission

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Radioactive material stolen from Egyptian nuclear power station

On 19 January, the UK’s Daily Telegraph reported that a safe containing radioactive material at the Dabaa nuclear power plant had been seized, while another safe containing radioactive material had been broken open and part of its contents taken. The plant, which is currently under construction, is located on Egypt’s North-West coast.

Egypt’s al-Ahram newspaper reported that the government has alerted the security authorities and asked for specialised teams to help search for the stolen material. At least a dozen people were wounded last week when military police tried to disperse residents and protestors who are mainly Bedouin and claim that their land has been confiscated in order to build the nuclear plant. One security force official reported that soldiers and demonstrators hurled stones at each other, and gunfire was exchanged after protestors demolished a wall surrounding the site. Al-Ahram reported that staff at the plant have refused to go to the site because of the worsening security situation.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the abovementioned report?

2.

Is the Commission prepared to offer logistical support to help the Egyptian authorities locate the stolen radioactive contents?

3.

Is the Commission prepared to consult with EU officials in Egypt in order to assess the potential security hazards posed by this incident?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2012)

The Commission was informed by the International Atomic Energy Agency that, according to their information, the incident concerns four low activity calibration sources. The dose rates from such small sources would be very low and pose little to no safety risk if the public is properly made aware of the situation.

The Commission was not requested to provide assistance on the case and is not considering taking any action at this stage.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000641/12

alla Commissione

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Persecuzione dei cristiani in Corea del Nord

Si stima che in Corea del Nord vivano diverse centinaia di cristiani. Sebbene la Costituzione del paese garantisca il diritto alla libertà di pratica religiosa, i cristiani sono soggetti a misure restrittive. Chiunque violi le restrizioni religiose imposte dal governo può essere accusato di spionaggio e di attività antigovernative. Secondo la rivista ₫Foreign Policy₻, i dissidenti nordcoreani stabilitisi in Corea del Sud hanno denunciato l'esecuzione di amici o vicini di casa che erano stati trovati in possesso di una Bibbia.

Secondo il rapporto internazionale sulla libertà religiosa 2011 pubblicato dal Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti, le organizzazioni per la difesa dei diritti umani attive fuori dal paese hanno segnalato l'arresto, il pestaggio, la tortura e l'uccisione di membri di chiese clandestine a causa del loro credo religioso. Si calcola che nei campi di prigionia politica siano recluse tra le 150 000 e le 200 000 persone, molte delle quali detenute per motivi religiosi. I profughi e i dissidenti che sono stati in carcere affermano che i prigionieri detenuti a causa del loro credo religioso subiscono in genere un trattamento peggiore rispetto agli altri detenuti.

Vi sono inoltre diverse segnalazioni relative all'arresto di membri dei gruppi evangelici operanti in Cina, ai quali sono state inflitte aspre punizioni. Le autorità nordcoreane cercano attivamente di limitare le attività religiose lungo i confini con la Cina. Nel maggio 2010 un'ONG sudcoreana ha riferito che nella provincia meridionale di Pyongan 23 cristiani sono stati arrestati con l'accusa di appartenere a una chiesa clandestina. Stando a quanto riferito, tre di loro sono stati giustiziati, mentre gli altri sono stati inviati al campo di prigionia politica di Yoduk. Inoltre, nel giugno 2009 alcuni attivisti sudcoreani impegnati per la difesa dei diritti umani hanno segnalato che una donna di 33 anni è stata giustiziata pubblicamente in una città nei pressi del confine cinese dopo essere stata presumibilmente accusata di spionaggio.

1.

Può la Commissione confermare se sono stati compiuti gli sforzi necessari a sostenere l'operato dei gruppi attivi per la difesa dei diritti umani impegnati a fronteggiare il dramma dei cristiani e di altre comunità religiose in Corea del Nord?

2.

Quali informazioni è riuscita a ottenere la Commissione in merito alla situazione dei cristiani in Corea del Nord?

3.

Al fine di sostenere i diritti dei cristiani che rischiano di essere perseguitati, è disposta la Commissione a esortare le autorità nordcoreane a consentire la legalizzazione di un numero maggiore di chiese?

4.

Con riferimento ad alcuni dei casi menzionati in precedenza, per quanto concerne l'esecuzione di cittadini nordcoreani a causa del loro credo religioso, ha la Commissione cercato di stabilire un contatto con il governo nordcoreano per ottenere informazioni su queste persone?

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

(16 marzo 2012)

L'UE è estremamente preoccupata per la situazione dei diritti umani nella Repubblica popolare democratica di Corea (RPDC) caratterizzata, fra l'altro, da gravi e frequenti violazioni della libertà di culto. La risoluzione dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite sulla situazione dei diritti umani nella RPDC, adottata nel dicembre 2011 con un numero di voti favorevoli senza precedenti (123) e sostenuta dall'UE, affronta diverse questioni specifiche fra cui le persistenti segnalazioni di violazioni gravi e sistematiche della libertà di culto. Oltre a promuovere questo tipo di risoluzioni sin dal 2004, l'UE solleva regolarmente questioni inerenti ai diritti umani nell'ambito del suo dialogo politico con la RPDC, che continua però a respingere la sua proposta di istituire un dialogo specifico sui diritti umani.

L'accesso all'informazione nella RPDC è estremamente limitato. Il paese preclude totalmente la presenza di osservatori stranieri e rifiuta di riconoscere il mandato del relatore speciale dell'ONU sulla situazione dei diritti umani nella RPDC, di concedergli l'accesso al suo territorio o di includerlo in un qualsiasi tipo di collaborazione.

Nella dichiarazione rilasciata il 20 dicembre 2011 in seguito al decesso di Kim Jong Il, l'AR/VP ha espresso l'auspicio che la nuova leadership si adoperi per migliorare la situazione dei diritti umani nella RPDC, sottolineando che l'UE è pronta ad assistere il paese nella realizzazione di questo obiettivo.

L'UE applica attualmente una vasta gamma di misure restrittive nei confronti della RPDC, in applicazione delle risoluzioni 1718 e 1874 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000641/12

to the Commission

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Persecution of Christians in North Korea

There are estimated to be many hundred Christians in North Korea. Although the country’s constitution guarantees the right to practice religion freely, Christians are subject to strict measures. Anyone violating the religious restrictions imposed by the government may be accused of spying and anti-government activities. According to the periodical ‘Foreign Policy’, there are reports from North Korean defectors based in South Korea that friends or neighbours found with a Bible in their possession have been executed.

According to the US State Department’s 2011 International Religious Freedom Report, human rights groups outside the country have provided reports that members of underground churches have been arrested, beaten, tortured and killed because of their religious beliefs. There are an estimated 150 000 to 200 000 people believed to be held in political prison camps, including many detained on religious grounds. Refugees and defectors who have been in prison have stated that prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs have generally been treated worse than other inmates.

It is also widely reported that persons who engage with evangelical groups operating in China have been arrested and harshly punished. The North Korean authorities are actively looking to halt religious activities on the Chinese border. In May 2010, a South Korean NGO reported that 23 Christians had been arrested for belonging to an underground church in South Pyongan Province. It is reported that three were executed and the others sent to Yoduk political prison camp. In June 2009, in addition, South Korean human rights activists reported that a 33-year-old woman had been publicly executed in a town close to the Chinese border, having allegedly been accused of spying.

1.

Can the Commission confirm whether or not it has made efforts to support the work of human rights groups focusing on the plight of Christians and other religious groups inside North Korea?

2.

What information has the Commission managed to obtain about the situation of Christians inside North Korea?

3.

In order to support the rights of Christians who are at risk of persecution, is the Commission prepared to encourage the North Korean authorities to allow more churches to be officially registered?

4.

In connection with some of the cases described above, regarding North Koreans executed because of their Christian beliefs, has the Commission made attempts to engage with the North Korean Government in order to obtain information about these specific individuals?

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

(16 March 2012)

The EU is deeply concerned about the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), including the all pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedom of religion. In the EU‐sponsored Resolution of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, adopted in December 2011 with an unprecedented level of support (123 votes in favour), one of the specific issues raised is the persistence of continuing reports of systematic widespread and grave violations of freedom of religion. Such Resolutions have been initiated by the EU since 2004. In addition, the EU regularly raises human rights concerns as part of its political dialogue with the DPRK. However, the DPRK continues to reject the EU proposal to hold a specific human rights dialogue.

Access to information in the DPRK is extremely limited. The country is entirely closed to foreign observers. It also refuses to recognise the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, to grant him access to the country or to extend any form of cooperation to him.

In the HR/VP's statement of 20 December 2011 following the death of Kim Jong Il, she expressed the hope that the new leadership will work to improve the human rights situation in the DPRK and underlined the EU readiness to assist the DPRK in the pursuit of that objective.

The EU currently applies a wide range of restrictive measures on the DPRK, in application of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000642/12

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Attacchi alle chiese sull'isola di Zanzibar (Africa orientale)

Il 13 gennaio, il servizio di informazione cristiano Compass Direct News riferiva la notizia della distruzione di due edifici religiosi avvenuta nel mese di dicembre per opera di un gruppo di estremisti islamici sull’isola semiautonoma di Zanzibar. Il 3 dicembre, una chiesa evangelica a circa 12 km dalla città di Zanzibar è stata distrutta dalle fiamme. Secondo il pastore della chiesa, accorso alla scena, gli aggressori in fuga gridavano ₫non vogliamo chiese in questa zona!₻.

Il vescovo responsabile della chiesa, Daniel Kwilembe, ha affermato che le autorità dell’arcipelago a maggioranza musulmana non adottano in genere alcun provvedimento in risposta ai crimini [sic] contro i cristiani. Secondo il vescovo della chiesa evangelica pentecostale di Zanzibar, Fabian Obedi, ₫gli atti incendiari delle chiese per mano dei musulmani sono piuttosto frequenti a Zanzibar, ma il governo non reprime questo genere di distruzione dei luoghi di culto cristiani.₻.

Prima dell’attacco del 2 dicembre, la chiesa siloe di Kianga, anch’essa poco distante da Zanzibar, è stata distrutta da un gruppo di estremisti islamici. Gli aggressori hanno fatto incursione nel luogo di culto armati di mazze, martelli, torce e spade e l’hanno demolito in tre ore. L’arrivo della polizia non è servito a fermarli e ora i membri della chiesa non hanno un luogo in cui riunirsi.

Questi attacchi alle chiese sono gli ultimi di una lunga serie. Durante l’estate almeno tre edifici religiosi sono stati distrutti dalle fiamme in questa regione dell’Africa orientale.

Zanzibar ha una popolazione di circa 700 000 persone e si contano una sessantina di congregazioni cristiane.

1.

È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza degli atti di violenza settaria contro i gruppi cristiani sull’isola di Zanzibar?

2.

Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante, alla luce del crescente numero di attacchi contro le chiese sull’isola di Zanzibar e sulle isole vicine, sollevare la questione presso il governo del presidente Ali Mohamed Shein, servendosi dell’assistenza dei funzionari dell'EU nella regione?

Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante chiedere alle autorità dell’isola di aumentare la protezione dei gruppi religiosi che sono presi di mira dagli attacchi orchestrati dai fondamentalisti islamici?

3.

Può

il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante fornire informazioni sulla natura dei sempre più frequenti attacchi ai cristiani? Esistono per esempio collegamenti con altri gruppi estremisti islamici, come al-Shabaab, attivo nella regione del Corno d’Africa?

4.

Ritengono i funzionari dell’UE che gli attacchi contro i gruppi cristiani siano in aumento nei paesi dell’Africa orientale, come la Tanzania e il Kenya?

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

(27 marzo 2012)

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente (AR/VP) Catherine Ashton è a conoscenza di avvenimenti come quelli descritti nell'interrogazione. Le relazioni della delegazione UE, compresa quella sulla recente Strategia per i diritti umani in Tanzania 2011, forniscono un resoconto sulla libertà di religione e di credo in Tanzania.

L'AR/VP è pienamente consapevole della centralità della libertà di religione nell'agenda dell'Unione europea in materia di diritti umani ed è a conoscenza delle preoccupazioni del Parlamento al riguardo espresse in numerose risoluzioni. Nel 2011 l'AR/VP ha espressamente incaricato la delegazione UE di monitorare attentamente le limitazioni alla libertà di religione e di credo in linea con le recenti conclusioni del Consiglio del 21 febbraio 2011, che invitavano a formulare proposte concrete per rafforzare ulteriormente l'azione dell'UE in tal senso. Ciò consentirà una valutazione più chiara degli sviluppi in atto a livello regionale o globale e aiuterà in modo più efficace l'UE a elaborare strategie per combattere intolleranza e persecuzione.

La delegazione UE ha recentemente effettuato una missione a Zanzibar per comprenderne meglio la situazione politica e anche l'intensificarsi del radicalismo islamico, e ha incontrato i leader delle comunità mussulmane e cristiane per discutere delle tensioni locali.

La delegazione continuerà a monitorare le recenti tendenze del radicalismo islamico a Zanzibar, che pare sia legato all’influenza esercitata sui giovani da studiosi che si sono formati nel Medio Oriente in un ambiente islamico più conservativo, come quello del Wahabismo. A Zanzibar la disoccupazione giovanile, la povertà e i drastici cambiamenti dei modelli socioculturali tradizionali dovuti ai flussi turistici potrebbero indurre al radicalismo giovani ₫vulnerabili e arrabbiati₻. Non sono stati segnalati collegamenti a gruppi radicali specifici come Al-Shabaab.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000642/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Attacks on churches on the East African island of Zanzibar

On 13 January, the Christian news service Compass Direct News reported that in December Islamic radicals destroyed two church buildings on the semi-autonomous island of Zanzibar. On 3 December, an Evangelical church about 12 km outside Zanzibar town was torched and burned and, according to the church’s pastor who arrived on the scene, the assailants fled shouting ‘we do not want a church in this area!’

The bishop of the church, Daniel Kwilembe, said that authorities on the predominantly Muslim archipelago tend to take no action on crimes [sic] against Christians. Another bishop, Fabian Obedi of the Pentecostal Evangelical Church of Zanzibar, also noted that ‘Muslims are burning our church buildings quite frequently here in Zanzibar, but the government is not speaking against this kind of destruction of our church premises.’

Prior to the attack on 2 December, the Siloam church in Kianga, which is also close to Zanzibar town, was demolished by a group of Islamic radicals. The group entered the church building with clubs, hammers, torches and swords, and tore it down in three hours. The arrival of the police did not stop them. The church’s congregation was left without anywhere to attend a service.

These attacks are the latest in a string of attacks directed against churches. During the summer, at least three churches were burnt down across this region of East Africa.

Zanzibar has an estimated population of 700 000, with approximately sixty Christian congregations.

1.

Is the High Representative/Vice-President aware of the sectarian violence directed against Christian groups in Zanzibar?

2.

With regard to the growing number of church attacks on Zanzibar and its surroundings islands, is the High Representative/Vice-President prepared to raise this issue with the government of Dr 

Ali Mohamed Shein, with the assistance of EU officials on the ground? Is the High Representative/Vice-President prepared to ask the Zanzibar authorities to improve the protection of church groups vulnerable to attacks orchestrated by Muslim fundamentalists?

3.

Is the

High Representative/Vice-President able to provide information on the nature of the increase in anti-Christian attacks? Are there, for example, any links with other radical Islamist groups such as al-Shabaab, which is active across the Horn of Africa?

4.

Do EU officials believe attacks directed against Christian groups are on the increase in East African states such as Tanzania and Kenya?

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

(27 March 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) is aware of incidents of the type raised in the question. The EU Delegation reports, including the recent Tanzania Human Rights Strategy 2011, give an account of the situation of the freedom of religion and belief (FORB) in Tanzania.

The HR/VP is fully aware of the centrality of religious freedom to the human rights agenda and is conscious of the Parliament's concerns in this area as expressed in numerous resolutions. The HR/VP has explicitly instructed the EU Delegations in 2011 to monitor more closely restrictions on FORB in line with the most recent Council conclusions of 21 February 2011, which called for proposals to further strengthen the EU action in this regard. This will assist in giving clearer assessment of whether there are regional or global trends and better help the EU to formulate strategies to combat intolerance and persecution.

The EU Delegation has recently carried out a mission to Zanzibar to gain a better understanding of the political situation in Zanzibar including rise in Islamic radicalisation, and met with Muslim and Christian leaders to discuss local tensions.

The Delegation will continue to follow recent trends in Islamic radicalisation in Zanzibar, which is reportedly linked to youth becoming influenced by scholars who received their education in the Middle East in more conservative Islam, such as Wahabism. Youth unemployment and poverty in Zanzibar including drastic changes to traditional social and cultural patterns due to the flow of tourism may push ‘vulnerable and angry’ youth to radicalisation. No links to specific radical groups such as Al-Shabaab have been reported.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000645/12

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej / Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Piotr Borys (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), Artur Zasada (PPE) oraz Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE)

(27 stycznia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – W sprawie wyjaśnień tragicznych wydarzeń w Kazachstanie w grudniu 2011 r.

W związku z tragicznymi wydarzeniami, jakie miały miejsce w dniach 16-18 grudnia 2011 r. w mieście Zhanazoen (Zachodni Kazachstan) zwracamy się do wiceprzewodniczącej/wysokiej przedstawiciel z prośbą o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

Jakie działania może podjąć Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel, aby przeprowadzić niezależne międzynarodowe dochodzenie w sprawie przyczyn oraz rzeczywistych wydarzeń w mieście Zhanaozen i we wsi Shepte (według oficjalnych danych zginęło co najmniej 17 osób, a według nieoficjalnych danych – ponad 80 osób)?

Jakie działania zamierza przedsięwziąć Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel, aby uzyskać pełny opis przebiegu zdarzeń w mieście Zhanaozen i we wsi Szepte (obwód mangistauski), przeprowadzić śledztwo w sprawie odpowiedzialności osób winnych śmierci i zranienia ludzi, którzy brali w nich udział, a także zaginięć obywateli Kazachstanu niezależnie od ich orientacji politycznej i zajmowanego stanowiska?

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel zamierza zbadać zgodność z międzynarodowymi normami przyjętych przez władze Kazachstanu ustaw „nadzwyczajnych” – przede wszystkim „O bezpieczeństwie narodowym”, „O telewizji” – a także zastosowania ich w praktyce w celu ograniczenia praw politycznych i obywatelskich Kazachów?

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel zamierza podjąć działania dyplomatyczne celem uwolnienia osób uwięzionych, jak również uznania za więźniów politycznych aresztowanych działaczy ruchu strajkowego przedsiębiorstw naftowych oraz organizacji „Front Ludowy”: Natalii Sokolovej, Akzhanata Aminova, Ajzhangula Amirova, Talgata Saktaganova, Amangeldy Lukmanov, Rozy Tuletaevej, Ruslany Simbinovej?

Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel zamierza zaapelować do rządu Kazachstanu o dokładne zbadanie napadów, gróźb oraz o zapobieżenie prześladowaniom dziennikarzy i ekip zdjęciowych kazachstańskiego portalu internetowego Stan.kz w związku z ich działalnością zawodową?

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

(19 marca 2012 r.)

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca oraz podległe jej służby uważnie śledzą sytuację w Kazachstanie. Niezwłocznie po tym, jak doszło do burzliwych wydarzeń w tym kraju, rzecznik Wysokiej Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącej wystosował oświadczenie będące wyrazem niepokoju i wzywające do natychmiastowego śledztwa w sprawie wydarzeń oraz pokojowego rozwiązania problemu strajkujących pracowników sektora naftowego. ESDZ i delegatura UE w Astanie pozostawały w stałym kontakcie z władzami Kazachstanu, nalegając, by przeprowadzono przejrzyste i obiektywne śledztwo w sprawie wydarzeń, oraz wzywając je do wypełnienia obowiązków i zobowiązań międzynarodowych, w szczególności w odniesieniu do nowych przepisów nadzwyczajnych w obszarze wolności wypowiedzi, stowarzyszeń i zgromadzeń. W dniu 2 lutego Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca spotkała się ministrem spraw zagranicznych Kazachstanu Jerżanem Kazychanowem. Podczas spotkania zwróciła się o szczegółowe informacje na temat dochodzenia oraz więzienia działaczy opozycji i dziennikarzy. Wyraziła również poważne zaniepokojenie zaistniałą sytuacją. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca zaproponowała także pomoc UE w rozwiązaniu problemów społecznych i gospodarczych, jakie dotknęły pracowników sektora naftowego, w drodze trójstronnego dialogu społecznego. W odniesieniu do uwięzionego lidera niezarejestrowanej partii „Alga” Władimira Kozłowa w dniu 9 lutego UE wystosowała démarche, prosząc również o spotkanie z zatrzymanym i o informacje na temat jego stanu zdrowia. Władze Kazachstanu obiecały, że pozwolą pracownikom delegatury UE odwiedzić go w areszcie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000645/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Piotr Borys (PPE), Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), Paweł Zalewski (PPE), Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), Artur Zasada (PPE) and Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Clarification of the tragic events in Kazakhstan in December 2011

Further to the tragic events which occurred in the town of Zhanaozen (western Kazakhstan) between 16 and 18 December 2011:

What action can the Vice‐President/High Representative take with a view to carrying out an independent, international investigation into what really happened in Zhanaozen and the village of Shepte, and why? Official reports put the number of deaths at 17, with the unofficial figure standing at over 80.

What action is the Vice‐President/High Representative planning to take in order to gain a full account of the events that occurred in Zhanaozen and Shepte (Mangystau Province) and to carry out an investigation in an effort to identify those responsible for the deaths and injuries amongst participants in the events, and into disappearances of Kazakh citizens, irrespective of their political beliefs and the positions held by them?

Does the Vice‐President/High Representative intend to examine whether the Kazakh authorities have complied with international standards in adopting ‘extraordinary’ laws — especially those concerning national security and television — and using them to restrict the political and civil rights of Kazakhs?

Does the Vice‐President/High Representative intend to take diplomatic action with a view to securing the release of individuals who have been imprisoned, and ensuring that detained oil company strikers and ‘People’s Front’ activists are recognised as political prisoners? Natalia Sokolova, Akzhanat Aminov, Ajzhangul Amirova, Talgat Saktaganov, Amangeldy Lukmanov, Roza Tuletaeva and Ruslan Simbinov are among the individuals concerned.

Does the Vice‐President/High Representative intend to call on the government of Kazakhstan to conduct a detailed investigation into the attacks on and threats against journalists and camera crews from the Stan.kz Internet portal, and to put a stop to a situation in which people are being harassed for carrying out their professional activities?

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

(19 March 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President and her services closely follow the situation in Kazakhstan. Immediately after the violent events, HR/VP’s spokesperson published a statement expressing concerns and calling for immediate investigation of the events, and peaceful solution to the situation of the striking oil workers. EEAS and the EU Delegation in Astana have been in regular contact with the authorities pressing for a transparent and objective investigation of the events and calling on Kazakhstan to uphold its international obligations and commitments, especially regarding the new ‘extraordinary’ laws, in the fields of freedom of expression, association and assembly. The HR/VP met with the Kazakh FM Kazykhanov on 2 February, where she asked about the details of the investigation, imprisonment of opposition activists and a journalist, expressing serious worry about the situation. HR/VP also offered EU’s help to resolve the social and economic problems faced by oil workers, through social / tripartite dialogue. On the imprisonment of the leader of the unregistered Alga party, Mr Kozlov, the EU carried out a demarche on 9 February, also asking for access to Mr Kozlov and information about his health. Kazakh authorities promised to allow the EU delegation to visit Mr Kozlov in detention.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-000646/12

lill-Kummissjoni

Louis Grech (S&D)

(27 ta' Jannar 2012)

Suġġett: Implimentazzjoni tal-leġiżlazzjoni dwar l-iskart tal-UE

Skont studju tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea ppubblikat riċentament, l-implimentazzjoni sħiħa tal-leġiżlazzjoni dwar l-iskart tal-UE tista’ tiffranka EUR 72 biljun fis-sena, iżżid il-fatturat annwali tas-settur tal-ġestjoni u r-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-UE bi EUR 42 biljun u toħloq “il fuq minn 400 000 impjieg sal-2020. Barra minn hekk, l-istudju wera li l-attivitajiet illegali konnessi mal-iskart fl-Istati Membri qegħdin jirriżultaw f’opportunitajiet mitlufa ta” tkabbir ekonomiku u li spezzjonijiet nazzjonali aktar effettivi u għarfien akbar dwar il-ġestjoni tal-iskart iġibu magħhom titjib kbir.

Ir-Regolament tal-Istatistika tal-Iskart tal-Unjoni Ewropea (KE) Nru 2150/2002, li daħal fis-seħħ f’Novembru 2002, jesiġi li l-Istati Membri jipprovdu data lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea kull sentejn dwar il-ġenerazzjoni u t-trattament tal-iskart, bl-għan li jkun żgurat monitoraġġ aħjar tal-implimentazzjoni tal-politika tal-Komunità dwar il-ġestjoni tal-iskart permezz ta’ data regolari, komparabbli, aġġornata u rappreżentattiva dwar il-ġenerazzjoni, ir-riċiklaġġ, l-użu mill-ġdid u r-rimi ta’ skart fi kwalunkwe Stat Membru partikolari.

1.

Meta kienet l-aħħar darba li Malta rrappurtat lill-Kummissjoni?

2.

Il-Kummissjoni x'ikkonkludiet minn dak li bagħtet Malta?

Tweġiba mogħtija mill-Kumissarju Šemeta f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(2 ta' Marzu 2012)

L-aħħar kontribuzzjoni ta’ Malta fil-ġbir tad-dejta bbażat fuq ir-Regolament dwar l-Istatistika tal-Iskart (143) wasal fit-13 ta’ Settembru 2010 u jkopri s-sena ta’ referenza 2008.

Peress li r-Regolament jeżiġi li d-dejta titwassal 18-il xahar wara l-perjodu ta’ referenza, dan ifisser li din id-dejta twasslet xahrejn u nofs tard.

Fl-4 ta’ Novembru 2010 u fid-29 ta’ April 2011, intbagħtu reviżjonijiet ta’ dawn is-settijiet ta’ dejta .

Kien hemm bżonn ta' xi kjarifika dwar id-distinzjoni bejn l-iskart tal-metall u l-vetturi mormija fis-sett ta' dejta dwar il-ġenerazzjoni tal-iskart. Madankollu, il-kwalità ġenerali tad-dejta kienet tajba.

Il-ġenerazzjoni totali tal-iskart (l-attivitajiet ekonomiċi kollha flimkien mad-djar) f’Malta fl-2004 kienet:

3 015 032 tunnellata; 2006: 2 733 875 tunnellata u fl-2008: 1 330 219 tunnellata.

Il-ġenerazzjoni tal-iskart f’Malta hija ddominata l-aktar mill-iskart minerali, b’82,5 % tal-iskart kollu ġġenerat f’Malta ġej mill-attivitajiet ta' bini u demolizzjoni fl-2008. (2006: 91 %, 2004: 93 %)

It-tnaqqis qawwi fil-ġenerazzjoni tal-iskart osservat fl-2008 kien ikkawżat mit-tnaqqis tal-iskart minerali minn attivitajiet ta’ demolizzjoni.

Id-dejta hija disponibbli pubblikament fuq il-websajt tal-Eurostat — iċ-ċentru tad-Dejta dwar l-iskart (144).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000646/12

to the Commission

Louis Grech (S&D)

(27 January 2012)

Subject: Implementation of EU waste legislation

According to a recently published European Commission study, full implementation of EU waste legislation would save EUR 72 billion a year, increase the annual turnover of the EU waste management and recycling sector by EUR 42 billion and create over 400 000 jobs by 2020. Furthermore, the study revealed that illegal waste operations in Member States are resulting in missed opportunities for economic growth and that stronger national inspections and better knowledge about waste management would bring about major improvements.

The European Union Waste Statistics Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002, which came into force in November 2002, requires all Member States to provide data to the European Commission every two years on the generation and treatment of waste, the objective being to ensure better monitoring of implementation of Community policy on waste management through regular, comparable, up-to-date and representative data on the generation, recycling, re-use and disposal of waste in any given Member State.

1.

When did Malta last report to the Commission?

2.

What did the Commission conclude from Malta’s submissions?

Answer given by Commissioner Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2012)

Malta’s last contribution to the data collection based on the Waste Statistics Regulation (145) was received on 13 September 2010, covering reference year 2008.

As the regulation requires data delivery 18 months after the reference period, the delivery was late by two and a half months.

Revisions of these datasets were sent on 4 November 2010 and 29 April 2011.

There was some clarification necessary on the distinction between metal waste and discarded vehicles in the dataset on waste generation. However, the overall quality of the data was good.

The total waste generation (all economic activities plus households) in Malta was in 2004:

3 015 032 tonnes; 2006: 2 733 875 tonnes and in 2008: 1 330 219 tonnes.

Generation of waste in Malta is strongly dominated by mineral waste, with 82,5 % of all waste generated in Malta coming from construction and demolition activities in 2008. (2006: 91 %, 2004: 93 %)

The strong decline in waste generation observed in 2008 was driven by the reduction of mineral waste from demolition activities.

The data is publicly available on the Eurostat website — Data centre on waste (146).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000647/12

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(30 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Scatola nera nelle automobili

In molti paesi europei, soprattutto in un contesto economico di crisi, si sta diffondendo il fenomeno delle truffe nei confronti delle agenzie assicurative. Questo fenomeno incide sempre più sull'aumento delle polizze assicurative che, però, sono pagate da tutti gli utenti. A rimetterci in questo caso sono i cittadini onesti.

Esiste un congegno, tuttavia, in grado di registrare l'attività dei veicoli: una sorte di scatola nera per le automobili. Il dispositivo è composto essenzialmente da una scatolina, della grandezza di un pacchetto di sigarette o poco più, da posizionare in un posto non visibile, ad esempio nel cruscotto o nel vano motore. Questa scatola raccoglie, memorizza ed elabora i dati sulla posizione del veicolo, la sua velocità, il tempo di utilizzo e le rotte, ricevuti da alcuni sensori. Successivamente li trasferisce a un sistema di raccolta dati, presso una centrale operativa, terza rispetto alla compagnia assicurativa. La scatola è alimentata dal sistema elettrico dell'automobile ma, se la batteria si scarica, possiede un'autonomia propria. Inoltre il suo distacco dal normale sito viene segnalato in centrale, in quanto equivale a un tentativo di furto. Le assicurazioni applicano sconti fino al 15 % per le vetture che dispongono di questo apparecchio.

Alla luce dei fatti sopraesposti, può la Commissione far sapere se:

è al corrente della situazione allarmante sul fronte delle truffe assicurative,

intende imporre alle case automobilistiche l'obbligo di vendere vetture dotate della scatola nera, onde calmierare le tariffe assicurative?

Risposta data da Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione

(28 febbraio 2012)

In relazione al primo quesito dell'onorevole parlamentare in materia di frode nel settore delle assicurazioni, la Commissione non è a conoscenza di questa presunta pratica. Inoltre, la lotta contro la frode nel settore delle assicurazioni rientra tra le competenze degli Stati membri.

Per quanto riguarda i registratori di dati relativi ad eventi incidentali, spesso denominati scatole nere, la Commissione provvederà ad esaminare e valutare il valore aggiunto della loro installazione, in particolare sui veicoli professionali, al fine di migliorare la sicurezza stradale e tener conto del relativo impatto socioeconomico.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000647/12

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: ‘Black box’ for cars

Insurance fraud is a growing problem in many EU countries, particularly in the current economic crisis. The insurance premiums of all policy-holders are continually increasing as a result, meaning that honest people are losing out.

However, there is a device which can record vehicle activity: a kind of ‘black box’ for cars. It consists primarily of a small box, more or less the size of a packet of cigarettes, which is placed somewhere out of sight, for example on the dashboard or in the engine compartment. The box collects, records and processes data received by a number of sensors, concerning the vehicle’s location and speed, the duration of use and the routes taken. It then transfers this data to a collection system within an operations centre separate from the insurance company. The box is powered by the car’s electrical system, but can function autonomously if the battery goes flat. The operations centre is notified if it is removed from its normal location, since this amounts to attempted theft. Insurance companies apply discounts of up to 15 % for cars fitted with such devices. In the light of the above, can the Commission say whether:

1.it is aware of the alarming situation with regard to insurance fraud?

2.it intends to require car manufacturers to sell vehicles fitted with a black box, with a view to containing insurance premiums?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2012)

In relation to the Honourable Member's first question concerning insurance fraud the Commission is not aware of this alleged practice. Moreover, the Member States are responsible for combating insurance fraud.

Concerning event data recorders, often referred to as ‘black boxes’, the Commission will examine and consider the added value of its installation, especially on professional vehicles, with the aim of improving road safety and taking into account its socioeconomic impact.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000649/12

to the Commission

Seán Kelly (PPE)

(26 January 2012)

Subject: Early termination of Alternative Energy Requirement VI Power Purchase Agreements

Can the Commission confirm that it permitted the Irish Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to allow Alternative Energy Requirement VI Power Purchase Agreement holders to terminate their contracts early without penalty and at very considerable cost to the Irish electricity consumer?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2012)

In general, it is up to a Member State to decide how it designs a state aid measure which it subsequently notifies to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty. It is in principle also up to the Member State to decide how the aid is financed. The role of the Commission in the field of state aid is limited to the assessment whether the aid measure as designed and notified by the Member State is compatible with the EU internal market.

The Irish authorities notified in November 2003 the Alternative Energy Requirement scheme VI to the Commission. The Commission assessed whether the measure fulfilled the conditions laid down in the 2001 Environmental Aid Guidelines and approved the scheme by way of a decision in August 2004 (147).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000650/12

alla Commissione

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(30 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Risposta: Strategia europea in materia di invalidità e la legge italiana 102/2009

In merito all'interrogazione scritta E-010848/2011 e alla risposta ricevuta dalla Commissione in data 22.12.2011, si ritiene che la Commissione non abbia propriamente risposto alla domanda posta, in quanto si ritiene che la legge italiana in materia di invalidità 102/2009 violi apertamente i diritti umani, divenendo pertanto oggetto di pertinenza della Commissione.

Questa normativa, infatti, comporta molti disagi per il cittadino disabile, in quanto tutti i casi che in prima istanza vengono riconosciuti meritevoli di una prestazione economica (indennità di frequenza, assegno di invalidità, indennità di accompagnamento), o con handicap grave, vengono riconvocati a visita diretta dall'INPS, sottoponendo il cittadino disabile a una doppia visita, e sospendendo, nel tempo che intercorre fra la prima e la seconda, il contributo economico.

Si interroga pertanto la Commissione per sapere se non ritiene che questa normativa nazionale sia lesiva dei diritti e della dignità della persona disabile, riconosciuta unanimemente una risorsa con pari opportunità (relazione di Ádám Kósa (P7_TA(2011)0453) sulla mobilità e l'integrazione delle persone con disabilità).

Non ritiene altresì gravemente dannoso e oneroso il fatto che tra i due controlli effettuati dall’autorità competente venga sospeso il contributo economico, considerando che possono passare anche diversi mesi?

Risposta data da Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione

(27 febbraio 2012)

La Commissione rinvia l'Onorevole Parlamentare alla risposta all'interrogazione scritta E-010848/2011 (148).

La Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità (in appresso ₫la Convenzione₻) si applica all'UE nei limiti delle competenze attestate nella Dichiarazione di cui all'allegato II della decisione 2010/48/CE del Consiglio del 26 novembre 2009 relativa alla conclusione della Convenzione. La Dichiarazione elenca gli atti comunitari con cui gli Stati membri, in conformità con i trattati UE, hanno trasferito all'Unione competenze nei settori rientranti nell'ambito della Convenzione.

La protezione sociale dei disabili e la concessione delle relative indennità sono materie principalmente di competenza degli Stati membri. In questo settore, la Commissione non ha competenza a valutare la compatibilità di una legge nazionale o di misure nazionali con la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000650/12

to the Commission

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Response: European Disability Strategy and Italian Law 102/2009

The Commission reply of 22 December 2011 to Written Question E‐010848/2011 is unsatisfactory, given that Italian Law 102/2009 on disability is clearly an infringement of human rights, and hence a matter for the Commission.

This law, in fact, makes life difficult in many ways for citizens with disabilities, as all those initially judged to be entitled to benefits (attendance allowance, disability allowance, helper allowance), or suffering from severe disabilities, are being summoned once again for a direct examination by the INPS, subjecting disabled persons to two examinations and suspending their benefits for the period between them.

Does the Commission therefore consider that this national legislation is affecting the rights and dignity of the disabled, who are universally recognised as members of society who are entitled to equal opportunities (report Ádám Kósa (P7_TA(2011)0453) on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities)?

Does it not also consider the suspension of benefits between the two medical examinations performed by the competent authority to be a particularly harsh and oppressive measure, given that the interim period may be as much as several months?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2012)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐010848/2011 (149).

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereafter referred to as ‘the Convention’) applies to the EU within the limits of its competences attested by the Declaration of Competence in Annex II of Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concluding the Convention. This Declaration lists the Community acts by which the Member States under the EU Treaties have transferred competences to the Union in areas covered by the Convention.

Social protection of persons with disabilities, including the provision of disability-related allowances, is foremost a matter falling within the competence of the Member States. In this area, the Commission has no competence to make an assessment of compatibility of a national law or of national measures with the UN Convention.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000652/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(30 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Morosidad del Gobierno español con las Comunidades Autónomas

El pasado mes de diciembre de 2011, el Gobierno del Reino de España decidió no pagar —no hacer efectiva la transferencia— al Gobierno Catalán y, por lo tanto, éste último no pudo pagar lo que fija la Ley a terceros. La suma, sólo por este concepto, fue de más de 1 000 millones de euros. Debido a este incumplimiento del contrato por una de las partes, esto es, del Gobierno español, el Govern de Catalunya no pudo pagar los servicios que dichos terceros prestaron dentro de los plazos establecidos en el contrato.

A esto, se añade un estudio presentado por Roubini, http://www.roubini.com/analysis/168965.php, el cual muestra que de los tres principales fondos —convergencia, suficiencia y fondos garantizados—, sólo el 61 % del total que se tenían que haber pagado en 2011, por parte del Gobierno del Reino de España a las regiones, fueron abonados a final del tercer trimestre de 2011.

Según se recoge en la Ley 22/2009, de 18 de diciembre, sobre el modelo de financiación de las Comunidades Autónomas de régimen común, por la que se regula el sistema de financiación de las Comunidades Autónomas de régimen común y Ciudades con Estatuto de Autonomía y que recoge el Acuerdo del Consejo de Política Fiscal y Financiera de las Comunidad Autónomas, de 15 de julio del año 2009.

Teniendo en cuenta la Directiva 2011/7/EU sobre morosidad y, en especial, en lo que se refiere a los considerandos 9 y 11, y a los artículos 2 y 4, y con el añadido de que el Gobierno español ya había hecho efectiva dicha transferencia otros años, y teniendo en cuenta el semestre europeo.

1.

¿Piensa la Comisión que no pagar lo que está en la Ley vulneraría dicha Directiva de morosidad 2011/7/EU?

2.

Si fuera así, ¿el Gobierno español debería hacer el pago lo antes posible y, así, no incumplir la Directiva 2011/7/EU?

3.

¿Tiene pensado la Comisión hacer una recomendación al Gobierno del Reino de España para que abone lo que está establecido en los Presupuestos Generales del Estado?

4.

¿Está satisfecha la Comisión con los datos presentados anteriormente?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000653/12

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(30 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Morosidad de la Administración pública

Según se recoge en la Ley orgánica aprobada en el año 2007 por los Parlamentos Catalán y Español, Estatut d'Autonomia de Catalunya y, en concreto, en su Disposición Adicional Tercera, apartado 1, donde se dice que ₫La inversión del Estado en Cataluña en infraestructuras, excluido el Fondo de Compensación Interterritorial, se equiparará a la participación relativa del producto interior bruto de Cataluña con relación al producto interior bruto del Estado para un periodo de siete años. Dichas inversiones podrán también utilizarse para la liberación de peajes o construcción de autovías alternativas₻.

El pasado mes de diciembre de 2011, el Gobierno del Reino de España decidió no pagar —no hacer efectiva la transferencia— al Gobierno Catalán y, por lo tanto, este último no pudo pagar lo que fija la ley a terceros. La suma, sólo por este concepto, fue de 759 millones de euros. Debido a este incumplimiento del contrato por una de las partes, esto es, del Gobierno español, el Govern de Catalunya no pudo pagar los servicios que estos prestaron cuando así se establecía en el contrato.

Teniendo en cuenta la Directiva 2011/7/EU sobre morosidad y, en especial, en lo que se refiere a los considerandos 9 y 11, y a los artículos 2 y 4.

1.

¿Piensa la Comisión que no pagar lo que está en la Ley vulneraría dicha Directiva de morosidad 2011/7/EU?

2.

Si fuera así, ¿el Gobierno español debería hacer el pago lo antes posible y, así, no incumplir la Directiva 2011/7/EU?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Tajani en nombre de la Comisión

(19 de marzo de 2012)

La Directiva 2000/35/CE, por la que se establecen medidas de lucha contra la morosidad en las operaciones comerciales (150), está en vigor y se derogará el 16 de marzo de 2013. En consecuencia, todas las preguntas relativas al incumplimiento de la nueva Directiva 2011/7/UE (151) se analizarán en el contexto de la Directiva aplicable en la actualidad.

La Directiva 2000/35/CE se aplica a todas las transacciones comerciales entre los poderes públicos y las empresas, y entre las empresas. Por tanto, las transacciones entre los poderes públicos (por ejemplo, el Gobierno español) no entran dentro del ámbito de aplicación de esta Directiva.

Como se ha indicado en anteriores respuestas (152), la Directiva 2000/35/CE no armoniza los plazos de pago, tan solo regula las consecuencias de la morosidad. La existencia de morosidad en el pago por parte de una administración pública a un proveedor por el suministro de bienes o servicios debe determinarse de acuerdo con la normativa nacional aplicable y el contrato entre la administración y el proveedor en cuestión. En caso de morosidad, y de conformidad con el artículo 3, apartado 1, de la Directiva 2000/35/CE, el proveedor podrá reclamar intereses de demora, salvo si la legislación nacional o el contrato contiene disposiciones más favorables para el acreedor.

Los poderes públicos deben dar ejemplo y respetar sus contratos. A este respecto, deberían consignar en su presupuesto los créditos para gastos y pagar a tiempo a sus acreedores. La Directiva 2011/7/UE y, lo que es más importante, la armonización del plazo de pago por parte de los poderes públicos, animarán a estos a mejorar sus sistemas de gestión.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000652/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Late payment by the Spanish Government to the autonomous communities

In December 2011, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain decided not to pay — i.e. not to transfer funds to — the Catalan Government, so the latter was unable to meet its legal obligations to third parties. The sum involved was in excess of EUR 1 billion. Owing to this failure by one of the parties — that is, the Spanish Government — to comply with the contract, the Government of Catalonia was unable to pay for some of the services provided for it by third parties within the periods laid down in the contract.

In addition to this, a study by Roubini, http://www.roubini.com/analysis/168965.php, shows that only 61 % of the total that the Government of the Kingdom of Spain should have sent to the regions in 2011 from the three key funds — convergence, sufficiency and guarantee — was paid in the third quarter of 2011.

This matter is governed by Law 22/2009, of 18 December, which regulates the system for funding autonomous communities that fall under the standard scheme and cities with statutes of autonomy and which incorporates the Agreement of the Fiscal and Financial Policy Council of the Autonomous Communities of 15 July 2009.

In view of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment and, specifically, recitals 9 and 11 of the preamble and Articles 2 and 4, given that the Spanish Government had already effected this transfer in other years, and in light of the European semester,

1.

Does the Commission think that non-payment of what is legally owed constitutes a breach of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment?

2.

If so, should the Spanish Government make the payment as soon as possible so as not to be in breach of Directive 2011/7/EU?

3.

Has the Commission considered recommending that the Government of the Kingdom of Spain pay what is laid down in the general state budgets?

4.

Is the Commission satisfied with the information previously submitted?

Question for written answer E-000653/12

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Late payment by public authorities

The organic law adopted in 2007 by the Catalan Parliament and the Spanish Parliament on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, specifically paragraph 1 of its Third Additional Provision, states that ‘State investment in infrastructure in Catalonia shall be equal to the relative share of Catalonia’s gross domestic product in the gross domestic product of the State for a period of seven years. These investments may also be used for eliminating tolls or for construction of alternative expressway roads’.

In December 2011, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain decided not to pay — i.e. not to transfer funds to — the Catalan Government, so the latter was unable to meet its legal obligations to third parties. The sum involved was EUR 759 million. Owing to this failure by one of the parties — that is, the Spanish Government — to comply with the contract, the Government of Catalonia was unable to pay for some of the services provided, even though it was obligated to do so by the contract.

In view of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment and, specifically, recitals 9 and 11 of the preamble and Articles 2 and 4,

1.

Does the Commission think that non-payment of what is legally owed constitutes a breach of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment?

2.

If so, should the Spanish Government make the payment as soon as possible so as not to be in breach of Directive 2011/7/EU?

Joint answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2012)

Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions (153) is in force and will be repealed on 16 March 2013. Therefore all questions concerning the breach of the new Directive 2011/7/EU (154) will be analysed against the background of the currently applicable Directive.

Directive 2000/35/EC applies to all commercial transactions between public authorities and undertaking, and between undertakings. Therefore, transactions between public authorities (e.g. Spanish Government) fall outside the scope of the directive.

As mentioned in previous correspondence (155), Directive 2000/35/EC does not harmonise payment periods but only regulates consequences of late payment. To determine whether a payment by a public authority to a supplier for the purchase of products or services is late, it should be examined in the light of the applicable national rules and the contract between the authority and the supplier or service provider. In case of late payment and according to Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC the supplier may claim interest for late payment, unless the national law or the contract contains more favourable provisions for the creditor.

Public authorities should lead by example and honour their contracts. Moreover, public authorities should schedule the credits for expenditure in its budget and pay its creditors on time. Directive 2011/7/EU, and most importantly the harmonisation of the payment period for public authorities, will motivate public authorities to upgrade their management systems.

(Danske udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-000656/12

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(1. februar 2012)

Om: Fødevaresikkerhed

I Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten fredag d. 20/1 2012 refereres der til et nyt EU‐direktiv, som vil forhindre lokale slagtere i at sælge deres produkter uden for en radius af præcis 50 kilometer fra deres virksomhed. Det kommer eksempelvis til at betyde at slagtere på Bornholm ikke må sælge kød udenfor øen, og sønderjyske slagtere ikke må sælge deres produkter uden for Sønderjylland.

I Tyskland derimod er radiusgrænsen derimod 100 kilometer, og i Frankrig er den 80 kilometer.

Kan Kommissionen be‐ eller afkræfte ovenstående og i bekræftende fald finder Kommissionen sådanne regler hensigtsmæssige for udviklingen og markedsføringen af egns‐ og specialitetsprodukter?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af John Dalli

(6. marts 2012)

EU‐lovgivningen om særlige hygiejnebestemmelser for animalske fødevarer (156) finder ikke anvendelse på detailvirksomheder, der leverer til andre detailvirksomheder, når der i overensstemmelse med national ret er tale om en ₻marginal, lokal og begrænset₫ (157) aktivitet.

Nævnte EU‐lovgivning indeholder ikke nærmere bestemmelser om, inden for hvilken radius detailvirksomhederne kan operere. Det er op til medlemsstaterne at fastsætte nationale forskrifter herom. De nationale bestemmelser skal dog respektere begrebet ₻marginal, lokal og begrænset₫ og skal meddeles til Kommissionen og de øvrige medlemsstater.

Dette begreb, som er omhandlet i Kommissionens vejledning (158), udspringer af princippet om, at detailvirksomheder, hvis aktiviteter hovedsagelig består i at levere til den endelige forbruger, bør kunne afsætte deres produkter lokalt og derfor ikke beskæftiger sig med handel over lange afstande, som kræver mere tilsyn og overvågning, navnlig hvad angår transport‐ og kølekædeforhold.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000656/12

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(1 February 2012)

Subject: Food safety

On Friday 20.1.2012, the Danish daily newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten reported that a new EU Directive will prevent local butchers from selling their produce outside a radius of precisely 50 km from their businesses. This will, for example, mean that butchers on the island of Bornholm may not sell their meat anywhere but on the island, and butchers in Southern Jutland may not sell their produce outside Southern Jutland.

In Germany, on the other hand, the radius is 100 km and in France it is 80 km.

Can the Commission either confirm or deny the above and, if it is true, does the Commission feel these rules are appropriate for the development and marketing of locally sourced and speciality products?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2012)

EU legislation laying down specific hygiene rules for products of animal origin (159) does not apply to retail establishments supplying to other retail establishments when this activity, in accordance with national law, is ‘marginal, localised and restricted’ (160).

The referred EU legislation does not contain detailed provisions in relation to specific distances within which retail establishments can operate. It is a competence of Member States to lay down national legislation on this subject. However, national legislation must respect the notion of ‘marginal, localised and restricted’ and must be notified to the Commission and other Member States.

That notion, as referred in the Commission's Guidance Document (161), stems from the principle that retail establishments supplying the final consumer as their main trade should be able to trade their products locally and so are not engaged in long distance trade which requires more attention and supervision in particular as regards transport and cold chain conditions.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000657/12

an die Kommission

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE)

(30. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Gefahrenrelevante Eigenschaften von Abfällen und das Europäische Abfallverzeichnis

Ein Abfall gilt als gefährlicher Abfall, wenn dieser eine oder mehrere der in Anhang III der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG (Abfallrahmenrichtlinie) angeführten gefährlichen Eigenschaften aufweist. Anhang III der Abfallrahmenrichtlinie verweist auf zwei chemikalienrechtliche Richtlinien. Die chemikalienrechtlichen Regelungen wurden mittlerweile durch neue Regelungen, die REACH-Verordnung (VO (EG) Nr. 1907/2006) und die CLP-Verordnung (VO (EG) Nr. 1272/2008), ersetzt. Ferner wird das Europäische Abfallverzeichnis einer Revision unterzogen. Eine Änderung der gefahrenrelevanten Eigenschaften hat auch Auswirkungen auf das Europäische Abfallverzeichnis, das hinsichtlich der Festlegung eines Abfalls als gefährlicher Abfall verbindlich ist.

Von der Europäischen Kommission wurde eine Experten-Arbeitsgruppe einberufen, in der die Arbeiten zur Revision des Verzeichnisses und zu den gefahrenrelevanten Eigenschaften wegen diesem Zusammenhang parallel verlaufen.

Ein vom österreichischen Umweltministerium im Oktober 2011 veranstalteter Workshop hat aufgezeigt, dass bei Anwendung der neuen chemikalienrechtlichen Kriterien bei einigen Abfallströmen ein höherer Anteil an gefährlichen Abfällen zu erwarten ist, z. B. Baurestmassen, Pflanzenaschen, Aschen, Schlacken.

Neben den Anforderungen des Abfallregimes an gefährliche Abfälle (z. B. Begleitscheinpflicht bei der Übergabe gefährlicher Abfälle), könnten Konsequenzen u. a. die Anwendung des IPPC-Regimes, Seveso oder das Erfordernis einer Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung bei der Behandlung gefährlicher Abfälle sein. Daneben befürchten z. B. die Biomasseanlagen ein Imageproblem bei der Aufbringung von Pflanzenaschen als gefährlichen Abfall zu Düngezwecken auf dem Boden.

Wann wird von der Kommission ein Impact Assessment erstellt, in dem u. a. über die Auswirkungen auf die Einstufung (Anzahl der gefährlichen Abfälle) sowie auf die Abfallwirtschaft generell näher eingegangen wird? Welche Abfallströme werden betroffen sein? Führt diese Änderung zu einer Steigerung der Menge an gefährlichen Abfällen? In welchem Ausmaß betreffen diese Änderungen die Ausbringung von Asche auf landwirtschaftlich genutzten Flächen?

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(15. März 2012)

Die Kommission prüft derzeit in einer Arbeitsgruppe mit Sachverständigen aus den Mitgliedstaaten eine Änderung der in Anhang III der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG (162) aufgeführten gefährlichen Eigenschaften sowie der Entscheidung 2000/532/EG über ein Abfallverzeichnis (163). Es ist zu vermerken, dass die Methode für die Bewertung der Gefährlichkeit von Abfall weitgehend der Methode entspricht, nach der die Gefährlichkeit von Stoffen (d. h. Regelwerk für Chemikalien) bestimmt wird, wie in der Erläuterung 1 in Anhang III der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG hervorgehoben wird. Da sich die Rechtsvorschriften für Chemikalien weiterentwickelt haben, ist die Definition gefährlicher Eigenschaften entsprechend anzupassen.

Es wurde eine Reihe von Abfallströmen ermittelt, die aufgrund der Überarbeitung der gefährlichen Eigenschaften möglicherweise als gefährlich eingestuft werden könnten. Diese Abfallströme werden derzeit auf ihre potenziellen wirtschaftlichen und ökologischen Auswirkungen hin analysiert. Die Analyse bezieht sich auf die Abfallströme, die im Rahmen des vom österreichischen Umweltministerium ausgerichteten Workshops ermittelt wurden, und auf einige zusätzlich von den Mitgliedstaaten vorgeschlagenen Abfallarten. Sollte es sich abzeichnen, dass infolge der vorgeschlagenen Änderungen weitere Abfallströme als gefährlich einzustufen sind, so wird die Kommission die Analyse auch auf diese Abfälle ausweiten. Die Kommission kann nicht ausschließen, dass der als gefährlich eingestufte Abfall infolge der Überarbeitung mengenmäßig variieren wird. Mögliche Auswirkungen der Änderungen auf die derzeitige Ausbringung von Asche auf landwirtschaftlich genutzte Flächen werden zur Zeit geprüft.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000657/12

to the Commission

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Properties of waste which render it hazardous and the European Waste Catalogue

Waste is regarded as hazardous if it exhibits one or more of the properties listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC (Framework Directive on Waste). That Annex III refers to two directives laying down provisions on chemicals. Those provisions have since been replaced by new regulations, the REACH Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) and the CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008). In addition, the European Waste Catalogue is undergoing revision. A change to the properties which render waste hazardous also has implications for the European Waste Catalogue, which is binding with regard to the classification of a waste as hazardous.

An expert working group has been set up by the Commission in which the work on the revision of the catalogue and that on the revision of the properties of waste which render it hazardous will run in parallel, given the link between them.

A workshop hosted by the Austrian Ministry of the Environment in October 2011 demonstrated that the application of the new criteria is likely to result in a higher percentage of waste in a number of streams, e.g. construction waste, plant ash, ashes and slag, being classified as hazardous.

In addition to the requirements laid down as part of the rules concerning hazardous waste (e.g. obligation to provide a tracking document when handing over hazardous waste), other consequences could be the application of the IPPC or SEVESO regime or the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment in connection with the handling of hazardous waste. In addition, biomass plants, for example, fear an image problem in connection with the spreading of plant ash (now classified as hazardous waste) as fertiliser.

When will the Commission draw up an impact assessment which examines in greater detail the implications for the classification of waste (number of types of hazardous waste) and on waste management in general? Which waste streams will be affected? Will this change lead to an increase in the volume of hazardous waste? To what extent will these changes affect the spreading of ash on farmland?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2012)

The Commission is discussing an amendment of the hazardous properties defined in Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC (164) and of Decision 2000/532/EC on the List of Waste (165) in a working group of Member State Experts. It is to be noted that the methodology for assessing the hazardousness of wastes is to a large extent analogous to the methodology applied for the assessment of the hazardousness of substances (i.e. the chemicals legislation) as highlighted in Note 1 to Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC. Given that the chemicals legislation has evolved, the definitions of the hazardous properties have to be adapted accordingly.

A number of waste streams have been identified that could potentially become hazardous as a result of the review of the hazardous properties. For these waste streams an analysis of the potential economic and environmental effects is ongoing. The analysis is being performed for the waste streams identified during the workshop hosted by the Austrian Ministry of the Environment and some additional waste types proposed by Member States. Should other waste streams be likely to become hazardous as a result of the proposed changes, the Commission intends to extend the analysis also to these wastes. The Commission cannot rule out the possibility that the amount of wastes classified as hazardous may vary in some cases as a result of the review. Potential impacts of the changes on the ashes that are currently spread on farmland are currently being assessed.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000658/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Spyros Danellis (S&D)

(30 Ιανουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Mέτρα που αφορούν τον κλάδο της κρουαζιέρας

Tο ναυάγιο του κρουαζιερόπλοιου ₫Costa Concordia₻ έχει προκαλέσει την αναστάτωση του επιβατικού κοινού, θέτοντας ταυτόχρονα σε αμφιβολία την επάρκεια της συνθήκης ναυτικής ασφάλειας SOLAS, του Διεθνούς Ναυτιλιακού Οργανισμού. Ο ΔΝΟ έχει εκφράσει τη πρόθεσή του να επανεξετάσει την ασφάλεια της νέας γενιάς κρουαζιερόπλοιων, ενώ οι ναυτικές αρχές των κρατών μελών πρέπει και αυτές να αντλήσουν συμπεράσματα από το ναυάγιο. Την ίδια στιγμή όμως, οι αναλυτές προειδοποιούν πως ο κλάδος της κρουαζιέρας, ο οποίος τα τελευταία χρόνια αναπτύσσεται συνεχώς και παρέχει εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας, μπορεί να υποστεί σοβαρό πλήγμα, αφού μεταξύ άλλων διανύουμε την περίοδο των κρατήσεων.

Αξίζει να σημειωθεί πως το 95 % του παγκόσμιου στόλου κρουαζιερόπλοιων ναυπηγούνται σε ναυπηγεία της Ευρώπης τα οποία, σύμφωνα με τον κλάδο, προμηθεύονται το 99 % των υλικών από ευρωπαϊκές βιομηχανίες. Επομένως, δεδομένης της ανάγκης να συντηρηθεί η ανάπτυξη του κλάδου, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Σκοπεύει να συμπεριλάβει στο επικείμενο νομοθετικό πλαίσιο για τους λιμένες νέες ρυθμίσεις για τη προώθηση των επενδύσεων σε λιμενικές και παράκτιες υποδομές;

Προβλέπεται η ευκαιρία ευρωπαϊκής συγχρηματοδότησης επιβατικών υποδομών σε λιμένες της ΕΕ από το νέο ταμείο ₫Συνδέοντας την Ευρώπη₻;

Πώς θα διευκολύνει τη μετάβαση σε οικονομικώς προσιτά καύσιμα, χαμηλής περιεκτικότητας σε θείο, ώστε να μην πληγούν από τα αυστηρότερα όρια θείου οι υπηρεσίες που παρέχουν η κρουαζιέρα και η ακτοπλοΐα;

Σε τι ενέργειες θα προβεί για την βελτίωση της κατάρτισης των ναυτικών και της ελκυστικότητας των ναυτικών επαγγελμάτων μετά και από τη σχετική της έκθεση του Μαΐου 2011;

Απάντηση του κ. Kallas εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(28 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)

1.

Η προώθηση των επενδύσεων σε λιμενικές και παράκτιες υποδομές για τις θαλάσσιες μεταφορές θίγεται στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής για τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές του διευρωπαϊκού δικτύου μεταφορών, της 19

1.

Η προώθηση των επενδύσεων σε λιμενικές και παράκτιες υποδομές για τις θαλάσσιες μεταφορές θίγεται στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής για τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές του διευρωπαϊκού δικτύου μεταφορών, της 19

 (166)

2.

Η διευκόλυνση

2.

Η διευκόλυνση

 (167)

3.

Η πρόταση για τη μείωση της περιεκτικότητας σε θείο των καυσίμων των πλοίων αποσκοπεί, μεταξύ άλλων, στην ευθυγράμμιση της ενωσιακής νομοθεσίας με τα συμφωνημένα διεθνή πρότυπα. Για περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες, η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου στην απάντηση που είχε δώσει στην ερώτηση

3.

Η πρόταση για τη μείωση της περιεκτικότητας σε θείο των καυσίμων των πλοίων αποσκοπεί, μεταξύ άλλων, στην ευθυγράμμιση της ενωσιακής νομοθεσίας με τα συμφωνημένα διεθνή πρότυπα. Για περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες, η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου στην απάντηση που είχε δώσει στην ερώτηση

 (168)

4.

Η έκθεση της ανεξάρτητης ομάδας δράσης για την ναυτική εργασία και ανταγωνιστικότητα, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε τον Ιούλιο του 2011

4.

Η έκθεση της ανεξάρτητης ομάδας δράσης για την ναυτική εργασία και ανταγωνιστικότητα, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε τον Ιούλιο του 2011

 (169)

Ως προς τα κανονιστικά μέτρα που συνιστά η ομάδα δράσης, η Επιτροπή ενέκρινε, τον Σεπτέμβριο 2011, πρόταση οδηγίας με την οποία τροποποιείται η οδηγία σχετικά με την εκπαίδευση και την πιστοποίηση των ναυτικών (2008/106/ΕΚ (170)), προκειμένου να ευθυγραμμιστεί με τις τροποποιήσεις του 2010 στη σύμβαση STCW (171), ενώ την άνοιξη του 2012 αναμένεται να υποβληθεί στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο πρόταση για τη θέση σε εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 2009/13/ΕΚ (172) (με την οποία ενσωματώνεται μέρος της σύμβασης για τη ναυτική εργασία στην ενωσιακή νομοθεσία).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000658/12

to the Commission

Spyros Danellis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Measures relating to the cruise shipping sector

The shipwreck of the Costa Concordia cruise vessel has triggered alarm among passengers and would-be passengers, at the same time casting doubt on the adequacy of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s SOLAS convention on the Safety Of Life At Sea. The IMO has announced its intention of re-examining the safety of the new generation of cruise ships, and the maritime authorities of IMO member countries must also draw conclusions from this shipwreck. At the same time, however, analysts are warning that the cruise shipping sector, which in recent years has undergone continuous expansion and employs hundreds of thousands of people, may suffer a serious blow, not least now that we are in the middle of the booking season.

It is worth noting that 95 % of the world's cruise shipping fleet is built in European shipyards which, according to industry sources, obtain 99 % of their materials from European manufacturers. Thus, given the necessity of maintaining growth in this sector:

Does the Commission intend to include in the impending legislative framework for ports new provisions for the promotion of investment in port and coastal infrastructures?

Is any opportunity to be provided through the new ‘Connecting Europe’ fund for European co-financing of passenger infrastructures in EU ports?

How does it propose to facilitate the transition to affordable low-sulphur fuels so that the services offered by cruise vessels and coastal shipping do not suffer as a result of the imposition of stricter limits on sulphur emissions?

What action does it intend to take, following publication of its May 2011 report, to improve training for people in maritime employment and the attractiveness of jobs in the shipping sector?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2012)

1.

The promotion of investment in port and coastal infrastructures for maritime transport is addressed in the Commission's TEN‐T guidelines proposal of 19 October 2011

1.

The promotion of investment in port and coastal infrastructures for maritime transport is addressed in the Commission's TEN‐T guidelines proposal of 19 October 2011

 (173)

2.

The Connecting Europe Facility

2.

The Connecting Europe Facility

 (174)

3.

The proposal reducing the sulphur content of marine fuels aims, amongst others, at aligning the EU legislation to agreed international standards. For more details, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Question E‐010162/2011 (175).

4.

The independent Task Force report on Maritime Employment and Competitiveness published in July 2011

4.

The independent Task Force report on Maritime Employment and Competitiveness published in July 2011

 (176)

As for the regulatory actions recommended by the Task Force, the Commission adopted in September 2011 a proposal for a directive amending the directive on training and certification of seafarers (2008/106/EC (177)) in order to bring it in line with the 2010 Amendments to the STCW Convention (178), while a proposal for enforcing Directive 2009/13/EC (179) (integrating part of the Maritime Labour Convention into EC law) is expected to be submitted to Parliament and Council during the spring 2012.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000659/12

adresată Comisiei

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)

(30 ianuarie 2012)

Subiect: Propunerile privind PAC și micii fermieri

Propunerea Comisiei pentru reforma PAC prevede planuri pentru o schemă de ajutoare destinată micilor fermieri în conformitate cu care fermierii urmează să primească o plată anuală cuprinsă între 500 de euro și 1 000 de euro. Aceștia urmează să fie scutiți de obligațiile de ecologizare și să facă obiectul unor obligații de ecocondiționalitate mai puțin stringente.

Este de părere Comisia că o plată cuprinsă între 500 de euro și 1 000 de euro ar putea fi mai puțin decât ar putea pretinde altfel micii fermieri pe baza schemei alternative de plăți directe?

Ar putea crea propunerile o situație în care fermierii să fie tentați să ia mai puțini bani pentru a evita obligațiile de ecologizare și de ecocondiționalitate și, prin urmare, să devină mai săraci din punct de vedere financiar și să nu fie încurajați să întreprindă acțiuni care ar putea avea un efect pozitiv asupra mediului?

Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei

(8 martie 2012)

În ceea ce privește prima întrebare, vă rugăm să țineți cont de faptul că această schemă este facultativă. Fermierii pot decide în 2014 dacă doresc să participe sau nu, iar după unul sau mai mulți ani de participare vor avea posibilitatea să revină la schema „normală” prevăzută la titlul III al propunerii (180). În cazul acesta, nu vor mai avea dreptul de a participa din nou.

Cu privire la a doua întrebare, întrucât obiectivul principal al schemei este simplificarea, nu există nicio condiție suplimentară legată de valoarea sau nivelul plății în comparație cu schema „normală”. În consecință, este adevărat că, teoretic, un fermier poate decide să participe la schemă, deși ar fi beneficiat de un nivel mai ridicat al plăților directe în schema „normală”. De asemenea, este adevărat că, în scopul simplificării, beneficiarii schemei pentru micii fermieri vor fi scutiți de controalele privind ecologizarea și ecocondiționalitatea și vor depune o cerere simplificată.

În practică, în cadrul schemei actuale, micii fermieri pot deja să beneficieze de scutiri în ceea ce privește sancțiunile pentru nerespectarea ecocondiționalității, spre exemplu ca urmare a normelor de minimis.

În plus, trebuie subliniat că beneficiarii schemei pentru micii fermieri nu sunt scutiți de respectarea legislației, precum directivele și regulamentele privind mediul, și de controalele și sancțiunile aplicate în acest cadru.

În cele din urmă, pe baza evaluării impactului, pare puțin probabil ca mulți fermieri să considere că este preferabil să opteze în favoarea schemei pentru micii fermieri în loc să beneficieze de o plată directă mai ridicată decât suma forfetară pentru micii fermieri. De asemenea, fermierii care participă la schema pentru micii fermieri trebuie totuși să respecte integral legislația relevantă și, dacă doresc să întreprindă măsuri de agromediu, trebuie să respecte cerințele de bază cu privire la acestea.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000659/12

to the Commission

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: CAP proposals and small farmers

The Commission’s proposal for the CAP reform sets out plans for a small farmers scheme under which farmers would receive an annual payment of between EUR 500 and EUR 1 000. They would be exempt from greening and would face less stringent cross-compliance obligations.

Does the Commission consider that a payment of between EUR 500 and EUR 1 000 could be less than what might otherwise be claimed by small farmers under the alternative direct payments scheme?

Could the proposals create a situation where farmers are tempted to take less money in order to avoid the greening and cross compliance obligations, and are therefore worse off financially and are not being encouraged to take action which could have a positive environmental impact?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

On the first question, please note that the scheme is voluntary. Farmers can decide in 2014 if they want to participate or not and after one or more years of participation, will have the possibility to step back to the ‘normal’ scheme established in Title III of the proposal (181). If they do, they will no longer have the right to participate again.

On the second question, as the main objective of the scheme is simplification, there is no extra condition related to the size or the level of payment compared to the ‘normal’ scheme. Thus indeed, in theory, a farmer may decide to enter the scheme although he would have had a higher level of direct payments in the ‘normal’ scheme. It is also true that for the purpose of simplification, beneficiaries of the small farmer scheme will be exempted from greening and cross compliance controls and will make a simplified application.

In practice, in the current system, small farmers may already benefit from exemptions as regards cross compliance sanctions due for instance to de minimis rules.

Besides, it has to be emphasised that beneficiaries of the small farmers' scheme are not exempted from abiding by the law such as the environmental directives and regulations and from controls and penalties applied in that framework.

Finally, on the basis of the Impact Assessment, it appears unlikely that many farmers will find it preferable to opt for the small farmer scheme rather than benefit from a direct payment higher than the small farmer lump-sum. Furthermore, farmers within the small farmer scheme still have to respect all relevant legislation and, if they wish to undertake agri-environment measures, they must respect the baseline requirements for these.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000661/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 30 d.)

Tema: Baltijos mokslo jungtis

Inovacijos, jų diegimas ir skatinimas yra svarbi Baltijos jūros regiono ekonomikos kryptis, regiono konkurencingumo ir gerovės augimo garantas. Mokslinių tyrimų infrastruktūra yra aktuali siekiant Baltijos jūros regioną paversti mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų regionu. Vienas iš Baltijos jūros regiono mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų sistemos trūkumų – ne pats optimaliausias mokslinių tyrimų srities bendradarbiavimas ir žinių mainai tarp viešųjų mokslinių tyrimų organizacijų, ypač universitetų, mokslinių tyrimų institutų ir pramonės.

Viename iš pagrindinių Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos antrojo ramsčio projektų numatyta: „Nutiesti Baltijos mokslų jungtį“.

Ar Komisija galėtų pateikti informaciją, kas pasiekta kuriant tinklą, kuriame dalyvauja regiono universitetai, mokslinių tyrimų institutai ir privačios kompanijos (pramonė)?

Kokios šalys dalyvauja įgyvendinant šį projektą?

Kiek lėšų reikia ir kiek lėšų šiuo metu skirta šiam projektui įgyvendinti?

Ar nustatytas galutinis projekto įgyvendinimo terminas?

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000663/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 30 d.)

Tema: Baltijos jūros regiono paslaugų sektoriaus inovacijų rėmimo strategija

Viena iš Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos prioritetinių sričių – visiškai išnaudoti regiono inovacinį ir mokslinių tyrimų potencialą.

Pabrėžiama inovacijų svarba paslaugų sektoriuje – inovacijos yra ne tik konkurencingumo šioje srityje, bet ir ekonomikos generatorius.

Baltijos jūros regione remiamų programų prioritetu turėtų būti inovacijos paslaugų sektoriuje. Jie turėtų orientuotis ne tik į tai, kad atsirastų bendras supratimas apie inovacijas paslaugų srityje, bet ir kad būtų perduodama geroji patirtis bei mechanizmai. Baltijos jūros regionas turi tarpusavyje koordinuoti veiklą, o veiksmai regiono lygiu turi skatinti ir papildyti nacionalinių institucijų ir privačiojo sektoriaus pastangas.

Noriu paklausti Komisijos, kokia pažanga pasiekta rengiant bendrą Baltijos jūros regiono paslaugų sektoriaus inovacijų rėmimo strategiją?

Ar numatytas šios strategijos galutinis užbaigimo terminas?

Kokios šalys dalyvaus įgyvendinant šią strategiją?

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000665/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 30 d.)

Tema: Baltijos jūros inovacijų ir mokslinių tyrimų fondas

Inovacijų ir mokslinių tyrimų skatinimas turi būti svarbus viso Baltijos jūros regiono mastu. Skiriant pagrindinį dėmesį mokslo tiriamųjų darbų ir inovacijų plėtrai, jų tobulinimui ir taikymui versle valstybės mastu skatinamas konkurencingumas, versle – didesnis produktyvumas, o mokslo srityje – nuolatinė pažanga. Baltijos jūros regionas išsiskiria tiek aukštais, tiek vidutiniais valstybių narių konkurencingumo įvertinimais. Šiame regione didelis dėmesys teikiamas ūkio konkurencingumui skatinti ir didinti pasitelkiant mokslinius tyrimus ir technologijų plėtrą. Tačiau, norint skatinti inovacijas, mokslinius tyrimus, rengti naujus technologinius sprendimus, reikalingas tinkamas finansavimas.

Viename iš pagrindinių Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos antrojo ramsčio projektų numatyta: „Įsteigti Baltijos jūros inovacijų ir mokslinių tyrimų fondą“.

Noriu paklausti Komisijos, kokios, atsižvelgiant į konkrečius Baltijos jūros regiono privalumus, šiuo metu parengtos finansinės priemonės tarpvalstybinėms ir tarpregioninėms inovacijoms ir moksliniams tyrimams skatinti?

Ar nustatytas galutinis šio projekto užbaigimo terminas?

Kokios šalys dalyvauja šiame projekte?

Bendras atsakymas, J. Hahn atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2012 m. kovo 8 d.)

ES Baltijos jūros regiono strategija skatinamas bendradarbiavimas mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityse, nustatant pagrindines sritis, kurios turi būti užtikrintos, siekiant sudaryti palankesnes sąlygas glaudesnei integracijai. „Baltijos mokslų jungtimi“ siekiama koordinuoti dideles investicijas į mokslinių tyrimų infrastruktūrą. Tai apima tokius projektus, kaip antai MAXIV (sinchrotroninės radiacijos moksliniai tyrimai), ESS (Europos neutronų (skaldant atomo branduolį) tyrimų centras), XFEL (Europos rentgeno lazerio projektas) ir PETRA III (Pozitronų-elektronų tandeminis žiedinis greitintuvas). Be to, siekiama mokslinių tyrimų infrastruktūrą padaryti prieinamesnę pramonei. Įgyvendinant iniciatyvą dalyvauja visos Baltijos jūros regiono valstybės narės. Iš Baltijos jūros regiono programos jos gavo 3,9 mln. EUR. Be šios programos Baltijos jūros regiono šalys (išskyrus Vokietiją) daugiau kaip 91 mln. EUR gavo iš Septintosios bendrosios programos (7BP) pajėgumų programos. Šios dotacijos buvo panaudotos jų mokslinių tyrimų infrastruktūrai plėtoti ir (arba) tobulinti arba pasirengimui įgyvendinti didelius infrastruktūros projektus, kaip antai ESS ir PRE-XFEL, jų terminas – 2020 m.

Be to, iniciatyva „Bendros Baltijos regiono paslaugų sektoriaus paramos strategijos parengimas“ buvo išplėsta į „Baltijos jūros regiono inovacijų grupių ir MVĮ tinklų programą“. Šiame darbe dalyvauja visos Baltijos jūros regiono valstybės narės, ir kai kuriose jų jau pradėti vykdyti bandomieji veiksmai. Kaip bendro finansavimo priemonė įsteigtas „Baltijos jūros regiono inovacijų ir mokslinių tyrimų fondas“. Kalbant apie tai, verta paminėti 7BP lėšomis ir Baltijos jūros regiono šalių finansuojamą programą BONUS. Programa, kuriai įgyvendinti skirta 100 mln. EUR, siekiama pritraukti kitų lėšų, ir užtikrinti nuolatinį regioninį mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų finansavimo šaltinį.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000661/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: The Baltic Science Link

The implementation and promotion of innovation is an important direction for the economy of the Baltic Sea Region, and a guarantor of the growth of competitiveness and economic prosperity in the region. Scientific research infrastructure is relevant to our efforts to transform the Baltic Sea Region into a region of scientific research and innovation. One of the shortcomings of the scientific research and innovation system of the Baltic Sea Region is that cooperation within the realm of scientific research, and knowledge exchange between public scientific research organisations, particularly universities, science research institutes and industry, are not the best.

One of the Baltic Sea Region Strategy second pillar projects provides for: ‘Building a Baltic Science Link.’

Can the Commission supply any information as to what has been achieved in setting up a network in which the Region‘s universities, scientific research institutes and private (industrial) companies are participating?

Which countries participate in the implementation of this project?

What funds are required, and what funds have so far been allocated, for the development of this project?

Has a deadline for the implementation of this project been set?

Question for written answer E-000663/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: A Baltic Region service sector innovation support strategy

One of the priority areas for the Baltic Region Strategy is making full use of the Region‘s innovation and scientific research potential.

The importance of innovation in the service sector must be emphasised — innovation in this area does not just generate competition, but is an economic generator too.

A priority among the supported programmes in the Baltic Region should be innovation in the service sector. These should be directed not only towards achieving a common undertanding of innovation in the service sector, but also the transfer of good practice and mechanisms. The Baltic Region must coordinate activity within, and activity at a regional level should promote and supplement the efforts of both national institutions and the private sector.

I should like to ask the Commission what progress has been made in preparing a common Baltic Region Support strategy for the service sector?

Is any closing date envisaged yet for this strategy?

Which countries will participate in the implementation of this strategy?

Question for written answer E-000665/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: The Baltic Region Innovation and Scientific Research Fund

The promotion of innovation and scientific research should be important at a level that encompasses the whole Baltic region. Devoting basic attention to the development of scientific research work and innovation, to their improvement and application in commerce encourages competition at state level, enhanced productivity in commerce and steady progress in the field of science. The Baltic Region is notable for high and medium evaluations of its competitiveness amongst member states. Great attention is paid throughout the region to the encouraging the increase of economic competitiveness through the application of scientific research and technological development. However, appripriate financing is required if we are to promote innovation and scientific research and to develop new technological solutions.

One of the main Baltic Sea region strategical secondary support projects envisages: ‘The Establishment of a Baltic Region Innovation and Scientific Research Fund.’

I would like to ask the Commission, when one takes into account the concrete advantages of the Baltic Region, what financial means are currently being allocated for the promotion of inter-state and inter-regional innovation and scientific research?

Has any closing date been set for this project?

Which countries participate in this project?

Joint answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region promotes cooperation in the fields of research and innovation, identifying key areas that need to be in place to facilitate deeper integration. The Baltic Science Link aims at coordination of major investments on research infrastructure. These include projects such as MAXIV (Synchrotron Radiation Research), ESS (European Spallation Source), XFEL (European X-Ray Laser Project) and PETRA III (Positron-Electron Tandem Ring Accelerator). It also makes research infrastructure more accessible to industry. All Baltic Sea Member States are involved in the initiative, which has received EUR 3.9 million from the Baltic Sea Region Programme. Beyond this programme, the Baltic Sea countries (excluding Germany) have also granted more than EUR 91 million from the Capacities Programme of the 7th Framework Programme (FP7). These grants were used either to develop and/or upgrade their research infrastructure, or for the preparation of major infrastructure such as ESS and PRE-XFEL projects, deadline is set for 2020.

In addition, the initiative ‘Preparing a common Baltic Region Support strategy for the service sector’ has now been expanded to a ‘Baltic Sea Region Programme for Innovation Clusters and SME Networks’. All Baltic Sea Member States are involved in this work, through which a number of pilot actions have been launched. The ‘Baltic Sea Innovation and Scientific Research Fund’ has been created as a joint funding mechanism. In this context, the BONUS programme, funded by FP7 and the Baltic States, is worthy of note. The programme, being implemented with EUR 100 million, seeks to lever other funds, as a coherent regional funding source for research and innovation.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000662/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 30 d.)

Tema: Baltijos jūros regiono inovacijų, inovacijų grupių ir mažų ir vidutinių įmonių tinklų plėtros programos parengimas

Remiantis Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos antrojo ramsčio antrąja prioritetine sritimi, pagrindinis siekis yra visapusiškai išnaudoti regiono mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų potencialą.

Baltijos jūros regiono šalių bendradarbiavimas yra itin aktualus siekiant plačiu mastu diegti inovacijas. Inovacijos yra vienas iš faktorių, lemiančių šalių konkurencingumą. Suvienijusios pastangas Baltijos jūros regiono šalys gali sukurti naujus produktus, technologijas ir paslaugas bendroms rinkoms ir sėkmingiau konkuruoti globalioje ekonominėje erdvėje. Baltijos jūros regiono šalių bendradarbiavimas turėtų sustiprinti ne tik bendradarbiavimą tarp regiono šalių, jų privalumus ir kompetenciją, bet ir viso regiono pozicijas pasaulio kontekste integruojantis į naujas rinkas, pritraukiant potencialius investuotojus.

Noriu paklausti Komisijos, kokia pažanga pasiekta rengiant Baltijos jūros regiono inovacijos, inovacijų grupių bei mažų ir vidutinių įmonių tinklų plėtros programą? Kokios šalys dalyvauja rengiant šią programą?

Komisijos nario J. Hahno atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2012 m. kovo 28 d.)

ES Baltijos jūros regiono strategija (ES BJRS) skatinamas bendradarbiavimas mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityse, nustatant pagrindines sritis, kurios turi būti užtikrintos, siekiant sudaryti sąlygas glaudesnei integracijai.

Per ministerijas, atsakingas už inovacijas, bei per agentūras ir regionines institucijas „Baltijos jūros regiono inovacijų grupių ir MVĮ tinklų programoje“ dalyvauja visos Baltijos jūros regiono valstybės narės (Danija, Estija, Latvija, Lenkija, Lietuva, Suomija, Švedija ir Vokietija). Programai buvo sukurta iniciatyvinė grupė, kuri priėmė veiksmų planą, kad užtikrintų programos įgyvendinimą.

Be to, Tarpvalstybinė Baltijos jūros programa 6,5 mln. eurų parėmė naują projektą „StarDust“. Per šį projektą buvo inicijuota daug bandomųjų projektų švarių technologijų, vyresnių žmonių aktyvumo, pažangesnio transporto bei mobiliųjų technologijų srityse. Įgyvendinant šiuos bandomuosius projektus įgyta patirtis bus įtraukta visu mastu įgyvendinant programą. Bendras programos tikslas – sukurti integruotą išteklių bazę, sujungiant moksliniams tyrimams palankią aplinką, grupes bei MVĮ tinklus ir Baltijos jūros regione sukuriant daug pasaulyje pirmaujančių mokslinių tyrimų bei inovacijų vystymo centrų, kad būtų pasiekta didesnė mokslo ir inovacijų kritinė masė, padidintas patrauklumas bei pasiekta konkurencinga pozicija tarptautiniu mastu.

Šiuo metu programos vadovai stengiasi užtikrinti pakankamą finansavimą programai išvystyti nuo bandomųjų projektų stadijos iki taikymo visu mastu. Taip pat vystomas išsamus dialogas su įvairiais finansavimo šaltiniais, aktyviai veikiančiais regione, ir su visomis valstybėmis narėmis.

Be to, 185 straipsnio iniciatyva BONUS yra 100 mln. eurų vertės jungtinė 8 Baltijos jūros regiono ES valstybių narių ir Komisijos programa, kuria remiami aplinkos moksliniai tyrimai Baltijos jūros baseine. Pagrindinis programos BONUS tikslas, nustatytas jos strateginėje mokslinių tyrimų darbotvarkėje – sustiprinti tvarų naudojimąsi jūros pakrantės ištekliais bei paslaugomis ir išvystyti naujoviškas duomenų tvarkymo sistemas, priemones bei technologijas. Numatoma paskelbti kvietimus teikti paraiškas, pagrindinį dėmesį skiriant inovacijoms ir ypač pabrėžiant MVĮ dalyvavimą (182).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000662/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Preparation of a Baltic Sea Region innovation, innovation group, and small and medium enterprise network development programme

With reference to second priority area of the second pillar of the Baltic Sea Region strategy, the main goal is the thorough utilisation of the scientific research and innovation potential of the region.

Cooperation among the states of the Baltic Sea Region is particularly relevant in terms of the drive to introduce innovation. Innovation is one of the factors that determine a country’s competitiveness. By uniting their efforts the countries of the Baltic Sea Region can create new products, technologies and services for common markets and compete more successfully in the global economic space. Cooperation among the countries of the Baltic Sea Region should strengthen not only cooperation among the coutries of the region, their advantages and competence, but also the position of the whole region in a world context, as it seeks to integrate into new markets, and attracting potential investors.

I would like to ask the Commission what progress has been made in preparing a Baltic Sea Region innovation, innovation group, and small and medium enterprise network development programme? Which countries participate in the preparation of this programme?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2012)

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) promotes cooperation in the fields of research and innovation, identifying key areas that need to be in place for deeper integration.

The Baltic Sea Region Programme for Innovation Clusters and SME Networks involves all Baltic Sea Member States (DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, SE) in the work through the ministries responsible for innovation as well as agencies and regional authorities. A steering group for the programme has been established which has adopted a road map to ensure implementation.

In addition, the Transnational Baltic Sea Programme funded a start-up project called StarDust with EUR 6.5 Million. Through this project a number of pilot actions have been launched in the fields of clean tech, active ageing, smarter transport and mobile technology. The experience from these pilot actions will be integrated into a full scale implementation of the programme. The overall objective is to achieve an integrated resource base by linking strong research environments, clusters and SME networks — creating a number of globally leading research and innovation hubs in the BSR in order to achieve stronger critical mass, attractiveness, and a competitive international position.

The managers of the programme are now working to ensure that there is enough funding to move from the pilot stage into full scale activity. This includes a comprehensive dialogue with the different funding sources that are active in the region, as well as with all Member States.

Also, the article 185 initiative BONUS is a EUR 100 million joint action between the eight Baltic Sea EU States and the Commission which supports environmental research programmes in the Baltic Sea Basin. A key objective of BONUS, defined within their Strategic Research Agenda, is to enhance the sustainable use of coastal marine goods and services in the Baltic Sea as well as developing innovative data management systems, tools and methodologies. Calls for proposals focusing on innovation with a strong emphasis on SME involvement are anticipated (183).

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000664/12

Komisijai

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(2012 m. sausio 30 d.)

Tema: Sveikatos ir gyvosios gamtos mokslų inovacijų projektai

Tarp Baltijos jūros regiono šalių esama nemažai netolygumų, apimančių sveikatos ir gyvosios gamtos mokslų inovacijas. Siekiant Baltijos jūros regioną paversti pavyzdiniu, klestinčiu sveikatos ir šiuolaikinių gyvosios gamtos mokslų žinių taikymo regionu būtina imtis priemonių skatinant ir vystant inovacijas šiose srityse, pakeliant visuomenės sveikatą į aukštesnį lygį, remiantis naujaisiais šios srities mokslo laimėjimais.

Viename iš pagrindinių Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos antrojo ramsčio projektų numatyta: „Pradėti įvairius sektorius apimančius pavyzdinius sveikatos ir gyvosios gamtos mokslų inovacijų projektus“.

Ar Komisija galėtų pateikti informaciją, kokie projektai, apimantys pavyzdinius sveikatos ir gyvosios gamtos mokslų inovacijų projektus, šiuo metu pradėti?

Kokios šalys dalyvauja įgyvendinant šį projektą?

J. Hahn atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2012 m. vasario 29 d.)

Siekiant paversti Baltijos jūros regioną pavyzdiniu sveikatingumo regionu svarbu remti visuomenės sveikatą ir pasinaudoti šiuolaikiniais gyvosios gamtos mokslo pasiekimais.

„ScanBalt Health Region“ yra vienas pagrindinių Europos Sąjungos Baltijos jūros regiono strategijos projektų. Juo siekiama „pradėti įvairius sektorius apimančius pavyzdinius sveikatos ir gyvosios gamtos mokslų inovacijų projektus“. Šio projekto tikslas – skatinti pasaulyje galinčią konkuruoti žiniomis pagrįstą sveikatos ekonomiką Baltijos jūros regione ir spręsti pagrindines su sveikata susijusias visuomenės problemas. Naudojant bendrą ryšių ir koordinavimo struktūrą „ScanBalt Health Region“ projektu siekiama suvienyti bendromis idėjomis grindžiamą koordinuotą veiklą ir suburti suinteresuotuosius subjektus, susijusius su gyvosios gamtos mokslais ir biotechnologija visose Baltijos regiono šalyse.

Vykdant „ScanBalt Health Region“ projektą iki šiol buvo paskelbti du pozicijų dokumentai: „Sveikas senėjimas: nuo biologinių pagrindų iki klinikinių sprendimų“ ir „ES sanglaudos politika ir makroregionų ir regioninių grupių svarba pažangiam augimui ir pažangiai specializacijai“. Taip pat vykdomos tokios iniciatyvos kaip „HealthPort Innovation Competition“, kuria siekiama klinikines naujoves paversti komerciniais produktais ir paslaugomis. Ši iniciatyva finansuojama pagal 2007‐2013 m. Baltijos jūros regiono programą.

Be to, pagal Baltijos jūros mokslo programą BONUS (184) remiamos visos 8 ES Baltijos jūros regiono šalys ir finansuojama ES mokslinių tyrimų septintoji bendroji programa, į kurią, be kitų sričių, įtraukta jūrų biotechnologija.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000664/12

to the Commission

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Health and life science innovation projects;

There are many disparities between the countries of the Baltic Sea region in terms of health and life science innovations.In order to turn the Baltic Sea region into a thriving model region putting health and contemporary life science knowledge into practice, we need to take steps to promote and develop innovations in these areas, taking public health to a higher level, on the basis of the latest scientific developments in this area.

One of the main projects of the second pillar of the strategy for the Baltic Sea Region provides for: ‘the launch of model cross-sectoral health and life science innovation projects’.

Could the Commission inform us which projects covering model health and life science innovation projects have now been launched?

Which countries are involved in the implementation of this project?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

The promotion of public health and the exploitation of modern life science developments are important for the Baltic Sea Region to become a model ‘Health Region’.

One flagship project of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is The ScanBalt Health Region. It corresponds to ‘the launch of model cross-sectored health and life science innovation projects’. Its aim is to promote a knowledge-based globally competitive health economy in the Baltic Sea Region and to address the major societal challenges of health within the region. The ScanBalt Health Region serves as an umbrella for coordinated activities on shared ideas, using a common communication and coordination structure to bring together those involved in Life Sciences and Biotechnology in all the countries within the Baltic Sea Region.

The ScanBalt Health Region has so far published two position papers on ‘Healthy ageing: from biological fundamentals to clinical solutions’ and on ‘EU cohesion policies and the importance of macro regions and regional clusters for smart growth and smart specialization’. It also organises initiatives like the HealthPort Innovation Competition, which aims to transform clinical inventions into commercial products and services. This initiative is co-financed by the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013.

In addition, the Baltic Sea science programme BONUS (185) is a partnership supported by all eight EU Baltic Sea states funded by the Seventh EU Framework Programme for Research which addresses, amongst other themes, marine biotechnology.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000667/12

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(30 januari 2012)

Betreft: EU wil zwarte lijst kolonisten Oost-Jeruzalem

In een intern rapport van de missieleiders van de EU in Tel Aviv en Ramallah staat dat „gewelddadige kolonisten”, die zich in het door Israël bezette Oost-Jeruzalem hebben gevestigd, géén toegang tot de Europese Unie zouden mogen hebben. De EU-vertegenwoordigers dringen er bij de lidstaten op aan om de kolonisten te identificeren en een zwarte lijst op te stellen.

1.

Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht

1.

Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht

 (186)

2.

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat er geen sprake kan zijn van Israëlische kolonisten in Oost-Jeruzalem, omdat Oost-Jeruzalem simpelweg bij Israël hoort? Zo neen, waarom niet?

3.

Is de Commissie ertoe bereid het betreffende interne rapport naar de prullenbak te verwijzen? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(26 maart 2012)

De Commissie is niet op de hoogte van het door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde bericht.

In december 2009 hebben de EU-ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken unaniem verklaard dat nederzettingen uit hoofde van het internationaal recht illegaal zijn, vrede in de weg staan en een tweestatenoplossing onmogelijk dreigen te maken. Zij hebben er bij de Israëlische regering op aangedrongen om onmiddellijk een einde te maken aan alle nederzettingenactiviteiten in Oost-Jeruzalem en de rest van de Westelijke Jordaanoever, ook aan de natuurlijke uitbreiding daarvan, en alle sedert maart 2001 opgerichte voorposten te ontmantelen. De EU heeft de annexatie van Oost-Jeruzalem door Israël niet erkend en gelooft dat echte vrede alleen mogelijk is indien er door middel van onderhandelingen een oplossing wordt gevonden voor de status van Jeruzalem als de toekomstige hoofdstad van twee staten. De EU-ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken hebben deze standpunten in december 2010 en april 2011 bevestigd.

De interne rapporten van de EU-organen, de EU-delegaties in derde landen of de diplomatieke diensten van de lidstaten zijn niet-officiële werkdocumenten die bedoeld worden als achtergrondmateriaal voor discussies over belangrijke beleidsaangelegenheden tijdens de uitwerking van het buitenlands beleid van de EU.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000667/12

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: EU wants to blacklist east Jerusalem settlers

An internal report by the EU heads of mission in Tel Aviv and Ramallah states that ‘violent settlers’ residing in Israeli-occupied east Jerusalem should not be allowed access to the European Union. The EU representatives are calling on the Member States to identify such settlers and to draw up a black list.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the article

1.

Is the Commission aware of the article

 (187)

2.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that there can be no question of Israeli settlers in east Jerusalem for the simple reason that east Jerusalem is part of Israel? If not, why not?

3.

Is the Commission prepared to relegate the internal report in question to the bin? If not, why not?

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

(26 March 2012)

The Commission is not aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member.

EU Foreign Ministers unanimously stated in December 2009 that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. They urged the Government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities, in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank and including natural growth, and to dismantle all outposts erected since March 2001.The EU has not recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel and believes that, if there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. EU Foreign Ministers confirmed these positions in December 2010 and April 2011.

Internal reports prepared by EU bodies, by EU Delegations in third countries or by diplomatic services of Member States are working documents of a non-official character that aim at informing discussion on important policy issues during the elaboration of EU foreign policy.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000668/12

adresată Comisiei (Vice-președinte / Înaltul Reprezentant)

Elena Băsescu (PPE)

(30 ianuarie 2012)

Subiect: VP/HR — Prioritățile de politică externă ale Președinției daneze

Cum se încadrează Parteneriatul Estic în cele 4 priorități anunțate recent de către Președinția daneză?

Care sunt direcțiile de aprofundare a dialogului politic și economic cu aceste state partenere?

Cum vedeți asigurarea coerenței cu inițiativele promovate în domeniu de către Președinția poloneză?

Răspuns dat de dna Ashton în numele Comisiei

(31 mai 2012)

Recenta reuniune la nivel înalt de la Varșovia privind Parteneriatul estic a consolidat abordarea bazată pe stimulente adoptată față de partenerii estici, care a fost propusă în comunicarea comună „Un răspuns nou în contextul schimbărilor din țările vecine” (188) și aprobată de către președinție în cadrul priorității „O Europă sigură”. În cadrul reuniunii la nivel înalt s-a decis consolidarea cooperării cu partenerii în numeroase domenii, inclusiv în cel al eficienței energetice, care este un element indispensabil al activităților președinției înscrise în prioritatea „O Europă ecologică”.

Parteneriatul estic oferă obiective ambițioase și instrumente precise pentru a le realiza. Este promovată asocierea politică cu cinci țări din Europa de Est prin încheierea unor acorduri de asociere. Integrarea economică avansează cu ajutorul negocierilor privind instituirea unor acorduri de liber schimb aprofundate și cuprinzătoare cu parteneri relevanți. Au fost finalizate negocierile privind un acord de asociere cu Ucraina, inclusiv un acord de liber schimb aprofundat și cuprinzător, și preconizăm că documentul va fi în curând aprobat. Negocierile privind acordurile de asociere cu Georgia și Republica Moldova sunt în stadiu avansat, iar negocierile privind acorduri de liber schimb aprofundate și cuprinzătoare cu ambele țări vor fi lansate în curând. Negocierile cu Armenia și Azerbaidjan privind acordurile de asociere se desfășoară fără probleme și sperăm să putem lansa în 2012 discuții cu Armenia privind un acord de liber schimb aprofundat și cuprinzător.

Președinția poloneză a Consiliului UE a contribuit la punerea în aplicare a Parteneriatului estic și prin oferirea unui impuls suplimentar în sensul dezvoltării cooperării sectoriale. Pentru a raționaliza punerea în aplicare a Parteneriatului estic, Înaltul Reprezentant/Vicepreședintele și Comisia vor propune în curând o foaie de parcurs privind Parteneriatul estic, menită să includă obiectivele, instrumentele, acțiunile și monitorizarea punerii în aplicare a acestora până la următoarea reuniune la nivel înalt privind Parteneriatul estic din 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000668/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Elena Băsescu (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Foreign policy priorities of the Danish Presidency

How does the Eastern Partnership fall into the four priorities recently announced by the Danish Presidency?

What are the possible means of deepening political and economic dialogue with the partner states?

Can the Vice-President/High Representative state how it is envisaged to ensure coherence with the initiatives promoted in this field by the Polish Presidency?

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

(31 May 2012)

The recent Eastern Partnership (EaP) Summit in Warsaw enhanced the incentives-based approach towards Eastern partners which has been proposed in the Joint Communication ‘A new Response to a Changing Neighbourhood’ (189) and endorsed by the Presidency under the priority ‘A safe Europe’. The Summit has decided to strengthen cooperation with partners in many areas including energy efficiency which is an indispensable element of Presidency’s activities towards ‘A green Europe’.

The EaP offers ambitious goals and precise tools to achieve them. Political association with five Eastern European countries is promoted through the conclusion of Association Agreements (AA). Economic integration is being advanced through negotiations on the establishment of Deep & Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTA) with relevant partners. Negotiations on an AA with Ukraine, including a DCFTA, have been finalised, and we expect the document soon to be initialled. Negotiations on AAs with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova are well advanced, and negotiations on a DCFTA with both countries will be launched shortly. Negotiations with Armenia and Azerbaijan on AAs are proceeding well and we hope to be able to launch DCFTA talks with Armenia in 2012.

The Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU contributed to the implementation of the EaP, also through giving additional momentum to the development of sector cooperation. In order to streamline the implementation of the EaP, the High Representative/Vice-President and Commission will soon propose an EaP road map which intends to list the objectives, instruments, actions and monitor their implementation until the next EaP Summit in 2013.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000669/12

an die Kommission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Sicherheitsbestimmungen Kreuzfahrttourismus

Der Kreuzfahrttourismus ist ein Milliardengeschäft mit seit Jahren steil ansteigenden Wachstumskurven. Immer wieder gab es Unglücke auf Kreuzfahrtschiffen, die meisten gingen glimpflich aus. Je größer die Schiffe sind, umso mehr Todesopfer kann ein Fehler fordern. Beim jüngsten Unglück der Costa Concordia berichteten Augenzeugen davon, dass die Rettungsmaßnahmen chaotisch verliefen und die Besatzung nicht dafür ausgebildet wirkte.

1.

Welche Sicherheitsbestimmungen gelten innerhalb der EU für die Schifffahrt bzw. den Kreuzfahrttourismus?

2.

Wer kontrolliert die Einhaltung der Bestimmungen?

3.

Ist angesichts der jüngsten Katastrophe eine Überarbeitung der Sicherheitsbestimmungen geplant?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(22. Februar 2012)

1.

Im Verlauf der letzten Jahre hat die Europäische Union ihre Rechtsvorschriften für die Sicherheit des Seeverkehrs kontinuierlich weiterentwickelt und damit einen hohen Qualitätsstandard in der Schifffahrt gefördert.

Vorschriften in Bezug auf die Sicherheit von Fahrgastschiffen sind in vier Richtlinien (190) bezüglich der Bau‐ und Betriebsnormen und eine (spätestens ab dem 31. Dezember 2012 geltende) Verordnung (191) zur Haftung der Beförderer und zur Entschädigung von Fahrgästen bei Unfällen festgelegt. Darüber hinaus existiert eine große Zahl von EU-Rechtsinstrumenten, die alle Arten von Schiffen und deren Betrieb abdecken, beispielsweise Rechtsvorschriften zur Hafenstaatkontrolle, zu Klassifikationsgesellschaften, zur Qualifikation und Ausbildung von Seeleuten, zum Internationalen Sicherheitsmanagementcode usw.

2.

Die Anwendung der EU-Rechtsvorschriften zur Sicherheit des Seeverkehrs liegt hauptsächlich in der Verantwortung der Mitgliedstaaten und wird durch Überprüfungen und Inspektionen der zuständigen nationalen Behörden durchgesetzt. Die Kommission überwacht die Umsetzung der EU-Vorschriften in nationales Recht ebenso wie deren praktische Anwendung und wird dabei von der Europäischen Agentur für die Sicherheit des Seeverkehrs (EMSA) unterstützt. Insbesondere hat die Kommission die EMSA damit beauftragt, Inspektionen in den Mitgliedstaaten durchzuführen, um die Einhaltung der einschlägigen EU-Rechtsvorschriften zu überprüfen. Im Anschluss an diese Inspektionen trifft die Kommission geeignete Folgemaßnahmen, einschließlich der Einleitung von Vertragsverletzungsverfahren.

3.

Die Kommission hat bereits eine umfassende Überprüfung der EU-Rechtsvorschriften zur Sicherheit von Fahrgastschiffen angekündigt, bei der die Lehren aus dem Schiffsunglück der Costa Concordia gegebenenfalls berücksichtigt werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000669/12

to the Commission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Security provisions for cruise ships

Cruise tourism is a multi-billion euro business which has long had a steeply increasing growth curve. Time and again there have been accidents on cruise ships, although the majority had minor consequences. The larger the ships are, the more fatalities may result from a mistake. During the most recent accident, involving the Costa Concordia, witnesses reported that the rescue operation was chaotic and that the crew were not trained for such an eventuality.

1.

What security provisions are in effect within the EU for shipping or cruise tourism?

2.

Who monitors compliance with the provisions?

3.

Is a revision of the security provisions planned in light of the most recent catastrophe?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

1.

Over the past years, the European Union has continuously developed its maritime safety legislation, promoting high-quality shipping.

More particularly, in the area of passenger ships safety there are four directives (192) dealing with construction and operational standards and one Regulation (193) (which shall enter into force no later than 31 December 2012) dealing with carriers liability and compensation and compensation of passengers in the event of accidents. Furthermore, there is a big number of EU instruments covering all types of ships and their operation, such as the legislation applicable to Port State Control, Classification societies, qualifications and training of seafarers, the International Safety Management Code, etc.

2.

The implementation of EU maritime safety legislation is the prime responsibility of Member States and is enforced through surveys and inspections by national competent authorities. Furthermore, the Commission monitors closely the transposition of the EU rules in the national legislation as well as its implementation in practice with the assistance of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). More specifically, the Commission has assigned to EMSA the task of conducting inspection visits to the Member States in order to check the compliance with the relevant EU legislation. Appropriate follow-up actions, including infringement procedures, are taken by the Commission further to these inspections.

3.

The Commission has already announced a comprehensive revision of the EU passenger ship safety legislation and the lessons learned from the recent accident of

Costa Concordia

will be taken into account, as appropriate.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000670/12

an die Kommission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Berufsanerkennung

Medienberichten zufolge bemüht sich nur jeder dritte Zuwanderer darum, im Rahmen eines Anerkennungsverfahrens die im Herkunftsland erworbenen Qualifikationen im europäischen Gastland verwenden zu können. Nicht nur für Drittstaatenangehörige, sondern auch für EU-Bürger, die in einem anderen EU-Staat arbeiten, scheint es in diesem Zusammenhang noch Probleme zu geben.

1.

Gibt es Zahlen, wie viel Prozent der Zuwanderer Anerkennungsverfahren durchführen lassen?

2.

Gibt es auf EU-Ebene Studien betreffend der Hintergründe für mangelnde Antragstellungen von qualifizierten Zuwanderern?

3.

Welche Probleme hinsichtlich Berufsanerkennung zwischen EU-Staaten sind noch offen?

4.

Wie sehen die weiteren Strategien hinsichtlich Berufsanerkennungen aus?

Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(29. Februar 2012)

1.

Der Kommission liegen keine Angaben dazu vor, wie hoch der Prozentsatz an Zuwanderern ist, die einen Antrag auf Anerkennung ihrer Berufsqualifikationen stellen. Allerdings ist eine solche Anerkennung nur dann erforderlich, wenn der Berufsangehörige einen reglementierten Beruf in dem Aufnahmemitgliedstaat ausüben möchte. Für alle anderen Berufe kann der Zuwanderer ohne jedwede Formalitäten hinsichtlich seiner Qualifikationen seine Berufstätigkeit aufnehmen. Es ist daher normal, dass nicht alle Zuwanderer die Anerkennung ihrer beruflichen Qualifikationen beantragen. 93,6 % der Antragsteller zwischen 2007 und 2010 (105 000 Berufsangehörige) erhielten einen positiven Anerkennungsbescheid

1.

Der Kommission liegen keine Angaben dazu vor, wie hoch der Prozentsatz an Zuwanderern ist, die einen Antrag auf Anerkennung ihrer Berufsqualifikationen stellen. Allerdings ist eine solche Anerkennung nur dann erforderlich, wenn der Berufsangehörige einen reglementierten Beruf in dem Aufnahmemitgliedstaat ausüben möchte. Für alle anderen Berufe kann der Zuwanderer ohne jedwede Formalitäten hinsichtlich seiner Qualifikationen seine Berufstätigkeit aufnehmen. Es ist daher normal, dass nicht alle Zuwanderer die Anerkennung ihrer beruflichen Qualifikationen beantragen. 93,6 % der Antragsteller zwischen 2007 und 2010 (105 000 Berufsangehörige) erhielten einen positiven Anerkennungsbescheid

 (194)

2.

Der Kommission sind keine Studien über die mangelnde Antragstellung von qualifizierten Zuwanderern auf Berufsanerkennung bekannt.

3.

Im Zuge der Bewertung der Richtlinie über Berufsqualifikationen und der anschließenden öffentlichen Konsultationen wurden Schwierigkeiten in folgenden Bereichen festgestellt: Zugang zu Informationen für Bürger, Effizienz der Anerkennungsverfahren, Funktionsweise des Systems der automatischen Anerkennung, Vorschriften über die Niederlassung und vorübergehende Mobilität, Geltungsbereich der Richtlinie, Schutz von Patienten sowie mangelhafte Transparenz und Rechtfertigung von Qualifikationsanforderungen in reglementierten Berufen.

4.

Am 19. Dezember 2011 hat die Europäische Kommission einen Gesetzgebungsvorschlag

4.

Am 19. Dezember 2011 hat die Europäische Kommission einen Gesetzgebungsvorschlag

 (195)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000670/12

to the Commission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Recognition of professional qualifications

According to media reports, only every third immigrant attempts to use qualifications acquired in their country of origin in their European host country, on the basis of a recognition procedure. Both third-country nationals and EU citizens working in another EU country still seem to encounter problems in this area.

1.

Are figures which indicate what percentage of immigrants ask for recognition procedures to be carried out?

2.

Have studies been conducted at EU level to determine why immigrants with appropriate qualifications do not ask for recognition procedures to be carried out?

3.

What problems concerning the recognition of diplomas between EU countries have still to be resolved?

4.

What other approaches could be taken to the issue of recognition of qualifications?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

1.

The Commission has no data on the percentage of migrant professionals actually requesting the recognition of their professional qualifications. However, such recognition is needed only if the professional wishes to carry out a regulated profession in the host Member State. For all other professions, the professional can start working without any formalities related to his qualifications. It is therefore normal that not all migrant professionals request the recognition of their qualifications. 93.6 % of those who did it between 2007 and 2010 (105 000 professionals) received a positive recognition decision

1.

The Commission has no data on the percentage of migrant professionals actually requesting the recognition of their professional qualifications. However, such recognition is needed only if the professional wishes to carry out a regulated profession in the host Member State. For all other professions, the professional can start working without any formalities related to his qualifications. It is therefore normal that not all migrant professionals request the recognition of their qualifications. 93.6 % of those who did it between 2007 and 2010 (105 000 professionals) received a positive recognition decision

 (196)

2.

The Commission is not aware of any study on the lack of recognition requests from qualified migrant professionals.

3.

The evaluation of the Professional Qualifications Directive and the subsequent public consultations highlighted difficulties in the following fields: access to information for citizens, efficiency of recognition procedures, functioning of the automatic recognition system, rules on the establishment and temporary mobility, scope of the directive, protection of patients and the lack of transparency and justification of qualifications requirements in regulated professions.

4.

On 19 December 2011, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal

4.

On 19 December 2011, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal

 (197)

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000672/12

an die Kommission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Facebook — digitales Vergessen

Beiträge aus längst vergangenen Jahren, peinliche Fotos etc. sollen nach den Plänen von Facebook künftig mit einem Mausklick anzeigbar werden. Die Initiative „Europe versus Facebook“ fordert eine Art digitales Vergessen, wonach alte Statusmeldungen im Facebook automatisch nach einer gewissen Zeit gelöscht werden.

1.

Wie steht die Kommission zu dieser Forderung?

2.

Welche Pläne laufen auf EU-Ebene hinsichtlich des digitalen Vergessens für Facebook?

3.

Welche Pläne laufen auf EU-Ebene hinsichtlich des digitalen Vergessens generell im Internet?

4.

Was wird auf EU-Ebene unternommen, um den Schutz der Privatsphäre in der digitalen Welt zu verbessern?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(19. März 2012)

Gemäß den EU-Datenschutzvorschriften ist die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten nur zulässig, wenn sie zu einem bestimmten rechtmäßigen Zweck geschieht. Die Richtlinie 95/46/EG (198) bestimmt, wann eine Verarbeitung zulässig ist, und nennt u. a. folgende Voraussetzungen: die Einwilligung des von der Verarbeitung Betroffenen, gesetzliche oder vertragliche Verpflichtungen, lebenswichtige Interessen des Betroffenen, Aufgaben, die im öffentlichen Interesse liegen und in bestimmten Fällen Aufgaben, die der für die Verarbeitung Verantwortliche in Ausübung öffentlicher Gewalt wahrnimmt. Die Daten müssen nach Treu und Glauben und rechtmäßig verarbeitet werden, dürfen nicht über das Notwendige hinausgehen und dürfen nicht länger als es für die Realisierung der Zwecke, für die sie erhoben wurden, erforderlich ist, aufbewahrt werden. Personen haben das Recht, die Löschung von sie betreffenden Daten zu fordern, wenn deren Verarbeitung nicht der Richtlinie entspricht, und die Datenschutzbehörden müssen befugt sein, die Löschung solcher Daten anzuordnen.

Ein Soziales Netzwerk müsste zwingende rechtliche Gründe dafür geltend machen, dass es die personenbezogenen Daten von Nutzern, die die Löschung sie betreffender Daten fordern, weiterhin verarbeitet. Der Kommission kommt zwar die Rolle als Hüterin der Verträge zu, doch ist es Aufgabe der nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden für Datenschutz, die einzelstaatlichen Bestimmungen zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie zu überwachen und ihre Anwendung sicherzustellen.

Am 25. Januar 2012 nahm die Kommission ihre Vorschläge für die EU-Datenschutzreform an und übermittelte sie dem Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat. Die vorgeschlagene Verordnung zum Schutz natürlicher Personen bei der Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten und zum freien Datenverkehr (199) würde die Rechte der von der Verarbeitung Betroffenen klären und die dafür Verantwortlichen in Bezug auf die Löschung von ohne einen rechtmäßigen Grund gespeicherten Daten stärker in die Pflicht nehmen, indem ausdrücklich ein „Recht auf Vergessenwerden“ eingeführt wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000672/12

to the Commission

Andreas Mölzer (NI)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Facebook — digital oblivion

If Facebook has its way, contributions from many years ago, embarrassing photos, etc. will in future be displayable at the click of a mouse. The ‘Europe versus Facebook’ initiative is calling for a system of digital oblivion, whereby old status messages on Facebook are automatically deleted after a certain time.

1.

What view does the Commission take of this call?

2.

What plans are being made at EU level with regard to digital oblivion for Facebook?

3.

What plans are being made at EU level with regard to digital oblivion on the Internet in general?

4.

What action is being taken at EU level to improve the protection of privacy in the digital world?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2012)

EU data protection legislation provides that the processing of personal data is only legitimate when a specific legal ground is given for this. Directive 95/46/EC (200) determines several legal grounds, including consent of the data subject, legal or contractual obligations, vital interests of the data subject, public interest and legitimate interests of the data controller under certain conditions. Data must be processed fairly and lawfully, must not exceed what is needed and must not be kept longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. Individuals have the right to demand that data relating to them is erased when its processing does not comply with the directive; and data protection authorities must have the power to order the erasure of such data.

A social network would need compelling legal grounds to justify the continuation of processing of personal data of users who have requested the deletion of personal data relating to them. Notwithstanding the Commission's role as guardian of the treaties, it is the responsibility of the national supervisory authorities for data protection to monitor and enforce the national provisions transposing the directive.

On 25 January 2012, the Commission adopted its proposals for the EU data protection Reform and submitted them to the European Parliament and to the Council. The proposed regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data (201) would clarify and strengthen the rights of data subjects and the obligations of controllers with regard to the erasure of data being kept without a legal ground by establishing an explicit ‘right to be forgotten’.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000674/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: WIFI on trains

Could the Commission indicate what percentage of train services within the EU offer a WIFI Internet service?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2012)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is related solely to the commercial policy of the railway undertaking in question.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000676/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Use of bicycle helmets

Can the Commission state whether there any plans to make the wearing of bicycle helmets mandatory for all cyclists?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's previous Written Question E‐010380/2010 and would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the corresponding answer already given (202) which is still relevant at this stage. Taking into account the subsidiarity principle, the Commission considers that this is best regulated at national level.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000677/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Bus safety equipment

Can the Commission outline in which Member States it is a legal requirement that safety belts must be worn by passengers on buses? Are there any plans at present to make the wearing of safety belts on buses mandatory throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

Already today all occupants of buses and coaches in the European Union must use the safety belts when they are available, according to the provisions of Directive 2003/20/EC (203).

Concerning the requirements applying to vehicles, Directive 2005/40/EC (204) makes compulsory the fitting of safety belts in new vehicles of categories M2 and M3 constructed for the carriage of seated passengers (coaches) and registered as from 20 October 2007.

There is no obligation in European legislation to fit safety belts in vehicles of categories M2 and M3 constructed with areas for standing passengers, which is the case of most buses used in urban public transport.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000678/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: First aid kits in cars

Can the Commission state which Member States currently require cars to be fitted with first aid kits? Are there any plans to make these inexpensive yet potentially very important pieces of equipment mandatory in all cars in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

The Honourable Member is invited to consult the Commission webpage (205) which provides an overview — on the basis of the information provided by Member States — on the safety equipment required by Member States. According to this information, first aid kits are required by Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

The Commission does not have plans to propose legislation making first aid kits in cars mandatory. Taking into account the subsidiarity principle, the Commission considers that this is best regulated at national level.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000679/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Fire extinguishers in cars

Can the Commission say which Member States currently require cars to be fitted with a fire extinguisher? Does the Commission have any plans to make these inexpensive yet potentially life-saving pieces of equipment mandatory in all cars in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

The Honourable Member is invited to consult the Commission webpage (206) which provides an overview — on the basis of the information provided by Member States — on the safety equipment required by Member States. According to this information, fire extinguishers are required by Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

The Commission does not have plans to propose legislation making fire extinguishers in cars mandatory. Taking into account the subsidiarity principle, the Commission considers that this is best regulated at national level.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000680/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Roadside warning triangles

Can the Commission indicate which Member States legally require the use of a roadside reflective triangle in a breakdown situation? Is the Commission aware of the danger posed by these triangles in situations where they can be blown across the road in front of oncoming traffic and cause accidents? Is the Commission aware of the new magnetic, LED-lit triangles which stick to the broken-down vehicle, thus removing the danger of them blowing away? Does the Commission have any plans to make these new magnetic triangles mandatory in all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2012)

The Honourable Member is invited to consult the Commission webpage (207) which provides an overview — on the basis of the information provided by Member States — on the safety equipment required by Member States. According to this information, roadside warning triangles are required in all Member States, except in Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

The Commission understood that triangles are used to provide for an advance warning of broken-down vehicles which is not provided for with triangles that stick to vehicles as proposed by the Honourable Member.

The Commission does not have plans to propose legislation making warning triangles mandatory at European level. Taking into account the subsidiarity principle, the Commission considers that this is best regulated at national level.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000681/12

à Comissão

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(30 de janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Ameaça de despedimentos no Grupo Salvador Caetano

Tomei conhecimento de que o Grupo Salvador Caetano (SGPS), S.A., uma empresa em Vila Nova de Gaia, Norte de Portugal, está a pressionar trabalhadores para rescindirem os seus contratos de trabalho para com a empresa, bem como a proceder à não renovação de contratos a termo.

O grupo alega dificuldades financeiras que contrastam com os números que a própria empresa disponibiliza ao público: no período entre 2007 e 2010, a Salvador Caetano teve um aumento de vendas superior a 1300 veículos. Contudo, durante esse mesmo período, reduziu em 428 o número de trabalhadores.

Desde 2008 que esta empresa já dispensou cerca de 16 % dos seus trabalhadores e tem a intenção de continuar com os despedimentos. Tudo isto acontece numa altura em que a mesma empresa anuncia investimentos na Ásia, nomeadamente na China, com uma fábrica de Autocarros e com a comercialização de uma marca chinesa de automóveis em Portugal.

O Grupo Salvador Caetano, desde 2007, já recebeu em apoios do QREN mais de 3,8 milhões de euros, sendo que a contrapartida desta ajuda de fundos comunitários e nacionais é a total desresponsabilização social para com os seus trabalhadores e para com o desenvolvimento social e económico em Portugal.

Assim, solicito à Comissão que me informe do seguinte:

Que medidas pensa tomar, tendo em conta a gravidade económica e social em Portugal, com especial incidência no Norte, onde o desemprego não cessa de aumentar?

Considera a Comissão a atribuição de apoios do QREN compatível com uma prática de deslocalização que põe em causa direitos dos trabalhadores, nomeadamente o direito ao trabalho?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(19 de março de 2012)

1.

Em conformidade com o princípio da subsidiariedade, a política de emprego, incluindo as medidas destinadas a lutar contra o desemprego, é da competência dos Estados-Membros. No entanto, o Memorando de Entendimento assinado pelo Governo português prevê reformas estruturais para melhorar as condições sociais e a taxa de emprego em todo o país, a médio e longo prazo, o que significa que todas as regiões são abrangidas pelas reformas. Portugal recebeu igualmente apoio financeiro da União Europeia e do Fundo Monetário Internacional para combater a crise económica.

2.

De acordo com as informações recebidas das autoridades portuguesas, algumas empresas associadas do grupo Salvador Caetano beneficiaram de apoio financeiro no valor de 865 356,02 euros durante o período de programação atual. Este financiamento teve como objetivo a realização de ações de formação para desenvolver o potencial dos trabalhadores. Quanto à questão do reembolso eventual do apoio, o Regulamento (CE) n.° 1083/2006 dispõe no artigo 57.°, n.° 1, que a participação dos fundos só fique definitivamente afetada a uma operação se, no prazo de cinco anos a contar da conclusão da operação, ou de três anos a contar da conclusão da operação nos Estados-Membros que tenham optado por reduzir este prazo para a manutenção de um investimento ou de empregos criados por PME, a operação não sofrer qualquer alteração substancial que afete a sua natureza ou as suas condições de execução ou proporcione uma vantagem indevida a uma empresa ou a um organismo público e resulte quer de uma mudança na natureza da propriedade de uma infraestrutura, quer da cessação de uma atividade produtiva. Cabe aos Estados-Membros assegurar que esta regra é respeitada e que a Comissão acompanhará a evolução dos acontecimentos, juntamente com as autoridades nacionais responsáveis nesta matéria.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000681/12

to the Commission

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Threat of redundancies in the Salvador Caetano Group

I have become aware that the Salvador Caetano Group (SGPS) S.A., a company in Vila Nova de Gaia, Northern Portugal, is pressurising workers to rescind their work contracts with the company, as well as not to renew their fixed contracts.

The group claims financial difficulties which contrast with the figures that the company itself has made available to the public: in the period between 2007 and 2010, Salvador Caetano saw sales increase by more than 1300 vehicles. Nevertheless, during that same period it reduced the number of workers by 428.

Since 2008, this company has dismissed around 16 % of its workforce and intends to continue with these sackings. All of this comes at a time when the company itself has announced investments in Asia, notably in China, with a bus-making factory and a project to market a Chinese make of car in Portugal.

The Salvador Caetano Group has already received more than EUR 3.8 million in support from the NSRF since 2007. The pay-off for this support from Community and national funds has been a complete social disregard for its workers and for social and economic development in Portugal.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

What measures will it take, bearing in mind the serious economic and social situation in Portugal, especially in the North, where unemployment is constantly rising?

Does the Commission consider NSRF support compatible with a practice of relocation that directly conflicts with workers' rights, notably the right to a job?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2012)

1.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, employment policy, including measures to combat unemployment, is a Member State competence. However, the memorandum of understanding signed by the Portuguese Government provides for structural reforms to improve social conditions and the employment rate across the country in the medium-to-long term, which means that all regions are covered by the reforms. Portugal has also received financial support to tackle the economic crisis from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

2.

According to information received from the Portuguese authorities, some affiliated companies of the Salvador Caetano Group have received financial support amounting to EUR 865 356.02 during the current programming period. The funding concerned training activities which aim to enhance the employees' potential. Concerning the issue of possible repayment of the support, EC regulation 1083/2006, Article 57(1), sets out that an operation can retain the contribution from the Funds only if that operation does not, within five years from the completion of the operation or three years from the completion in Member States which have exercised the option of reducing that time limit for the maintenance of an investment or jobs created by SMEs, undergo a substantial modification for example affecting the nature of the operation or its implementation conditions and resulting for example from the cessation of a productive activity. It is up to the Member States to ensure that this rule is respected and the Commission will monitor the developments together with the responsible national authorities in this respect.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000682/12

à Comissão

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(30 de janeiro de 2012)

Assunto: Despedimento coletivo na empresa Panrico

Recentemente, a empresa Panrico — Produtos Alimentares, S.A., a funcionar na região de Lisboa e em Vila Nova de Gaia, e que foi recentemente adquirida pela empresa gestora de investimentos Oaktree, comunicou aos trabalhadores a realização de um despedimento coletivo, envolvendo 47 trabalhadores.

Esta empresa, que emprega quase 7 000 trabalhadores, alega que a diminuição de vendas e o aumento dos custos das matérias-primas são os fatores determinantes para este despedimento coletivo. No entanto este despedimento incide especialmente sobre os trabalhadores que aderiram à Greve Geral de 24 de novembro de 2011 e que não aceitaram ter apenas 20 minutos de pausa para o almoço. Este despedimento coletivo abrange uma dirigente sindical, uma ex-dirigente sindical e trabalhadores com tempo de trabalho na empresa entre 10 a 20 anos, ignorando, assim, os aspetos legais da pirâmide de antiguidade e de categorias na empresa e discriminando de forma inaceitável membros das organizações representativas dos trabalhadores.

Assim, solicito à Comissão que me informe do seguinte:

A referida empresa recebeu quaisquer fundos comunitários em Portugal ou Espanha?

Tem a Comissão conhecimento desta prática de discriminação em relação a representantes dos trabalhadores e qual a avaliação que faz?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(12 de março de 2012)

1.

De acordo com as informações recebidas das autoridades portuguesas, a empresa Panrico — Produtos Alimentares, Lda. recebeu um apoio financeiro do Fundo Social Europeu no valor de 246 363 euros em Portugal, durante os períodos de programação atual e anterior, e de 8 487,55 euros em Espanha, durante o período de programação atual.

2.

A Comissão não tem conhecimento de quaisquer planos para despedir trabalhadores. Gostaria, porém, de salientar que as questões jurídicas relacionadas com os despedimentos são da responsabilidade dos tribunais nacionais e devem ser tratadas a esse nível.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000682/12

to the Commission

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Collective redundancy in the Panrico company

Recently, the company Panrico — Food Products S.A., working in the Lisbon region and in Vila Nova de Gaia, which was recently acquired by the Oaktree investment management company, told its workers that it would be carrying out a collective redundancy involving 47 workers.

This company, which employs nearly 7 000 workers, claims that the reduction in sales and increase in the costs of raw materials are the determining factors behind this collective redundancy. Nonetheless, this dismissal falls particularly badly on those workers who took part in the general strike on 24 November 2011 and who would not accept just a 20-minute lunch-break. It affects, amongst others, a trade union leader, an ex-trade union leader and workers who have been in the company for 10 to 20 years. It thus disregards the legal aspects of age hierarchy and of categories in the company and discriminates in an unacceptable manner against members of workers' organisations.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

Did the aforementioned company receive Community funds in Portugal or Spain?

Is the Commission aware of this practice of discrimination against workers' representatives and how does it assess the situation?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

1.

According to information received from the Portuguese authorities, the company Panrico — Produtos Alimentares Lda received financial support from the European Social Fund amounting to EUR 246 363 in Portugal during the current and previous programming periods and EUR 8 487.55 in Spain during the current programming period.

2.

The Commission is not aware of any plans of the company to dismiss workers. However, it would point out that legal issues relating to lay-offs are the responsibility of the national courts and should be dealt with at that level.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000683/12

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(30 ianuarie 2012)

Subiect: Cazuri de tuberculoză rezistentă la antibiotice

State precum India, China sau Rusia au anunțat că se confruntă cu cazuri de tuberculoză în care tratamentul cu antibiotice nu are efect. Având în vedere faptul că tuberculoza face parte dintre bolile infecțioase ușor transmisibile, Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă are în vedere măsuri preventive pentru a împiedica răspândirea acestei bacterii care a suferit mutații în statele membre ale UE, eventual după modelul măsurilor restrictive impuse de state ca Australia sau Canada.

Răspuns dat de dl Dalli în numele Comisiei

(6 martie 2012)

Comisia are cunoștință de cazurile raportate recent de tuberculoză rezistentă la medicamente în India. Aceste cazuri au fost definite de Organizația Mondială a Sănătății drept tuberculoză ultrarezistentă la medicamente, o formă gravă de tuberculoză rezistentă la medicamente. Aceasta este o preocupare majoră în domeniul sănătății publice, 1 450 de cazuri de boală multirezistentă și 66 de cazuri de boală ultrarezistentă la medicamente fiind raportate în 2009 în Uniunea Europeană, precum și în țările din Spațiul Economic European (208).

Au fost concepute o serie de măsuri pentru a reduce povara reprezentată de tuberculoza rezistentă la medicamente și riscul răspândirii sale în UE. La cererea Comisiei, Centrul European de prevenire și control al bolilor (ECDC) a elaborat în 2007 un plan-cadru de acțiune pentru combaterea tuberculozei în UE (209) ,  (210), care abordează în special problema tuberculozei rezistente la medicamente, precum și probleme conexe (de exemplu, supravegherea, realizarea de teste privind sensibilitatea la medicamente și îngrijirea pacienților).

În plus, în cadrul celui de-al șaptelea program-cadru pentru cercetare și dezvoltare tehnologică, Comisia sprijină proiecte privind dezvoltarea de tratamente noi și studierea, gestionarea clinică și diagnosticarea tuberculozei rezistente la medicamente. Parteneriatul dintre țările europene și țările în curs de dezvoltare privind testele clinice (European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership) contribuie, de asemenea, la acest efort, susținând studiile clinice privind noi medicamente și vaccinuri.

În cele din urmă, Comisia a adoptat în 2011 o comunicare privind prevenirea și controlul infecțiilor rezistente la medicamente (211), care este în prezent pusă în aplicare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000683/12

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Cases of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis

Countries including India, China and Russia have announced that they are now facing tuberculosis cases in which antibiotic treatment has no effect. Given the fact that tuberculosis is one of the most easily transmitted infectious diseases, can the Commission indicate whether it envisages preventive measures to stop the spread of bacteria which have undergone mutations in the Member States, possibly modelled on the restrictive measures imposed by countries like Australia or Canada?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2012)

The Commission is aware of recently reported cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis in India. These cases have been defined by the World Health Organisation as extensively drug-resistant TB, a severe form of drug resistant tuberculosis. The latter is a particular public health concern with 1 450 multi-drug resistant and 66 extensively drug-resistant cases reported in 2009 in the European Union and European Economic Area countries (212).

A number of actions have been developed to reduce the burden of drug resistant tuberculosis and the risk of its spread in the EU. At the request of the Commission, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) developed in 2007 an EU Framework Action Plan to Fight Tuberculosis (213)  (214), which addresses in particular the issue of drug-resistant tuberculosis and related challenges (such as surveillance, drug-sensitivity testing and care of patients).

Furthermore, under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, the Commission supports projects on the development of new treatments and the study, clinical management and diagnostic of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership contributes also to this effort by supporting clinical trials on new drugs and vaccines.

Finally, the Commission adopted in 2011 a communication on the prevention and control of drug resistant infections (215) which is now being implemented.

(Leagan Gaeilge)

Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-000686/12

chuig an gCoimisiún

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(30 Eanáir 2012)

Ábhar: Cleachtais Frithiomaíocha i dTionscal Ceoil na hEorpa

Foilsíodh staidéar measúnaithe le déanaí don chlár ‘An Eoraip Chruthaitheach’ a deir go dtéann na cuspóirí sonracha chun tacú le hearnálacha cultúrtha agus cruthaitheacha na hEorpa feidhmiú go trasnáisiúnta i ngleic le dúshlán an domhandaithe agus an t-athrú digiteach. Nuair a spreagtar cúrsaíocht thrasnáisiúnta i gcás saothar cultúrtha agus cruthaitheach agus nuair a chuirtear oibreoirí cultúrtha agus cruthaitheacha chun cinn, téitear i ngleic le fadhb na hilroinnte, arb é is cúis le cúrsaíocht theoranta saothar agus ealaíontóirí agus rogha theoranta do thomhaltóirí. Bíonn tionchar ag na gnéithe sin ar an éagsúlacht chultúrtha agus teanga agus ar chumas iomaíoch na hearnála, mar atá sonraithe sna cuspóirí ginearálta.

— An bhfuil an Coimisiún ar an eolas maidir leis an togra atá ann go ndéanfadh Universal táthcheangal ar ENI Publishing agus Sony ATV ar EMI Recording? Cad í barúil an Choimisiúin maidir leis an togra um tháthcheangal sin?

— Cé na bearta atá i bhfeidhm ag an gCoimisiún chun a chinntiú go mbíonn margadh oscailte cothrom ann do na soláthraithe ceoil ar fad?

— An bhfuil sé i gceist ag an gCoimisiún beartas nua ar bith a chur i bhfeidhm chun cleachtais frithiomaíocha i dTionscal Ceoil na hEorpa a chosc?

— An bhfuil bearta eile ar intinn ag an gCoimisiún chun a chinntiú go bhfuil sé ar chumas soláthraithe beaga ceoil a bheith iomaíoch ar mhargaí na hEorpa agus an domhain?

Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Almunia thar ceann an Choimisiúin

(13 Márta 2012)

Is eol don Choimisiún go bhfuiltear ag beartú EMI a dhíol, agus go bhfuil comhaontú ann a rannóg ceoil thaifeadta a dhíol le Universal Music Group, agus go bhfuil comhaontú eile ann rannóg foilsithe ceoil EMI a dhíol le grúpa infheisteoirí, lena n-áirítear Sony Corporation of America. Tugadh fógra don Choimisiún an 17 Feabhra 2012 maidir le ceann de na hidirbhearta sin, eadhon go bhfuil sé beartaithe ag Universal gnó ceoil thaifeadta EMI a fháil mar éadáil. Tugadh fógra don Choimisiún an 27 Feabhra 2012 maidir leis an idirbheart eile, eadhon go bhfuil sé beartaithe ag Sony Corporation of America agus an Mubadala Development Company smacht comhpháirteach a fháil ar ghnó foilsithe ceoil EMI.

Tá an Coimisiún i mbun iniúchtaí margaidh faoi láthair i dtaobh an dá idirbheart sin chun an tionchar is dealraitheach a bheidh acu ar mhargaí éagsúla ceoil an AE a mheas.

Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún sa Chonradh iomaíocht neamhshaofa a áirithiú sa mhargadh inmheánach. Cuirtear toirmeasc sa Chonradh ar chomhaontuithe sriantacha agus ar chuideachtaí mí‐úsáid a bhaint as a gceannasacht. Tá feidhm ag na forálacha ginearálta sin maidir leis na margaí atá ábhartha i gcás soláthróirí ceoil (216). Níl aon ghearán foirmiúil faighte ag an gCoimisiún maidir le hiompraíocht mhargaidh na ngníomhairí san earnáil áirithe seo, ach tá sé ag leanúint de ghrinnfhaireachán a dhéanamh ar fhorbairtí sa mhargadh.

Leanfaidh an Coimisiún de na rialacha iomaíochta atá ann cheana a fhorfheidhmiú go stóinsithe.

Faoi láthair, tá an Coimisiún ag obair ar thogra le haghaidh na Treorach maidir le bainistiú ar chearta comhchoiteanna a beartaíodh sa Chlár Digiteach don Eoraip. Is é is aidhm don Treoir feabhas a chur ar thrédhearcacht agus ar rialachas na gcumann bailithe dleachtanna agus ceadúnú ilchríochach saothar ceoil ar líne a éascú do gach soláthróir ceoil. Tá sé beartaithe go nglacfaidh an Coimisiún an Treoir in earrach na bliana seo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000686/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Anti-competitive practices in the European music industry

A recent impact assessment for the ‘Creative Europe’ programme stated that the specific objectives of supporting Europe’s cultural and creative sectors to operate transnationally help combat the challenge of globalisation and digital shift. The encouragement of transnational circulation of cultural and creative works and the promotion of cultural and creative operators address the problem of fragmentation, which results in limited circulation of works and artists and limited choice for consumers. These have consequences for cultural and linguistic diversity and the competitiveness of the sector, as detailed in the general objectives.

— Is the Commission aware of the proposal that Universal would take over EMI Publishing and that Sony ATV would take over EMI Recording? What is the Commission’s opinion on that takeover proposal?

— What measures has the Commission in place to ensure that there is an open and fair market for all music providers?

— Does the Commission intend to implement new measures to prevent anti-competitive practices in the European music industry?

— Does the Commission intend to introduce other measures to ensure that small music providers have the potential to be competitive in the European and global markets?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2012)

The Commission is aware of the proposed sale of EMI, with an agreement for the sale of its recorded music division to Universal Music Group, and another for the sale of EMI's music publishing division to a group of investors, including Sony Corporation of America. One of these transactions, the proposed acquisition by Universal of EMI's recorded music business, was notified to the Commission on 17 February 2012. The other transaction, the proposed acquisition of joint control over EMI's music publishing business by Sony Corporation of America and the Mubadala Development Company was notified to the Commission on 27 February 2012.

The Commission is currently conducting market investigations into both transactions in order to assess their likely impact on the various EU music markets concerned.

The Commission is empowered by the Treaty to ensure undistorted competition in the internal market. The Treaty prohibits restrictive agreements as well as abuses by companies in a dominant position. These general prohibitions apply to the markets relevant for music providers (217). The Commission has received no formal complaints on market behaviour of players in this sector, but continues to closely monitor developments in the market.

The Commission will continue robust enforcement of the existing competition rules.

The Commission is currently working on a proposal for the directive on collective rights management envisaged in the Digital Agenda for Europe. The aim of the directive is to improve transparency and governance of collecting societies and to facilitate multi-territorial licensing of online musical works for all music providers. The adoption of the directive by the Commission is planned for spring this year.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000688/12

a la Comisión

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)

(31 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Situación de la industria naval gallega

La Comisión Europea, a través del Comisario de Competencia, Joaquín Almunia, respondió en referencia a la pregunta E-007729/2011, que la Comisión ₫incoó una investigación exhaustiva dirigida a comprobar la compatibilidad del sistema español de arrendamiento financiero para la compra de buques con las reglas comunitarias en materia de ayudas estatales₻, y afirmó ₫que la Comisión es consciente de las implicaciones sociales de este asunto, pero debe tener también en cuenta las repercusiones de las medidas estudiadas en la competencia y en otras empresas₻.

En la Unión Europa, están primando cada vez más los intereses financieros y las normas de competencia en lugar de los intereses sociales y de cohesión territorial, social y económica. La industria naval está padeciendo esas consecuencias, pues en lugar de ser apoyada como un sector estratégico en Europa, encuentra limitaciones constantes. En especial la industria naval gallega ha sufrido, desde las últimas dos décadas, evidentes marginaciones pese a capacidad competitiva, su alto nivel de tecnificación, cualificación de mano de obra, especialización y adaptación de la producción a nuevas situaciones. El contexto de actual crisis que afecta a los sectores productivos ha afectado enormemente a la industria naval y su viabilidad está condicionada a la financiación. En el momento actual, el sector naval gallego, se encuentra en un compás de espera, pendiente de la respuesta de la Comisión Europea a la posición enviada por el Gobierno español.

— ¿Puede informar la Comisión de la situación actual del procedimiento del expediente de investigación sobre el régimen fiscal aplicable al sistema de arrendamiento español (₫tax lease₻)?

— ¿Cuándo va a responder la Comisión al examen de esta investigación?

— ¿Considera la Comisión que va a poder encontrar una solución justa para los intereses de un sector productivo como el sector naval de Galicia, con el fin de que pueda contar con un sistema financiero que lo apoye para garantizar su continuidad, viabilidad y futuro?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(19 de marzo de 2012)

La Decisión de la Comisión del 29 de junio de 2011 por la que se incoaba el procedimiento de investigación formal de conformidad con el artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE), fue publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea el 21 de septiembre de 2011 (218), invitando a las terceras partes interesadas a presentar sus observaciones sobre el sistema de arrendamiento fiscal español. La Comisión recibió comentarios de más de 40 partes interesadas, incluidas empresas financieras, compañías de transporte marítimo y astilleros, así como de autoridades públicas y organismos, tanto de dentro, como de fuera de España.

Las observaciones presentadas por España y por las terceras partes, están siendo analizadasy se tendrán en cuenta en la decisión final, que la Comisión tiene previsto adoptar en los próximos meses.

La Comisión procederá a la evaluación del sistema a la luz de las normas en materia de ayudas estatales establecidas por el Tratado. En este contexto, se contrastarán los efectos esperados del sistema de arrendamiento fiscal en la competencia, el comercio y las demás empresas dentro de la UE con la consecución de objetivos de interés común recogidos en las normas existentes sobre la compatibilidad de las ayudas estatales, cuando el sistema persiga dichos objetivos. Sin embargo, teniendo en cuenta que el procedimiento de investigación formal está en curso, la Comisión no puede dar ninguna indicación, en este momento, en cuanto a su resultado.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000688/12

to the Commission

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)

(31 January 2012)

Subject: Situation of Galicia's shipping industry

The European Commission has responded, through the Commissioner for Competition, Joaquín Almunia, to Question E‐007729/2011 that the Commission has launched a detailed investigation intended to verify the compatibility of the Spanish system of financial leasing for the purchase of boats with Union rules on state aid, and that the Commission is aware of the social implications of this issue, but should also bear in mind the repercussions that these measures have on competition and on other companies.

In the European Union, financial interests and competition rules are increasingly taking precedence over the interests of society, and of territorial, social and economic cohesion. The shipping industry is suffering these consequences, since, instead of being supported as a strategic sector in Europe, it is facing constant constraints. In particular, Galicia's shipping industry has been clearly marginalised over the past two decades, even though it is competitive, technically advanced, has a skilled workforce, is highly specialised and has adapted its production to new developments. The crisis currently affecting productive sectors has hit the shipping industry hard, and its viability is dependent on finance. At the moment, Galicia's shipping sector is at a standstill, awaiting the Commission's response to the Spanish Government's position.

— Can the Commission provide information about the current status of the investigation on the tax regime applied to the Spanish tax lease system?

— When will the Commission respond to this investigation?

— Does the Commission believe it will be able to find a solution fair to the interests of a productive sector such as Galicia's shipping sector, providing it with a financial system that supports it in order to ensure its continuity, viability and future?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2012)

The Commission's decision of 29 June 2011 opening the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 21 September 2011 (219) with a call to all interested third parties to comment on the Spanish tax lease system. The Commission received comments from more than 40 interested parties, including financial companies, shipping companies and shipyards, as well as public authorities and bodies, both from within and outside Spain.

Observations submitted by Spain and by third parties are currently being analysed. They will be taken into account in the final decision, which the Commission intends to adopt in the coming months.

The Commission will proceed with the assessment of the scheme in the light of the state aid rules established by the Treaty. In this context, it will balance the expected effects of the scheme on competition, trade and on other companies within the EU against the achievement of objectives of common interest enshrined in the existing rules on compatibility of state aid — where such objectives are targeted by the scheme. However, considering the formal investigation procedure is ongoing, the Commission cannot give any indication at this stage as regards its outcome.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000689/12

a la Comisión

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)

(30 de enero de 2012)

Asunto: Investigación de la Comisión sobre el proyecto de línea eléctrica Peñalba-Isona

En su contestación del pasado 28 de octubre de 2011 a las preguntas E-008394/11, E-008437/11 y E-008396/11, la Comisión Europea declaró que había puesto en marcha una investigación EU PILOT para comprobar si el proyecto de construcción de la línea de muy alta tensión Peñalba-Isona, que plantea graves afecciones potenciales en su recorrido por Aragón, cumple la legislación de la Unión Europea, especialmente la Directiva 85/337/CEE relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente, la Directiva 2009/147/CE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres, y la Directiva 92/43/CEE, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres.

— ¿Con qué fecha solicitó la Comisión al Gobierno español sus observaciones sobre este caso y con qué plazo para recibir respuesta?

— ¿Ha recibido la Comisión dicha respuesta?

— ¿Qué valoración hace de la misma?

— ¿Qué medidas va a tomar la Comisión a raíz de todo lo expuesto anteriormente?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de marzo de 2012)

El proyecto de línea eléctrica Peñalba-Isona ha sido objeto de una investigación por parte de la Comisión. Este asunto fue incoado a raíz de las preguntas escritas E-8394/11, E-8396/11 y E-8437/11, formuladas por el Sr. Tremosa i Balcells (220).

Asimismo, la Comisión recibió varias denuncias sobre este proyecto.

En el marco de esta investigación, las autoridades españolas han informado a la Comisión de que se está llevando a cabo una evaluación de impacto ambiental completa con arreglo a la Directiva 85/337/CEE del Consejo, relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente, tal como ha sido modificada (221). Este procedimiento comprende el análisis de las posibles repercusiones del proyecto en los valores naturales protegidos por la Directiva 92/43/CE, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres (222), y por la Directiva 2009/147/CE, relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres (223).

Teniendo en cuenta que están en curso los procedimientos medioambientales pertinentes, por el momento la Comisión no puede determinar si este proyecto infringe la normativa de la Unión en materia de medio ambiente.

Por carta de 15 de diciembre de  2011 se informó a los denunciantes de la intención de la Comisión de cerrar su investigación.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000689/12

to the Commission

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Commission investigation into the Peñalba-Isona power line project

In its 28 October 2011 answer to Questions E‐008394/11, E‐008437/11 and E‐008396/11, the European Commission stated that it had launched an EU PILOT investigation to ascertain whether the very high-voltage Peñalba-Isona line, whose route through Aragón could cause serious harm, complies with European Union legislation, in particular Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds, and Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

— On what date did the Commission request the Spanish Government’s views on this case and with what deadline for a response?

— Has the Commission received this response?

— What is its evaluation of this response?

— What further measures will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2012)

The Peñalba-Isona power line project has been subject to an investigation by the Commission. This case was opened pursuant to joint Written Questions E‐8394/11, E‐8396/11 and E‐8437/11 by Mr Tremosa i Balcells (224).

Several complaints on this project were also lodged with the Commission.

In the framework of this investigation the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that a full environmental impact assessment, under Council Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (225) is currently underway. This procedure covers the likely effects of the project on natural values protected by Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (226) and Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (227).

Since the appropriate environmental procedures are being followed, the Commission is unable to identify, at this stage, a breach of EU environmental legislation in the case of this project.

The complainants have been informed of the intention of the Commission to close its investigation by letter of 15 December 2011.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000693/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Cardiovascular disease

Can the Commission indicate how it plans to deal with the issue of cardiovascular disease in Europe?

Given that recent studies have shown that this problem has a greater incidence rate in females compared with males, will the Commission devise different strategies for combating the problem in relation to females?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2012)

Cardiovascular diseases are the major cause of mortality in women and in men. Gender is known to be a specific risk factor. The Commission addresses the major causes of cardiovascular diseases through its strategies on nutrition, physical activity and tobacco.

In addition, the Commission has been financing projects under the Health Programme specifically dealing with cardiovascular diseases, prevention and management, such as EuroHeart I and II, European Hospital Benchmarking by Outcomes in acute coronary syndrome Processes (EURHOBOP), and Safe Implementation of Treatment in Stroke (SITS EAST). Information on the project is available on the Commission's website (228).

To address common issues related to major chronic diseases, the Commission has launched a reflection process on chronic diseases with Member States, based on the 2010 Council conclusions on ‘Innovative approaches for chronic diseases in public health and healthcare systems’ (229). This process — while not disease specific — should help identify those areas where there are gaps and added value for further action at EU level and in cooperation between Member States to address the challenge.

This process will draw on the political declaration of the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (230) that highlights cardiovascular diseases, in which the EU was actively involved.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000694/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Common fisheries policy

Can the Commission indicate the models that it will use to implement the proposals on decentralisation of the common fisheries policy? Is the Commission aware of the Parliament legal advice in respect of same?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

The reform of the common fisheries policy aims at strengthening the governance aspect through a regionalised approach, to better adapt the policy to the specificities of the different sea-basins in the EU.

The proposal of the Commission foresees that multiannual plans for the conservation of fish stocks may empower the Member States of a sea basin to set commonly agreed national measures to make the plan operational. The involvement of fishermen, other stakeholders as well as Advisory Councils will be necessary to design the measures that can best achieve the objectives of the multiannual plan at sea basin level.

The same would be done with a framework technical measures regulation which is to be decided in the ordinary legislative procedure and implementing measures then need to be decided by the Member States of a seabasin after designing them in cooperation with Advisory Councils and stakeholders.

Under both multiannual plans and framework technical measures regulations, research institutes in the Member States should support stakeholders as necessary.

The Commission is aware that the Legal Service of the European Parliament has provided an opinion on the regionalisation aspect of the reform of the common fisheries policy, but at this stage, the Commission has not been given access to this opinion.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000695/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Common fisheries policy

Can the Commission indicate the proposals that it will use in the common fisheries policy to increase biodiversity in oceanic habitats and also improve seafloor integrity?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2012)

The Commission's proposal for the reform of the common fisheries policy is centred on reducing the impact of fishing by a number of mechanisms: fixing maximum sustainable yield targets for long-term plans, retargeting the use of structural funds away from subsidising fishing activities and towards restructuring of the fishing fleets, and introducing transferable fishing concessions as an market-based instrument for reducing overcapacity. Furthermore, the Commission proposes the gradual introduction of an obligation that all fish caught should be landed, and counted against quotas where they apply, i.e. a discard ban.

It is also intended to help fishermen develop and introduce more selective fishing and lower-impact gear, so that impacts on unwanted species and on the seabed are reduced.

Taken together, these measures will reduce the impact of fishing on targeted fish stocks, on other species in the marine environment, and on the integrity of the seafloor itself. This will reduce the effect of human activities on the biodiversity of the marine habitat while ensuring the long-term viability of the EU fishing fleet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000697/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Funding lines for tourism

Can the Commission indicate any possible funding lines for a town or village that wants to start up an annual festival which aims to incorporate the local heritage, with a view to increasing tourism in the local area?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

The Commission gives much importance to the role of cultural heritage in view of differentiating the tourism offer, also knowing that the cultural tourism sector has been performing relatively well in the recent crisis period. In its last communication on tourism (231), differentiating the tourism offer capitalising on the European rich culture, traditions and heritage, has been identified as a priority for the European tourism policy in order to allow a sustainable and competitive growth of the tourism industry.

The Commission therefore actively supports and promotes transnational cultural tourism products through calls (232) for pan-European project proposals or the organisation of European added-value events, such as the fair ‘Carrefours d'Europe’ on cultural tourism, having a transnational dimension and going beyond the valorisation of pure local heritage.

European festivals that build on local heritage certainly contribute to highlighting the great richness of our cultural diversity and foster sustainable growth of destinations, increasing tourism flows and facilitating job creation and new income sources for the local communities. In this regard, appropriate funding can be used by local communities under the European Regional Development Fund or within the framework of the Culture Programme (233).

Cultural operators who wish to apply for funding are well advised to get in touch with the Culture contact point (234) or the relevant Structural Funds Managing Authority (235) in their country, in order to obtain more information and assistance.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000698/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Obesity in Europe

Can the Commission indicate how it plans to deal with the issue of obesity in Europe, especially in relation to young children and teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17?

Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2012)

The strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related health issues (236) outlines the Commission's strategic approach for the period 2007-2013. In this strategy, children have been identified as one of the priority groups. The document highlights the importance of education on nutrition and physical activity, instilling a preference for healthy behaviours and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

A Progress Report of December 2010 (237) summarises actions for children, such as specific education campaigns and the School Fruit Scheme.

The European EPODE Network, co-funded by the Health programme, is a network of European Mayors which puts prevention of childhood obesity at the heart of cities. This network now involves 331 cities in four EU Member States and brings concrete positive results (238).

Many stakeholders contribute through their activities in the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. One example is the EU Pledge commitment by the food industry for responsible advertising of food and beverages to children under the age of 12 (239). The strategy will be evaluated later this year and the Commission would welcome the Parliament's support to this work.

The EU Youth Strategy (240), under the open method of coordination with Member States, encourages ‘healthy lifestyles for young people via physical education, education on nutrition, physical activity and collaboration between schools, youth workers, health professionals and sporting organisations’.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000702/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Shale gas exploration and production activities

Does the Commission plan to produce a certified list of known compounds will be used in any future shale gas exploitation in relation to the fracking process?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2012)

The Commission currently does not plan to produce such a list. Given the novelty of shale gas practices in Europe and the still limited knowledge and experience with shale gas projects in the EU, the Commission's priority is to collect the information necessary to ensure that the European legislative framework guarantees an appropriate level of protection to the environment and human health when exploring and producing shale gas. It will examine i.a. Chemical Safety Reports of the registration dossiers for a set of chemical substances generally associated with hydraulic fracturing to determine if the exposure scenarios included in such reports could be considered adequate for shale gas operations.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000703/12

alla Commissione

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE) e Giovanni La Via (PPE)

(30 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Esercizio EBA

La recente decisione dell’EBA di imporre alle banche dei buffer di capitale a copertura dei titoli di Stato detenuti in portafoglio, valutandoli a prezzo di mercato, senza prima attendere l'implementazione di altre misure (quali il rafforzamento del Fondo salva Stati), si è rivelata errata nella tempistica ed ha contribuito ad acuire le tensioni invece di mitigarle. Infatti, il vero rischio che stanno affrontando le diverse economie è una forte riduzione del credito erogato all'economia, alle famiglie e alle imprese. È importante notare che la raccomandazione EBA costituisce di fatto una modifica delle regole di vigilanza attualmente vigenti, visto che, ad esempio, vengono rimossi dei filtri prudenziali. La misura adottata, quindi, non è una ₫raccomandazione₻ che è volta a ₫istituire prassi di vigilanza uniformi, efficienti ed efficaci e ad assicurare l'applicazione comune, uniforme e coerente del diritto dell'Unione₻ (vedasi l'articolo 16 del regolamento EBA), ma deve essere riqualificata, secondo un principio di prevalenza della sostanza sulla forma, in una ₫decisione₻ ai sensi dell'articolo 18, in considerazione della eccezionalità delle misure adottate per rispondere a situazioni di emergenza, come peraltro riconosciuto nei considerando della stessa raccomandazione EBA. In questo modo si è ₫aggirato₻ un importante vincolo previsto nell'iter di emanazione degli atti normativi, cioè la preventiva analisi di impatto della regolamentazione, che permette di valutare costi e benefici derivanti dall’introduzione di nuove normative.

In ragione di ciò, come intende la Commissione intervenire in merito? Non ritiene, inoltre, opportuno un differimento della data ora prevista per l’attuazione dell’esercizio dell'EBA, tenuto conto del peggioramento delle prospettive di crescita di molte economie e del fatto che i rischi di recessione si fanno sempre più concreti?

Risposta data da Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(12 marzo 2012)

L’accordo sulla ricapitalizzazione delle banche costituisce un elemento importante delle misure concordate dal Consiglio europeo del 26 ottobre 2011. L’obiettivo è di rafforzare la fiducia dei mercati nei confronti del settore bancario.

L’Autorità bancaria europea (ABE) è stata incaricata di coordinarne l’attuazione e di garantire che i piani di aumento di capitale delle banche non conducano a un’eccessiva o inopportuna riduzione dell’effetto leva. A tal fine la raccomandazione dell’ABE dell’8 dicembre 2011 vieta esplicitamente gli interventi finalizzati alla riduzione degli attivi delle banche. I primi riscontri dell’ABE evidenziano che i provvedimenti proposti dalle banche hanno essenzialmente un impatto diretto sul capitale, come dividendi non distribuiti ed emissioni di capitale nei mercati.

Le autorità nazionali di vigilanza, coordinate dall’ABE, stanno valutando i piani presentati. La Commissione parte dal presupposto che tale valutazione presterà particolare attenzione al potenziale impatto negativo sul flusso di credito verso l’economia reale.

La raccomandazione dell’ABE rivolta alle autorità di vigilanza nazionali si basa sull’articolo 16 del regolamento che istituisce l’ABE. Si tratta di uno strumento non vincolante, del quale però i destinatari sono tenuti a motivare l’eventuale mancato rispetto. Le autorità di vigilanza non sono pertanto tenute ad attenersi alla raccomandazione e quest’ultima non ha effetti giuridici diretti sulle banche. Considerato che l’ABE ha agito in conformità con il suo mandato e nel pieno rispetto della legge applicabile, la Commissione non ritiene necessario esprimersi in merito all’opportunità o meno che l’ABE intraprendesse altre azioni. L’ABE non ha agito nel quadro delle situazioni di cui all’articolo 18 del regolamento che istituisce l’autorità, ma, anche se l’avesse fatto, la sua azione non avrebbe richiesto una valutazione d’impatto.

La Commissione accoglie con favore il fatto che l’ABE intraprenda quanto in suo potere per garantire la convergenza delle prassi di vigilanza e la coerenza nell’applicazione del diritto dell’UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000703/12

to the Commission

Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE) and Giovanni La Via (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Operation of EBA

The recent decision by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to impose capital buffers on banks to cover the State bonds held in their portfolios, valuing them at market price, without first waiting for the implementation of other measures (such as the reinforcement of the State rescue funds), proved untimely and helped to exacerbate tensions rather than to mitigate them. In fact, the real risk that the various economies are facing is of a sharp reduction in loans extended to the economy, families and businesses. It is important to note that the EBA recommendation constitutes in fact a change in the supervision rules currently in force, since, for example, it removes prudential filters. The adopted measure is not, therefore, a ‘recommendation’ that aims at ‘establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices […] and [at] ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law’ (see Article 16 of the EBA Regulation), but must be upgraded, according to a principle of substance over form, to a ‘decision’ under Article 18, given the exceptional nature of the measures taken to respond to emergency situations, as is moreover recognised in the recitals to said EBA recommendation. In this way, it ‘bypassed’ an important constraint provided for in the legislation enactment procedure, i.e. the prior analysis of the impact of regulation, under which the costs and benefits of introducing new regulations are assessed.

How will the Commission react to this? Moreover, does the Commission not think that the date currently scheduled for the implementation of the EBA operation should be postponed, taking into account the worsening growth prospects of many economies and the fact that the risks of recession are becoming ever more tangible?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

The agreement on the recapitalisation of banks is an important element of the measures agreed by the European Council on 26 October 2011. The aim is to enhance the market confidence in the banking sector.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) was requested to coordinate the implementation, and to ensure that bank plans to strengthen capital do not lead to excessive or inappropriate deleveraging. To this end, the EBA recommendation of 8 December 2011 explicitly prohibits actions aimed at a reduction of bank assets. Preliminary results disclosed by EBA show that the actions proposed by the banks predominantly focus on direct capital measures, i.e. retention of dividends and capital emissions on the market.

National supervisors, coordinated by EBA, are currently evaluating the submitted plans. The Commission is confident that this examination will pay particular attention to the potential negative impact on the credit flow to the real economy.

The EBA recommendation addressed to national supervisors is based on Article 16 of the EBA regulation. It is non-binding, but addressees are subject to a comply-or-explain obligation. Hence, supervisors are not required to follow the recommendation, and it does not impose any direct legal effects on banks. Since EBA has acted in accordance with its mandate and in full respect of the applicable law, the Commission does not consider it necessary to comment on whether EBA could have taken other action. EBA did not act under Article 18 of the EBA-Regulation, but even if it had, its action would not have required any impact assessment.

The Commission welcomes that EBA makes use of its powers in order to ensure convergent supervisory practices and consistent application of EC law.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000704/12

aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter — Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)

Peter van Dalen (ECR)

(30 januari 2012)

Betreft: VP/HR — EU-Vertegenwoordiging in Noord-Irak

Het door de Koerden bestuurde Noord-Irak heeft lange tijd een relatieve veiligheid genoten in vergelijking met de rest van het land. Als gevolg hiervan zijn veel mensen die behoren tot onderdrukte en vervolgde gemeenschappen naar Noord-Irak gevlucht. Bijvoorbeeld ook mensen behorende tot Chaldese, Assyrische en andere eeuwenoude christelijke gemeenschappen. Onlangs is de veiligheidssituatie in Noord-Irak echter verslechterd en zijn er meer aanslagen te betreuren. Ook de christelijke gemeenschappen zijn in toenemende mate doelwit van aanslagen.

Dankzij de relatieve veiligheid van de afgelopen jaren heeft Noord-Irak zich ook economisch goed kunnen ontwikkelen. De groeiende bevolking en economische ontwikkeling maken de regio een interessante handelspartner voor de EU.

1.

Is de VP/HR het met mij eens dat om bovengenoemde redenen, namelijk de situatie van de minderheden en de economische kansen, het een goed idee is een EU-vertegenwoordiging te openen in Noord-Irak?

2.

Is de VP/HR het met mij eens dat een dergelijke vertegenwoordiging zou kunnen bijdragen aan de stabilisering van de veiligheidssituatie en de ontwikkeling van de regionale economie en de handelsbetrekkingen met de EU?

3.

Is de VP/HR het met mij eens dat een dergelijke vertegenwoordiging de EU meer zichtbaarheid kan geven in Irak, temeer daar de EU-vertegenwoordiging in Bagdad als gevolg van de veiligheidssituatie onderbemand is en maar weinig bewegingsruimte heeft?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(27 april 2012)

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter (HV/VV) is op de hoogte van de situatie in de Koerdische regio (minderheden, economische ontwikkeling) en onderkent het belang van EU-activiteiten aldaar. Gelet op de huidige budgettaire beperkingen geeft de HV/VV — waar en wanneer er middelen beschikbaar zijn — prioriteit aan het openen van bureaus of delegaties in de hoofdsteden van derde landen waar de EU nog niet is vertegenwoordigd.

De HV/VV wijst het geachte Parlementslid erop dat er momenteel naar wordt gestreefd om — binnen de grenzen van de geringe budgettaire mogelijkheden — de aanwezigheid van de EU in Irak te versterken door het personeel op de EU-delegatie in Bagdad uit te breiden en voor een nieuwe behuizing te zorgen. Met deze dubbele aanpak zal de Europese dienst voor extern optreden de zichtbaarheid van de EU in Irak vergroten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000704/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Peter van Dalen (ECR)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — EU mission in northern Iraq

Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq has long enjoyed relative safety compared with the rest of the country. As a result, many members of oppressed and persecuted communities have fled to northern Iraq, including, for example, members of the Chaldean, Assyrian and other centuries-old Christian communities. However, the security situation in northern Iraq has recently deteriorated and, regrettably, there have been more attacks. The Christian communities are also increasingly the target of such attacks.

The relative safety of the past few years has also allowed northern Iraq to develop economically. The growing population and economic development are making the region an attractive trading partner for the EU.

1.

Does the VP/HR agree with me that, for the above reasons, i.e. the position of minorities and the economic opportunities, it would be a good idea for the EU to open a mission in northern Iraq?

2.

Does the VP/HR agree with me that such a mission would be able to contribute to stabilising the security situation and developing the regional economy and trade relations with the EU?

3.

Does the VP/HR agree with me that such a mission would raise the EU’s profile in Iraq, all the more since the EU mission in Baghdad is understaffed because of the security situation and has little freedom of movement?

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

(27 April 2012)

The High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) is aware of the specificities of Kurdistan Region (minorities, economic development) and agrees on the importance of EU activity there. Given the current budget constraints, the priority of the HR/VP, where and when resources are available, is to open offices or Delegations in capitals in third countries where there is no EU presence for the moment.

The HR/VP would like to inform the Honourable Member that the current objective is to reinforce the EU presence in Iraq, within the limits of tight budgetary constraints, both in terms of increasing the staff in the EU Delegation in Baghdad and of establishing new premises for the location of those staff. The European External Action Service is working on these two lines of action that will contribute to raising the EU's profile in Iraq.

(Leagan Gaeilge)

Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-000706/12

chuig an gCoimisiún

Liam Aylward (ALDE), Brian Crowley (ALDE) agus Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)

(30 Eanáir 2012)

Ábhar: An Treoir um Shulfar Muirí

Is é cion sulfair breosla leachtaigh ar bith a shocraíonn, go bunúsach, leibhéil na n‐astaíochtaí SO2 a bhíonn i gceist le dóchán an bhreosla, chomh maith le ceapadh ábhar cáithníneach (PM) tánaisteach. Déanann Treoir 1999/32/CE, arna leasú, cion sulfair na mbreoslaí atá in úsáid ag an earnáil iompair mhuirí a rialú agus rialacha áirithe, ar ar socraíodh faoin Eagraíocht Mhuirí Idirnáisiúnta (IMO), a thrasuí i ndlí na hEorpa. Faoin Treoir, tá rialacha níos déine i gceist maidir le cion sulfair breoslaí muirí a bhíonn in úsáid i gceantair atá faoi chaomhnú comhshaoil, is é sin na limistéir um smachtú astaíochtaí sulfair (Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs)).

1.

An bhfuil a fhios ag an gCoimisiún go bhfuil an cion sulfair de 0.1

 % atá i bhfeidhm do bhreosla muirí níos déine fós ná moladh 0.5 % an IMO?

2.

An bhfuil plean ar bith ag an gCoimisiún athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar an riachtanas 0.1

 % do shulfar i mbreosla muirí faoi Threoir 1999/32/CE?

3.

Cad iad na bearta atá i bhfeidhm chun a chinntiú nach gcuireann bearta na Treorach isteach ar fheidhmiú eagraíochtaí muirí agus gnóthas muirí den chineál sin?

4.

An bhfuil sé i gceist ag an gCoimisiúin leathnú a dhéanamh ar na limistéir um smachtú astaíochtaí sulfair (

Sulphur Emission Control Areas

(

SECAs

)) chun go mbeadh ceantair eile mhuirí clúdaithe fúthu?

Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Potočnik thar ceann an Choimisiúin

(12 Márta 2012)

1.

Éilíonn cinneadh 2008 an IMO go ndófadh longa a ghabhann trí limistéir um smachtú astaíochtaí sulfair (SECAnna) breosla ina bhfuil cion sulfair de 0.1 % ón 1 Eanáir 2015, agus tá sé socraithe gur 0.5 % a bheidh ann mar chaighdeán domhanda faoi 2020 nó faoi 2025, ag brath ar infhaighteacht breosla ar scála domhanda. Chuirfeadh togra an Choimisiúin comhaontú na bliana 2008 den IMO chun feidhme (lena n-áirítear an teorainn 0.1 %) i ndlí an AE. Dála an ama atá caite, rinne an Coimisiún cinneadh chomh maith an nasc a chothú idir longa paisinéirí agus teorainneacha SECA (i.e. cion sulfair de 0.1 %), cé go bhfuil an sprioc do na teorainneacha sin cúig bliana níos déanaí ná mar atá leagtha amach i bhfráma ama SECA (i.e. 2020).

2.

Rinne an Coimisiún measúnú ar thionchair gheilleagracha, shóisialta agus chomhshaoil fhorálacha sulfair an IMO lena n-áirítear an caighdeán 0.1 % agus na hionchais á meas maidir le caighdeáin an IMO a thrasuí i reachtaíocht an AE. Rinneadh measúnú go háirithe ar na costais agus na buntáistí don tsochaí uile mar aon le measúnú ar an tionchar réigiúnach ar thionscail na loingseoireachta gearrthurais. Tá an Measúnú Tionchair agus staidéir ábhartha eile ar fáil ar shuíomh gréasáin an Choimisiúin

2.

Rinne an Coimisiún measúnú ar thionchair gheilleagracha, shóisialta agus chomhshaoil fhorálacha sulfair an IMO lena n-áirítear an caighdeán 0.1 % agus na hionchais á meas maidir le caighdeáin an IMO a thrasuí i reachtaíocht an AE. Rinneadh measúnú go háirithe ar na costais agus na buntáistí don tsochaí uile mar aon le measúnú ar an tionchar réigiúnach ar thionscail na loingseoireachta gearrthurais. Tá an Measúnú Tionchair agus staidéir ábhartha eile ar fáil ar shuíomh gréasáin an Choimisiúin

 (241)

3.

D’eisigh an Coimisiún achoimre

3.

D’eisigh an Coimisiún achoimre

 (242)

4.

Níl moltaí déanta ag an gCoimisiún maidir le tuilleadh SECAnna a shainiú san Eoraip toisc gur faoin IMO atá sé cinntí den sórt sin a dhéanamh, agus toisc gurb iad na tíortha lena mbaineann nach mór moltaí a dhéanamh.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000706/12

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE), Brian Crowley (ALDE) and Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: The directive on Marine Sulphur

The sulphur content of liquid fuels basically decides the level of SO2 emission associated with the burning of fuel, as well as the creation of secondary particulate matter (PM). Directive 1999/32/EC, as amended, regulates the sulphur content of fuels used by the marine transport sector, and transposes certain rules into European law that were decided under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Under the directive, there are stricter rules in relation to the sulphur content of marine fuels used in areas that are under environmental conservation, that is to say, Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).

1.

Does the Commission know that the sulphur content of 0.1 % in effect for marine fuels is even stricter than the 0.5 % recommendation of the IMO?

2.

Does the Commission have any plan to review the 0.1 % requirement for sulphur in marine fuels under Directive 1999/32/EC?

3.

What measures are in place to ensure that the directive’s measures do not adversely affect the functioning of marine organisations and marine businesses of that kind?

4.

Does the Commission intend to expand the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) in order for other marine areas to be covered by them?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2012)

1.

The 2008 IMO decision requires ships sailing in SECAs to burn 0.1 % sulphur fuel from 1 January 2015, while the global standard has been established at 0.5 % in 2020 or 2025, depending on fuel availability on a global scale. The 2011 Commission proposal would implement the IMO agreement of 2008 (including the 0.1 % limit) into EC law. As in the past, the Commission also decided to maintain the link between passenger ships and SECA limits (i.e. 0.1 % sulphur content), albeit five years later than the SECA time frame (i.e. 2020).

2.

The Commission has assessed the economic, social and environmental impacts of the IMO sulphur provisions including the 0.1 % standard when assessing the prospects for transposition of IMO's standards into EU legislation. In particular the costs and benefits for society as a whole and regional impact on the short sea shipping industry were assessed. The Impact Assessment and related studies are available at the Commissions website

2.

The Commission has assessed the economic, social and environmental impacts of the IMO sulphur provisions including the 0.1 % standard when assessing the prospects for transposition of IMO's standards into EU legislation. In particular the costs and benefits for society as a whole and regional impact on the short sea shipping industry were assessed. The Impact Assessment and related studies are available at the Commissions website

 (243)

3.

The Commission issued an outline

3.

The Commission issued an outline

 (244)

4.

The Commission has not proposed the formal designation of additional SECAs in Europe as such decisions are for the IMO, and proposals must be made by the concerned countries.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000707/12

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Legal assistance

Could the Commission please outline if there is any funding available at EU level to provide legal assistance in a domestic parliamentary investigation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2012)

The Honourable Member should be aware that there is no funding available at EU level to provide legal assistance in a domestic parliamentary investigation.

The currently ongoing call for proposals for action grants under the Criminal Justice Programme (deadline: 20 March 2012) can provide funding for projects that cover access to legal advice and access to legal aid in the framework of criminal procedures.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000708/12

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: VP/HR — Attacking and kidnapping of EU nationals in the Afar region of Ethiopia

The Vice-President/High Representative will be aware of the reports from the remote Afar region of Northern Ethiopia, near the country’s border with Eritrea, where EU tourists from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Italy were attacked by gunmen; according to Ethiopian officials, the perpetrators allegedly came from Eritrea. It is also understood that several individuals of undetermined nationality were kidnapped and in all probability taken to the Eritrean interior. This attack, purportedly by Eritrean rebels armed and trained by President Afwerki’s regime, was carried out allegedly in retaliation for recent UN sanctions against Eritrea for its reported supply of arms to Al Shabab militants in Somalia. If these allegations are proved correct, it would confirm that Eritrea has a total disrespect for international law and human rights.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative outline what support and coordination between Member State representatives is being provided by the small EEAS delegation in Asmara to seek the freedom of the individuals kidnapped, and, if the allegations are proven, whether in the light of this hostile act by the Afwerki regime she will propose that increased international sanctions against the Eritrean Government, including those imposed by the EU, such as under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement, be commenced?

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

(17 April 2012)

Fortunately, the release of the two kidnapped German tourists has by now been confirmed and they are reportedly in good physical conditions. The EU Delegation in Ethiopia has been in close contact with the relevant EU Member States embassies in Addis Ababa. The High Representative/Vice-President remains concerned about the fate of the two kidnapped Ethiopians citizens that were kidnapped together with the two German citizens. Five European citizens are confirmed dead (two German, two Hungarians and one Austrian citizen), and three were injured, in the attack. Erta Ale is visited by many tourists often as part of an established tour circuit. Many embassies of EU Member States have been issuing travel warnings for this part of Ethiopia as this is not the first incident in the region. The EU appeals for calm on all sides, the investigation into the incident needs to continue to bring those responsible to justice.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-000710/12

till kommissionen

Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(3 februari 2012)

Angående: Martin Schibbye och Johan Persson, svenska journalister fängslade i Etiopien

Martin Karl Schibbye och Johan Persson är journalister och svenska medborgare.

De greps den 1 juli 2011 i Etiopien, misstänkta för terrorbrott efter att från Somalia ha tagit sig in i området Ogaden med gerillan Ogadens nationella befrielsefront (ONLF).

De vistades i området för att rapportera om oljeföretaget Lundin Petroleums verksamhet i regionen.

Den 21 december 2011 fann en etiopisk domstolen dem skyldiga till att olagligen ha tagit sig in i Etiopien samt till främjande av terrorism för sitt samröre med ONLF-gerillan.

Rättegången och domen har väckt reaktioner från Sverige, EU och USA och föranlett kritik från organisationer som Reportrar utan gränser och Human Rights Watch. Medier, inkluderande CNN, BBC, India Times och Al Jazeera, har fördömt rättsprocessen.

Den 27 december 2011 dömdes de båda till 11 års fängelse.

EU ger 674 miljoner euro i stöd till Etiopien under perioden 2008‐2013. Stödet är kopplat till målsättningar om mänskliga rättigheter.

Överväger kommissionen att villkora hela eller delar av EU:s bistånd med att Etiopien respekterar principerna om mänskliga rättigheter, mediefrihet och rätten till en rättvis rättegång, och därmed släpper Schibbye och Persson fria?

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

(1 mars 2012)

Europeiska unionen anser att dess stöd till Etiopien har gett mycket goda resultat. Tack vare EU-stödet är Etiopien, som är ett av världens fattigaste länder, åter i stånd att uppfylla millennieutvecklingsmålen senast 2015, särskilt rörande extrem fattigdom, hungersnöd och grundläggande skolutbildning för alla. Torkan på Afrikas horn under 2011 betonade behovet av ett fortsatt EU-stöd till Etiopien.

Demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter är väsentliga beståndsdelar i det partnerskap som ingåtts mellan EU och Etiopien. Även om EU har en stark önskan om att fortsätta partnerskapet i syfte att göra framsteg på områdena livsmedelstrygghet, fattigdomsbekämpning, ekonomisk utveckling och fred och säkerhet i regionen, är man oroad över respekten för de medborgerliga och politiska rättigheterna och de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheterna i Etiopien.

De positiva resultaten hittills bekräftar att partnerskapet är en effektiv lösning för är tillhandahålla stöd till Etiopien. Dessutom fungerar denna lösning som en plattform som gör det möjligt för EU att som partner diskutera mänskliga rättigheter, demokratiska principer, god förvaltning och rättssäkerhet. På så sätt kan EU till fullo utnyttja den pågående dialogen med Etiopiens regering för att ta upp problem rörande både medborgerliga, politiska och mänskliga rättigheter.

EU följer nära ärendet med de två svenska journalister som har dömts enligt Etiopiens terroristlagstiftning av en domstol i Addis Abeba. Den rättsliga processen är nu avslutad och Martin Schibbye och Johan Persson har accepterat domen. Frågan om Martin Schibbyes och Johan Perssons framtid bör därför avgöras inom ramen för etiopisk rätt. EU fortsätter att följa situationen och står i nära förbindelse med de svenska myndigheterna.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000710/12

to the Commission

Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(3 February 2012)

Subject: Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson, Swedish journalists imprisoned in Ethiopia

Martin Karl Schibbye and Johan Persson are journalists and Swedish nationals.

They were arrested in Ethiopia on 1 July on suspicion of terrorist offences after entering the Ogaden region from Somalia with guerrillas from the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF).

They were present in the area to report on the activities in the region of the Lundin Petroleum oil company.

On 21 December 2011, an Ethiopian court found them guilty of entering Ethiopia illegally and promoting terrorism on account of their involvement with ONLF guerrillas.

The trial and judgment elicited reactions from Sweden, the EU and the USA and brought criticism from organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch. Media outlets, including CNN, the BBC, India Times and Al Jazeera have condemned the legal process.

On 27 December 2011 they were both sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Over the period from 2008-2013, the EU is providing EUR 674 million in aid to Ethiopia. The aid is linked to meeting targets on human rights.

Is the Commission considering making EU aid conditional, in whole or in part, on Ethiopia respecting the principles of human rights, media freedom and the right to a fair trial, thereby leading to the release of Mr Schibbye and Mr Persson?

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

(1 March 2012)

The EU believes that EU aid to Ethiopia has yielded very good results. With EU aid, Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in the world, is on track to meet most of the MDGs by 2015, particularly with regard to extreme poverty and hunger, and universal primary education. The 2011 drought in the Horn of Africa only underlined the need for the EU's continued assistance to Ethiopia.

Democracy and human rights are essential elements of a partnership that both Ethiopia and the EU have subscribed to. While the EU has a strong desire to remain partners to make progress in the areas of food security, poverty reduction, and economic development as well as to peace and security in the region, there are concerns regarding civil and political rights as well as the respect for fundamental human rights in Ethiopia.

The positive results achieved so far confirm the effectiveness of the partnership approach in delivering assistance to Ethiopia. This also provides the basis on which the EU can speak as a partner regarding human rights, democratic principles, good governance and the rule of law, allowing the EU to make full use of the ongoing dialogue with the government to address concerns regarding civil, political as well as human rights in Ethiopia.

The EU is following closely the case of two Swedish journalists convicted under the Ethiopian Anti-Terrorism Proclamation by a court in Addis Ababa. The legal process is now closed and Mr Schibbye and Mr Persson accepted the verdict. The future of Mr Schibbye and Mr Persson should therefore be settled within the framework of Ethiopian law. The EU continues to follow the situation and is in close contact with the Swedish authorities.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000711/12

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(30 stycznia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Odmowa rejestracji białoruskiej partii

20 stycznia Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości Republiki Białorusi odmówiło rejestracji partii „Białoruska Chrześcijańska Demokracja”. Szef resortu oświadczył, że w dokumentach złożonych w celu rejestracji dopatrzono się szeregu nieprawidłowości.

Pragnę zaznaczyć, że ministerstwo konsekwentnie, już po raz czwarty, odmawia zarejestrowania partii, a odwołania do Sądu Najwyższego od decyzji resortu są oddalane.

W związku z tym pragnę zapytać, czy Komisja jest w posiadaniu dodatkowych informacji o prawdziwych powodach odmowy rejestracji partii „Białoruska Chrześcijańska Demokracja” i ma zamiar podjąć interwencję w tej sprawie?

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

(24 kwietnia 2012 r.)

Komisja Europejska oraz Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wiedzą, że władze Białorusi wielokrotnie odmówiły zarejestrowania partii „Białoruska Chrześcijańska Demokracja”. Według dostępnych informacji ostatni wniosek o rejestrację został odrzucony w dniu 19 stycznia 2012 r. z powodu rzekomych nieprawidłowości w złożonych przez partię dokumentach statutowych oraz wykazach założycieli.

UE wielokrotnie wzywała Białoruś do ułatwiania rejestracji organizacji społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i partii politycznych oraz do zmiany kodeksu karnego w celu zniesienia lub złagodzenia przepisów dotyczących kar za niezarejestrowaną działalność.

Pragnę zapewnić Szanownego Pana Posła, że UE nie będzie szczędziła dalszych wysiłków na rzecz pluralistycznej i demokratycznej Białorusi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000711/12

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Refusal to register a Belarusian party

On 20 January, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus refused to register the ‘Belarusian Christian Democracy’ party. The head of the Ministry stated that there had been a series of irregularities in the documents submitted with the registration application.

I would like to point out that the Ministry has consistently refused to register the party — this is now the fourth time — but appeals to the Supreme Court have been dismissed.

Does the Commission have any additional information about the real reasons for the authorities’ refusal to register the ‘Belarusian Christian Democracy’ party, and does it intend to intervene in this case?

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

(24 April 2012)

The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President are aware of the repeated refusal by the Belarusian authorities to register the Belarusian Christian Democracy party. According to the information available, the application was last rejected on 19 January 2012 because of alleged flaws in the founding documents and the lists of founders that the party had filed.

The EU has repeatedly called on Belarus to facilitate the registration of civil society organisations and political parties and amend the criminal code to abolish or alleviate the provisions relating to the penalisation of unregistered activities.

The Honourable Member may rest assured that the EU will spare no effort to continue working for a pluralist and democratic Belarus.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000712/12

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(30 stycznia 2012 r.)

Przedmiot: Konfiskata nakładu białoruskiej gazety

Jak potwierdzają ostanie wydarzenia, na Białorusi nadal ograniczana jest wolność prasy i środków masowego przekazu. 14 stycznia białoruska milicja skonfiskowała cały nakład niezależnej gazety „Kurier Witebski”. Powodem tej interwencji funkcjonariuszy milicji było najprawdopodobniej opublikowanie przez gazetę artykułu o więźniu politycznym – Alesiu Bialackim.

Projekt Partnerstwa Wschodniego nakłada na Unię Europejską obowiązek monitorowania przestrzegania praw człowieka na Białorusi. W związku z tym pragnę zapytać Komisję, czy ma zamiar podjąć interwencję w sprawie skonfiskowania nakładu gazety „Kurier Witebski” i wyrazić zdecydowany sprzeciw wobec szykanowania prasy i niezależnych dziennikarzy na Białorusi?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji

(1 marca 2012 r.)

UE wielokrotnie potępiała ciągłe prześladowanie społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, opozycji politycznej i niezależnych mediów na Białorusi, które ma miejsce od czasu wyborów prezydenckich w grudniu 2010 r. Szykanowanie niezależnych mediów, w tym gazety „Kurier Witebski”, jest kluczowym elementem tych trwających represji.

Zgodnie z informacjami posiadanymi przez Komisję, wydanie „Kuriera Witebskiego”, który jest zarejestrowany w Rosji i drukowany w Smoleńsku w nakładzie 10 000 egzemplarzy, zostało skonfiskowane w dniu 14 stycznia 2012 r. Przypuszcza się, iż podobna konfiskata nakładu tej gazety miała miejsce w kwietniu 2010 r.

UE będzie nadal zdecydowanie potępiać represyjną politykę władz białoruskich, w tym ich ingerencje w niezależne media. UE przyjęła szereg środków ograniczających wobec osób, które są odpowiedzialne za wspomniane ciągłe prześladowanie, a także będzie w dalszym ciągu zapewniać wsparcie zarówno dla organizacji społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, jaki i niezależnych mediów w celu wspierania ich działalności.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000712/12

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Confiscation of an edition of a Belarusian newspaper

As recent events confirm, press and media freedom in Belarus continues to be restricted. On 14 January Belarusian police confiscated an entire print-run of the Kurier Vitebski independent newspaper. The most likely reason for the police intervention was the newspaper’s publication of an article about the political prisoner Ales Bialiatski.

The EU is obliged under the Eastern Partnership project to monitor respect for human rights in Belarus. Does the Commission therefore intend to intervene in the matter of the confiscation of an edition of the Kurier Vitebski newspaper and take a firm stand against persecution of the press and independent journalists in Belarus?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2012)

The EU has repeatedly condemned the continued crackdown on civil society, the political opposition and the independent media in Belarus which has taken place since the Presidential elections in December 2010. The treatment of the independent media, including the Kurier Vitebski, has been a key part of this ongoing repression.

According to the Commission's information, an issue of the Kurier Vitebski, which is registered in Russia and printed in Smolensk in batches of 10 000 copies, was confiscated on 14 January 2012. A similar confiscation of an issue of the newspaper reportedly happened in April 2010.

The EU will continue to strongly condemn the repressive policies of the Belarusian authorities, including their interference with the independent media. The EU has adopted a range of restrictive measures towards those responsible for this ongoing crackdown, and will also continue to provide assistance to both civil society organisations and the independent media to support their work.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000714/12

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(1 Φεβρουαρίου 2012)

Θέμα: Νομοσχέδιο για το περιβάλλον και αντιρρήσεις των περιβαλλοντικών οργανώσεων

Η Ελληνική Βουλή επεξεργάζεται νομοσχέδιο που ενσωματώνει, μεταξύ άλλων, τις οδηγίες 2008/99 και 2008/98. Σε σχετικό με το νομοσχέδιο δελτίο τύπου που εξέδωσαν στις 19/1/2012 οι οικολογικές οργανώσεις Οικολογική Εταιρεία Ανακύκλωσης, Greenpeace, Δίκτυο Μεσόγειος SOS και WWF Ελλάς, τονίζουν ότι το σχέδιο νόμου ₫αποτελεί κατάφωρη εκτροπή από τους στόχους της Οδηγίας 2008/98₻. Πιο συγκεκριμένα οι οργανώσεις αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 27, το οποίο ενσωματώνει το άρθρο 11 της οδηγίας, τονίζοντας ότι ενώ η οδηγία σαφώς αναφέρει ₫… έως το 2015 χωριστή συλλογή καθιερώνεται τουλάχιστον για τα ακόλουθα: χαρτί, μέταλλο, πλαστικό γυαλί.₻ και ότι ₫Έως το 2020 η προετοιμασία για την επαναχρησιμοποίηση και την ανακύκλωση των υλικών αποβλήτων, όπως τουλάχιστον το χαρτί, το μέταλλο, το πλαστικό και το γυαλί από τα νοικοκυριά … πρέπει να αυξηθεί κατ’ τουλάχιστον στο 50 % ως προς το συνολικό βάρος₻, το νομοσχέδιο προβλέπει ότι ₫Έως το 2015, ενθαρρύνεται, η χωριστή συλλογή χαρτιού, μετάλλου, πλαστικού και γυαλιού₻. Οι οικολογικές οργανώσεις εύλογα θεωρούν ότι ₫δεν θα είναι υποχρεωτική η χωριστή συλλογή και θα μπορούν τότε οι στόχοι να επιτευχθούν σε μονάδες σύμμεικτης διαχείρισης₻.. ₫αυτή η “παράλειψη” αλλάζει τελείως το νόημα και το περιεχόμενο όλης της Οδηγίας και αντί να πάμε σαν χώρα υποχρεωτικά για χωριστή συλλογή στην πηγή, του χαρτιού, μετάλλου, πλαστικού και γυαλιού μέχρι το 2015, για άλλη μια φορά απλώς “ενθαρρύνουμε” (δηλαδή μπλοκάρουμε) τη χωριστή συλλογή. Έτσι ανοίγει ουσιαστικά ο δρόμος για σύμμεικτη διαχείριση αποβλήτων σε πολύ ακριβότερες μονάδες και εργοστάσια₻.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή: πώς σχολιάζει τα παραπάνω; Τι άμεσα μέτρα θα λάβει έτσι ώστε να εφαρμοστεί επιτέλους η χωριστή συλλογή των ανακυκλώσιμων υλικών, που απαιτείται από την οδηγία;

Απάντηση του κ. Potočnik εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(14 Μαρτίου 2012)

Στις 15 Φεβρουαρίου 2012, η Ελλάδα κοινοποίησε στην Επιτροπή τα εθνικά μέτρα μεταφοράς της οδηγίας 2008/98/ΕΚ για τα απόβλητα (245) (οδηγία πλαίσιο για τα απόβλητα) στην ελληνική νομοθεσία.

Η Επιτροπή θα ελέγξει πλέον τη συμμόρφωση των μέτρων με τις διατάξεις της οδηγίας. Σε περίπτωση που διαπιστωθεί τυχόν μη συμμόρφωση, η Επιτροπή θα προχωρήσει στις αναγκαίες ενέργειες (περιλαμβανομένων δικαστικών μέτρων κατά περίπτωση) ώστε να διασφαλίσει την ορθή μεταφορά των μέτρων).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000714/12

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(1 February 2012)

Subject: Environment bill and objections by environmental organisations

The Greek Parliament is currently drafting a bill to transpose a number of instruments, including Directives 2008/99/EC and 2008/98/EC. In a press release issued in this connection on 19 January 2012, the ecological organisations, Οικολογική Εταιρεία Ανακύκλωσης (ecological recycling association), Greenpeace, Mediterranean SOS Network and WWF Greece are stressing that the bill ‘flagrantly deviates from the aims of Directive 2008/98/EC’. Specifically, the organisations refer to Article 27, which transposes Article 11 of the directive, stressing that, although the directive clearly states ‘…by 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass’, and that ‘by 2020, the preparing for re-use and the recycling of waste materials such as at least paper, metal, plastic and glass from households…shall be increased to a minimum of overall 50 % by weight’, the new bill states that ‘by 2015, the separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass shall be promoted’. The ecological organisations justifiably consider that ‘separate collections will not be mandatory and this means that the targets may be met in mixed management units’‘this “omission” changes the meaning and content of the entire Directive and, instead of making separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass mandatory at source by 2015, once again it will simply be “promoted” (i.e. blocked). Essentially, this opens the way for mixed management of waste in much more expensive units and installations.’

In view of this:

What view does the Commission take of the above? What immediate measures will it take to implement fully the separate collection of recyclable materials as required under the directive?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2012)

On 15 February 2012, Greece notified to the Commission its national measure transposing Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (246) (Waste Framework Directive) into Greek legislation.

The Commission will now check its compliance with the provisions of the directive. Should any non-compliance be identified, the Commission will take the necessary steps (including legal measures where appropriate) to ensure its correct transposition.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-000715/12

till kommissionen

Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(30 januari 2012)

Angående: Miljövänliga resor

Skilda administrativa regler och momsregler skapar idag hinder för företag som arrangerar resor med turistbuss. Turistbussar måste betala olika momssatser och avgifter för att passera gränser inom EU.

Organisationen Sveriges Bussresearrangörer ger exempel på krav:

Belgien: 6 % moms och en ”Carnet” över alla passagerare.

Bulgarien: 22 % moms.

Danmark: registrering hos skatteverket och en vägskatt per person och kilometer.

Tyskland: 19 % moms och särskilt tillstånd för varje enskild buss från ”Finanzamt”, som ska sökas flera månader i förväg.

Frankrike: 5,5 % moms och bussresearrangören skall registrera sig hos franska skatteverket i förväg.

Polen: 8 % moms med ett komplicerat förfarande som leder till stora svårigheter.

Österrike: moms och att bussföretagen registrerar sig för en box hos ett webbaserat företag. Via boxen tar man betalt för körda km i landet.

Bussresor är miljövänligare än bilresor och flygresor. Fler bussresor och färre flygresor skulle bidra till EU:s klimatmål.

Avser kommissionen vidta åtgärder för att bussresor mellan olika länder inte ska missgynnas jämfört med andra trafikslag som flyg och personbil?

Svar från Algirdas Šemeta på kommissionens vägnar

(16 mars 2012)

Kommissionen är medveten om de problem som påtalats av företag verksamma inom persontransporter. I meddelandet om mervärdesskattens framtid (247) noterar kommissionen att de nuvarande komplicerade reglerna för internationella persontransporter i EU ökar företagens kostnader för efterlevnad, ökar risken för skatteflykt och kan leda till snedvridning av konkurrensen. Detta beror på att många medlemsstater tillämpar olika typer av undantag för dessa transporttjänster i enlighet med tillfälligt beviljade avvikelser.

I syfte att uppnå en väl fungerande inre marknad i EU kommer kommissionen att noga granska inte bara det nuvarande systemet för mervärdesskatt, utan även åtaganden enligt internationella avtal som EU och medlemsstaterna gjort för att införa lämpliga mervärdesskatteregler som innebär icke-diskriminerande behandling av persontransporter, oberoende av transportsätt.

Kommissionen har också alltid varit positivt inställd till kollektiva persontransporter och erkänner busstransporternas viktiga roll i transportsektorn. Därför har kommissionen redan vidtagit åtgärder för att se till att internationella bussresor inte missgynnas jämfört med andra transportsätt. I detta syfte har Europeiska unionen satt i kraft en heltäckande uppsättning regler som på ett effektivt sätt hanterar de relevanta frågorna. Förordning (EG) nr 1073/2009 (248) trädde i kraft 2009. När det gäller passagerares rättigheter har EU antagit regler som ger busspassagerare samma villkor som personer som använder andra transportsätt (förordning (EU) nr 181/2011 (249)). Regelverket fungerar väl och leder till att färre tvister rapporteras till kommissionen, och utan att underskatta frågans betydelse verkar sektorn således fungera utan större problem.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000715/12

to the Commission

Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Environmentally friendly travel

Differing administrative and VAT regulations are currently putting obstacles in the way of companies who organise coach travel. Coaches have to pay different VAT rates and fees to cross borders within the EU.

The Swedish National Coach Organisation provides examples of the requirements:

Belgium: 6 % VAT and a ‘carnet’ covering all passengers;

Bulgaria: 22 % VAT;

Denmark: registration with the Danish tax authority and a road tax per person and kilometre;

Germany: 19 % VAT and a specific permit which has to be obtained from the German tax office (Finanzamt) several months in advance for each individual coach;

France: 5.5 % VAT and coach operators must register with the French tax authority in advance;

Poland: 8 % VAT coupled with a complicated procedure which causes immense difficulties;

Austria: VAT and the coach operator has to register with a web-based company to install a box which is then used to calculate payment for the distance travelled in kilometres.

Coach travel is more environmentally friendly than car or air travel. More coach travel and less air travel would help the EU meet its climate targets.

Does the Commission intend to take measures to ensure that international coach travel is not disadvantaged compared with other modes of transport such as aeroplanes and passenger cars?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2012)

The Commission is aware of the concerns expressed by companies involved in passenger transport. In its communication on the future of VAT (250), the Commission notes that the complexity of the current rules applicable to international passenger transport in the EU increases the compliance costs of businesses, the risk of tax evasion and may result in distortion of competition. This is due to the application of different exemptions for those transport services in many Member States following their transitional derogations.

With a view to attaining the proper functioning of the EU internal market, the Commission will closely scrutinise not only the current VAT framework, but also the commitments contained in international agreements undertaken by the EU and Member States in order to establish appropriate VAT arrangements leading to the non-discriminatory treatment of passenger transport operators, independent of the mode of transport.

The Commission has also always been supportive of collective passenger transport, recognising the significant role of bus and coach transport in the transport sector and has already taken measures to ensure that international coach travel is not disadvantaged compared to other modes of transport. To this end, the European Union has put into force a comprehensive set of rules that effectively deal with the various issues involved. In 2009, Regulation 1073/2009 (251) entered into force. Moreover in the field of passenger rights the EU has adopted rules that bring the users of buses and coaches into equal footing with those using other transport modes (Regulation 181/2011 (252)). The legal framework is performing well, resulting in fewer cases of disputes being reported to the Commission, and therefore without underestimating the importance of the issue mentioned, the sector seems to be functioning without significant problems.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-000716/12

till kommissionen

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(30 januari 2012)

Angående: Tvångssterilisering av transsexuella i Sverige

Medlemmar i den svenska regeringen meddelade i förra veckan att regeringen inte kommer att försöka upphäva det befintliga kravet att transsexuella ska låta sig steriliseras innan staten erkänner deras kön.

EU:s kommissionär för mänskliga rättigheter har konstaterat att denna och andra påtvingade medicinska behandlingar är att betrakta som förnedrande behandling i strid mot rätten till värdighet och fysisk integritet, som finns inskriven i Europakonventionen och EU:s stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna.

— Vilka åtgärder planerar kommissionen mot tvångssteriliseringen av transsexuella i EU?

— Har kommissionen redan genomfört eller avser den genomföra studier om medlemsstaternas praxis och lagstiftning om könsbyte och i synnerhet tvångssterilisering som ett rättsligt krav för att erkänna en människas könsidentitet?

— Känner kommissionen till i vilka medlemsstater som sterilisering är ett krav enligt lagen för att en människas nya kön ska erkännas?

Svar från Viviane Reding på kommissionens vägnar

(29 februari 2012)

Kommissionen håller med om att det är viktigt att stödja främjandet av jämställdhet och transpersoners rättigheter. Kommissionen är medveten om att det rättsliga erkännande och de rättigheter som transpersoner har ofta beror på specifika medicinska eller psykologiska krav.

I vår Strategi för jämställdhet 2010‐2015 (253) ingår en undersökning av specifika könsdiskrimineringsfrågor som rör könsidentitet.

Kommissionen satte år 2011 igång studien Discrimination against trans and intersex people on the grounds of sex, gender identity and gender expression. I studien undersöks bland annat medikaliseringen och patologiseringen av transidentiteter och intersexuella kroppar och ger en översikt av dagens situation i medlemsstaterna. Resultaten av studien väntas föreligga första kvartalet 2012. När studien slutligen är färdig kommer kommissionen att undersöka lämpliga uppföljningsåtgärder.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000716/12

to the Commission

Anna Hedh (S&D)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Forced sterilisations for transgender persons in Sweden

Members of the Swedish government announced last week that it would not seek to repeal current requirements for transgender people to be sterilised before the state recognises their gender.

The European Commissioner for Human Rights has concluded that this and other compulsory medical treatments amount to degrading treatment, in breach of the right to dignity and physical integrity, enshrined in both the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

— What is the Commission doing to address the forced sterilisation of transgender persons in the EU?

— Has the Commission conducted studies, or does it intend to do so, into the Member States’ practices and legislation on gender reassignment and in particular into forced sterilisation as a legal requirement in order to recognise a person’s gender identity?

— Is the Commission aware of which Member States legally require sterilisation in order to recognise a person’s new gender?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2012)

The Commission recognises the importance of supporting the promotion of equality and the rights of transgender people. It is aware that the legal recognition and the rights that are afforded to trans community are often depending on specific medical or psychological requirements.

The strategy on Equality between Women and Men 2010-2015 (254) foresees to study the specific issues pertaining to sex discrimination in relation to gender identity.

The Commission launched in 2011 a study on ‘Discrimination against trans and intersex people on the grounds of sex, gender identity and gender expression’. The research explores, among other things, the medicalisation and pathologisation of trans identities and intersex bodies, providing an overview of the current situation in the Member States. The results of the study are expected in the first quarter of 2012. Once the final outcome of the study is ready, the Commission will look at the appropriate follow-up.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000717/12

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(30. Januar 2012)

Betrifft: Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Pakistan und EU-Förderung

In Pakistan kommt es regelmäßig zu Menschenrechtsverletzungen und zur Verfolgung religiöser Minderheiten. Laut „Asian Human Rights Commission“ wurden 161 Personen im Jahr 2011 auf der Grundlage der Blasphemiegesetze angeklagt und neun Personen auf deren Grundlage ermordet. Diese Gesetze sowie die gesamte pakistanische Verfassung stellen ein Regelwerk diskriminierender Bestimmungen dar: Beispielsweise haben religiöse und ethnische Minderheiten häufig keinen Zugang zu Bildung und Verwaltungsposten.

1.

Welche Maßnahmen hat die Kommission ergriffen, um Menschenrechtsverletzungen und der Verfolgung religiös Andersdenkender in Pakistan entgegenzuwirken?

2.

Ist die Vergabe der Fördergelder aus dem Finanzierungsinstrument für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (DCI) und dem ECHO-Programm an konkrete Bedingungen für Pakistan bezüglich des Minderheitenschutzes gebunden?

3.

Bei der Verteilung internationaler Hilfsgelder für die Opfer der Flutkatastrophen im Sommer 2010 sowie im Sommer 2011 sollen Angehörige religiöser Minderheiten von der Hilfe ausgeschlossen worden sein. Hat die Kommission die finanzielle Unterstützung der EU vor dem Hintergrund dieses Vorwurfes ex post überprüft?

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

(7. Mai 2012)

1.

Die EU beobachtet die Situation der religiösen Minderheiten in Pakistan sehr aufmerksam und ist sich deren schwieriger Lage sehr wohl bewusst. Die Religionsfreiheit ist in der pakistanischen Verfassung verankert, nach der der Staat auch die Rechte der Minderheiten schützen muss. Was die Rechte religiöser Minderheiten betrifft, nützt die EU kontinuierlich ihren politischen Dialog mit Pakistan, um Menschenrechtsfragen zur Sprache zu bringen, und hat eine Reihe von diplomatischen Demarchen unternommen. Der Menschenrechtsdialog im Rahmen des Kooperationsabkommens mit Pakistan ermöglicht einen regelmäßigen politischen Dialog über Staatsführung und Menschenrechte. Mit dem Maßnahmenplan, der vor kurzem mit Pakistan vereinbart wurde, wird dieser Dialog noch vertieft. Die EU hat dabei auf der Achtung der individuellen Rechte und der Minderheitenrechte bestanden. Wir werden uns auch weiterhin auf die Notwendigkeit konzentrieren, das Recht auf Religionsfreiheit eines jeden Menschen in Pakistan oder andernorts zu schützen.

2.

Die Förderung von Maßnahmen durch das Finanzierungsinstrument für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (DCI) ist grundsätzlich nicht an den Minderheitenschutz gebunden, da die Menschenrechtsfrage bei allen Kooperationsmaßnahmen berücksichtigt wird. Das Budget der Europäischen Initiative für Demokratie und Menschenrechte beträgt für Pakistan jährlich 900 000 EUR.

Die humanitäre Hilfe der Kommission beruht auf der Wahrung der Grundsätze Menschlichkeit, Unparteilichkeit, Neutralität und Unabhängigkeit. In das Projektzyklusmanagement wurde eine Reihe von Kontrollverfahren integriert, um sicherzustellen, dass die Mittel nach diesen humanitären Grundsätzen sowie nach dem Grundsatz der Unparteilichkeit und ohne Diskriminierung eingesetzt werden.

3.

Die EU hat dem Problem, dass Minderheiten möglicherweise von Hilfsmaßnahmen ausgeschlossen werden, bei der Unterstützung der Flutopfer von Anfang an Rechnung getragen. Nach den Überschwemmungen ersuchte die pakistanische Regierung die EU um einen Beitrag zum staatlichen Entschädigungsfond für Flutopfer. Einer der Gründe, warum die EU diesen nicht unterstützt hat, war, dass nicht klar genug hervorging, ob bei der Auswahl der Begünstigten auch niemand ausgeschlossen werde.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000717/12

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (NI)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Human rights violations in Pakistan and EU funding

Human rights violations and the persecution of religious minorities are frequent occurrences in Pakistan. In 2011, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission, 161 people were charged and nine people murdered under the blasphemy laws. These laws as well as the entire Pakistani constitution represent a set of discriminatory regulations. For example, religious and ethnic minorities often have no access to education and administrative posts.

1.

What action has the Commission taken to combat human rights violations and the persecution of religious dissidents in Pakistan?

2.

Is the awarding of funding from the Financial Instrument for Development Cooperation (DCI) and the ECHO program bound to specific conditions for Pakistan with regard to the protection of minorities?

3.

During the distribution of international aid money for the victims of the flood disasters in the summer of 2010 and the summer of 2011, members of religious minorities are said to have been excluded from the aid. Did the Commission subsequently review the financial support of the EU against the backdrop of this accusation?

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

(7 May 2012)

1.

The EU follows closely the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan and is well aware of their vulnerable situation. It should be noted that Pakistan’s constitution provides for freedom of religion and requires the state to safeguard the rights of minorities. Regarding the rights of religious minorities, the EU consistently uses its political dialogue with Pakistan to raise human rights issues, and has undertaken a number of diplomatic démarches. The human rights dialogue under the cooperation agreement with Pakistan allows for regular political dialogue on governance and human rights. This dialogue will be intensified following a recently agreed Engagement Plan with Pakistan. The EU has insisted that individual and minority rights be respected. We will continue to focus on the need to fully protect every individual’s right to religious freedom in Pakistan or elsewhere.

2.

There is no general conditioning of DCI activities to protection of minorities as human rights are mainstreamed across all cooperation activities.

The budget from the European initiative for democracy and human rights for Pakistan is EUR 900 000 annually.

As for the provision of humanitarian aid by the Commission, it is based on compliance with the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. A number of control mechanisms have been integrated throughout the project cycle management to ensure that the implementation of the funds is carried out in respect of these humanitarian principles and on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.

3.

The EU did take the problem of potential exclusion of minorities from aid delivery into account from the beginning of the flood response. After the floods, the EU was approached by the Government of Pakistan to contribute to the Government's Citizen Damage Compensation Fund. One of the reasons for the EU not to contribute was that it was not sufficiently clear that the mechanisms for choosing the beneficiaries were non-exclusive.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000718/12

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(30 gennaio 2012)

Oggetto: Urgente richiesta di divieto di caccia degli uccelli migratori tortora selvatica (Streptopelia turtur) e marzaiola (Anas querquedula)

La Convenzione internazionale di Washington ha come obiettivo quello di proteggere le specie minacciate di flora e di fauna mediante il controllo del commercio internazionale degli esemplari di tali specie.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 338/97 relativo alla protezione di specie della flora e della fauna selvatiche mediante il controllo del loro commercio, prevede (articolo 3) che nell'allegato A vi siano comprese le specie che figurano nell'appendice I della Convenzione di Washington e qualsiasi specie in via di estinzione ovvero talmente rara che qualsiasi volume di scambi potrebbe metterne in pericolo la sopravvivenza.

Il regolamento (CE) n. 407/2009 che modifica il succitato regolamento (CE) n. 338/97 inserisce nell'allegato A le specie di uccelli migratori tortora selvatica (Streptopelia turtur) e marzaiola (Anas querquedula) dandone perciò massima tutela.

La direttiva 2009/147/CE, prevede (articolo 7, comma 4), che l'attività venatoria rispetti i principi di una saggia utilizzazione e di una regolazione ecologicamente equilibrata e sia compatibile con la stessa direttiva. Pur vietando la commercializzazione di queste specie (Allegato III, articolo 6), essa annovera nell'allegato II/A (specie cacciabili in tutta l'Unione europea) la marzaiola (Anas querquedula), mentre nell'allegato II/B (specie cacciabili in alcuni stati dell'Unione europea) la tortora selvatica (Streptopelia turtur).

È evidente che se dette specie risentono negativamente del commercio internazionale con ogni probabilità risentono negativamente anche della caccia esercitata nei loro confronti in tutta Europa.

Alla luce dell'elevatissimo grado di tutela assicurato dalla Convenzione di Washington, ovvero dal regolamento (CE) n. 338/97, alle specie tortora selvatica (Streptopelia turtur) e marzaiola (Anas querquedula), ritiene la Commissione che sia assolutamente necessario, coerente ed urgente togliere queste specie dall'allegato II della direttiva 2009/147/CE, per renderle non cacciabili al fine di assicurarne un elevato grado di tutela come previsto dal regolamento (CEE) n. 338/87?

Risposta data da Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(7 marzo 2012)

L'onorevole parlamentare ha ragione di affermare che nell'UE si possono cacciare la marzaiola (Anas querquedula) e la tortora selvatica (Streptopelia turtur), la prima in tutti gli Stati membri e la seconda soltanto in alcuni Stati membri, poiché tali specie sono contenute, rispettivamente, nell'elenco di cui all'allegato II/A e in quello di cui all'allegato II/B della direttiva 2009/147/CE del Consiglio (255) (direttiva ₫Uccelli₻).

Le specie in questione non figurano nelle appendici alla convenzione sul commercio internazionale delle specie di flora e di fauna selvatiche minacciate di estinzione (CITES). Sono tuttavia contenute nell'allegato A del regolamento n. 338/97del Consiglio (256). L'inclusione è volta a rafforzare la tutela concessa a tali specie, in quanto garantisce che non possano essere oggetto di scambi a fini commerciali né all'interno, né al di fuori dell'UE.

La Commissione attualmente non prevede una revisione degli allegati della direttiva ₫Uccelli₻. Tuttavia, in cooperazione con gli Stati membri, ha avviato un esercizio di monitoraggio più rigoroso della situazione e delle tendenze degli uccelli selvatici europei utilizzando le relazioni di cui all'articolo 12 della direttiva ₫Uccelli₻ ed elaborando una ₫lista rossa₻ europea per gli uccelli. I risultati sono attesi per l'inizio del 2015.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000718/12

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(30 January 2012)

Subject: Urgent call for a ban on the hunting of the migratory birds the European turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) and the garganey (Anas querquedula)

The international Washington Convention aims to protect endangered species of flora and fauna by regulating international trade in specimens of these species.

Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein provides (Article 3) that the species listed in Appendix I of the Washington Convention shall be included in Annex A of the regulation, as shall any species threatened with extinction or so rare that any level of trade would imperil its survival.

Regulation (EC) No 407/2009 amending the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 338/97 adds the following species of wild migratory birds, the European turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) and the garganey (Anas querquedula), to Annex A, thereby affording them maximum protection.

Directive 2009/147/EC provides (Article 7(4)) that the practice of hunting shall comply with the principles of wise use and of ecologically balanced control of the species, and be compatible with the directive. Although marketing of these species is prohibited (Annex III, Article 6), the garganey (Anas querquedula) is listed under Part A of Annex II (species that may be hunted throughout the European Union), while the European turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) appears under Part B of Annex II (species that may be hunted in some States of the European Union).

Clearly, if these species are adversely affected by international trade, it is more than likely that they will also be negatively affected by being hunted throughout Europe.

The European turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) and the garganey (Anas querquedula) receive a very high level of protection under the Washington Convention and under Regulation (EC) No 338/97. In light of this, does the Commission believe that it is absolutely necessary, a matter of urgency and entirely coherent for these species to be removed from Annex II of Directive 2009/147/EC, making them species that may not be hunted, to ensure they enjoy a high level of protection as provided