“-Tatbestände haben?

Antwort von Frau Reding im Namen der Kommission

(3. Mai 2013)

Die Vizepräsidentin und Kommissarin für Justiz, Grundrechte und Bürgerschaft hat am 12. März 2013 in der Plenarsitzung des Europäischen Parlaments darauf hingewiesen, dass auf der Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten die systematische Datensammlung zu Hassverbrechen nicht so weit fortgeschritten ist wie sie sollte. Einem aktuellen Bericht der Agentur für Grundrechte ist zu entnehmen, dass nur vier Mitgliedstaaten umfassende Daten zu diesem Thema erheben (7).

Die Kommission will die Erhebung von nationalen Daten über Hassverbrechen verbessern helfen, indem sie durch Finanzierungsprogramme die Tätigkeiten der Interessenträger in diesem Bereich unterstützt. Die Kommission fördert auch die Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte bei der Erhebung von Daten über Erfahrungen mit Hassverbrechen. Das Thema der Datenerhebung wurde auch in der Gruppe der Regierungssachverständigen thematisiert, die eingerichtet wurde, um die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses zur Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit (8) zu unterstützen.

Der Kommission liegen keine Informationen zu der Anzahl der Hassverbrechen vor, auf die sich der Herr Abgeordnete bezieht. Bisher hat die Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte Daten zu den Erfahrungen von Immigranten und ethnischen Minderheiten mit krimineller Viktimisierung, einschließlich Hassverbrechen, erhoben und veröffentlicht (9).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003266/13

to the Commission

Martin Kastler (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Combating and recording of religious hate crimes in Europe

In March 2013, the European Parliament in Strasbourg adopted, with a large majority, a cross-group ‘resolution on strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and hate crime’ (P7_TA(2013)0090).

In paragraph 13 of the resolution, Parliament calls on the Member States to ensure ‘the collection of broader, reliable data on hate crime’ and the recording of this data by the authorities.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

As the Vice-President and Member of the Commission responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship stated at the plenary of the European Parliament on 12 March 2013, the systematic collection of data on hate crime at the level of Member States is not as well developed as it should be. A recent report by the Fundamental Rights Agency shows that only four Member States collect such data in a comprehensive manner (10).

The Commission aims to support the efforts to improve the collection of national hate crime data by providing assistance through its financing programmes to stakeholders' activities in this area. The Commission is also supporting the collection of data on experiences of hate crime by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. The issue of data collection has also been addressed in the group of governmental experts set up to assist Member States in the implementation of the framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia (11).

The Commission does not have information on the number of hate crimes referred to by the Honourable Member. To date the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has collected and published data on immigrants and ethnic minorities’ experiences of criminal victimisation, including hate crime (12).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003267/13

an die Kommission

Martin Kastler (PPE)

(21. März 2013)

Betrifft: Kürzungen beim konfessionellen Religionsunterricht an den Europäischen Schulen

Die Europäische Union stützt sich „im Bewusstsein ihres geistig-religiösen und sittlichen Erbes“ auf die „Grundlage gemeinsamer Werte“. So steht es in der Europäischen Charta der Grundrechte, die darüber hinaus in Artikel 10 jeder Person „das Recht auf Gedanken-, Gewissens‐ und Religionsfreiheit zuspricht und die Freiheit, seine Religion oder Weltanschauung (…) durch Gottesdienst, Unterricht, Bräuche und Riten zu bekennen“ garantiert.

Entsprechend sieht die Schulordnung für die 14 bestehenden Europäischen Schulen den konfessionellen Religionsunterricht als ordentliches Lehrfach vor, der in Inhalt und Personalrekrutierung in Absprache mit den „religiösen Autoritäten“ der Kirchen und Religionsgemeinschaften in der Muttersprache garantiert wird.

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003412/13

an die Kommission

Bernd Posselt (PPE)

(26. März 2013)

Betrifft: Religionsunterricht an den Europäischen Schulen

Wie beurteilt die Kommission Bestrebungen im Obersten Rat für die Europäischen Schulen, den Religionsunterricht in den Klassen 1 bis 3 von zwei auf eine Stunde zu reduzieren und diesen wichtigen Unterricht in den Klassen 6 und 7 ganz zu streichen, wenn im Geschichtsunterricht Unterrichtseinheiten über die Weltreligionen erteilt werden?

Wäre dies nicht eine gefährliche Reduzierung des Bildungsniveaus ebenso wie der Wertebasis der Europäischen Schulen, die die Kommission rechtzeitig stoppen muss?

Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission

(2. Mai 2013)

Der Oberste Rat der Europäischen Schulen hat das Generalsekretariat beauftragt, die Lehrpläne für die Sekundarstufe zu überarbeiten, um bestimmte Schwachstellen des Systems der Europäischen Schulen wie die Schulabbrecherquote, vor allem in den Klassen 4-5 der Sekundarstufe, zu verbessern und die vorhandenen Ressourcen effizienter zu nutzen.

Ein erster Vorschlag zur Reform der Klassen 1-3 der Sekundarstufe wurde im pädagogischen und im Haushaltsausschuss (13) der Europäischen Schulen erörtert und dem Obersten Rat der Europäischen Schulen im April 2013 vorgelegt (14).

Vorgeschlagen wurde beispielsweise, die dritte Sprache ein Jahr früher einzuführen (in S1 statt in S2) und den Sprachunterricht für kleine Schülergruppen sowie den Unterricht in der ersten Sprache und im Fach Religion/Ethik straffer zu organisieren.

Im Nachgang zu den konstruktiven Diskussionen im Obersten Rat bemühen sich das Generalsekretariat und die Arbeitsgruppe um die Fortsetzung des Dialogs mit den Religionsgemeinschaften und legen zur nächsten Sitzung des Obersten Rates der Europäischen Schulen im Dezember 2013 einen vollständigen Reformvorschlag für die Klassen 1-7 der Sekundarstufe vor, der sämtliche vorbereitenden Ausschüsse durchlaufen hat.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003267/13

to the Commission

Martin Kastler (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Reductions in confessional religious education at European Schools

The European Union, ‘conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage’, is ‘based on common values’. That is what is stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which also, in Article 10, guarantees everyone ‘the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ and ‘freedom … to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance’.

Accordingly, the rules of the 14 existing European Schools provide for confessional religious education as a proper subject, for which there is a guarantee that the content is provided in the mother tongue and mother tongue staff are recruited, in agreement with the ‘religious authorities’ of the churches and religious communities.

Question for written answer P-003412/13

to the Commission

Bernd Posselt (PPE)

(26 March 2013)

Subject: Religious education at the European Schools

What does the Commission think about the moves by the European Schools’ Board of Governors to halve the time devoted to religious education in classes 1 to 3, from two hours to one hour, and to do away with this important subject altogether in classes 6 and 7 if the world religions are taught in history lessons?

Would this not lead to a dangerous decline in educational standards and erode the values on which the European Schools have been built? Should not the Commission, therefore, act promptly to avert such an outcome?

Joint answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2013)

The Board of Governors of the European Schools has given a mandate to the Secretary General to prepare a revision of the organisation of studies in the secondary cycle in order to improve certain weak points of the European School system (ESS), including the drop-out rate, especially in the secondary years 4-5, and also to use resources more efficiently.

A first proposal covering a revision of the secondary years 1 to 3 has been discussed in the pedagogical and budgetary committees (15) of the ESS and was presented to the Board of Governors (BoG) in April 2013 (16).

The proposal included pedagogical improvements, for example the introduction of the third language a year earlier (in S1 instead of S2), and suggestions for more rational organisation of language courses for groups with a limited number of pupils, as well as of language 1 and religion/ethics classes.

The discussion in the BoG was constructive. As a result, the SG and the working group will find suitable means for a further dialogue with the religious authorities and will work on the presentation of a complete project for the revision covering S1 to S7 for the next BoG meeting in December 2013, after having gone through all the different preparatory committees.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003268/13

to the Commission

David Martin (S&D)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Situation regarding constitutional change in Hungary

There is extreme concern about the Hungarian government’s push for renewed changes to the country’s Constitution, with the Hungarian parliament set to vote on a fourth round of constitutional changes that will pose a severe threat to the fundamental European values of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and freedom of speech and of the media. I am aware of deep concerns both within and outside Hungary at the lack of challenge from the EU on many of the policies that are seen as breaking agreements and running counter to quite basic principles.

Should Mr Orbán decide not to take the Council’s advice and cease with these measures, what actions will the Commission then consider necessary?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2013)

The Commission is currently conducting a detailed legal analysis of the Fourth amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, in an objective, non-partisan and fair manner.

Based on a first legal analysis, and as explained during the plenary debate on 17 April 2013, President Barroso wrote to PM Orbán, on 12 April 2013, expressing the Commission's serious concerns about the conformity of these amendments with EC law. The Commission's concerns relate in particular to the conformity with EC law of the clause on ECJ judgments entailing payment obligations, of the powers given to the President of the National Office for the Judiciary to transfer cases and of the restrictions on the publication of political advertisements. On 2 May 2013, the Commission's services sent three administrative letters to the Hungarian authorities seeking further clarifications on these matters. Once its legal analysis is finalised, the Commission will take the necessary steps to start infringement procedures, where appropriate.

The Commission has also serious concerns with respect to the compatibility of these amendments with the principle of the rule of law and is closely working with the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, which will prepare an opinion on 15-16 June 2013 on the compatibility of the amendments with the principles of the rule of law and Council of Europe standards. The Commission expects the Hungarian authorities to take due account of this opinion and address it in full accordance with EU and Council of Europe principles, rules and values.

The Commission also asked the Hungarian authorities to engage in a political dialogue with the European Parliament in the preparation of a political resolution (17).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003269/13

à la Commission

Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(21 mars 2013)

Objet: Limite de l'importation de tabac en provenance d'un autre État membre

Le tabac tue 700 000 Européens par an. La Commission européenne a publié en décembre 2012 une directive (COM(2012)0788 final) qui vise à réduire l'attrait des produits du tabac et de leur consommation. Des millions de citoyens de l'Union européenne souffrent de maladies provoquées par le tabagisme auxquelles les systèmes publics de santé peinent à faire face en raison de l'assèchement des investissements publics.

Pour lutter contre le tabagisme, en particulier des jeunes, certains États membres ont augmenté de plus de 80 % leurs taxes sur les produits du tabac. Cependant, les consommateurs et les réseaux criminels utilisent les différentiels de prix entre pays européens pour faire des économies ou de la contrebande. D'après les estimations, la contrebande du tabac à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne est deux fois plus importante que la contrebande en provenance des pays tiers.

Cette contrebande touche particulièrement les zones frontalières. Une étude d'octobre 2012 montre qu'à Perpignan, ville française à la frontière de l'Espagne, 55 % de paquets vides ramassés étaient étrangers. Outre l'aspect criminel de la contrebande, les conséquences sont désastreuses pour les buralistes frontaliers, qui subissent cette concurrence déloyale de plein fouet.

Pour lutter contre ce marché parallèle, la France fixait le seuil maximal d'importation de tabac de l'étranger pour un particulier, à cinq cartouches de cigarettes. Or, par la décision du 14 mars 2013 sur l'affaire C-216/11, la Cour de justice a estimé que le code général des impôts qui limitait cette importation de tabac n'était pas conforme au droit communautaire et qu'il devait être modifié. Dans son argumentaire, la Commission accuse la France de rendre plus difficile l'achat de tabac dans d'autres États membres et, par conséquent, de restreindre la libre circulation des marchandises. Cependant, n'est-il pas contreproductif d'encourager l'achat de tabac dans d'autres États membres, là où les taxes sont moins élevées, pour des raisons de libre circulation des marchandises?

— Quelles mesures la Commission envisage-t-elle pour lutter contre ce «tourisme fiscal» transfrontalier qui annihile les efforts nationaux en matière de lutte contre l'attrait du tabac?

— La Commission envisage-t-elle une uniformisation de la fiscalité européenne sur les produits du tabac qui réduirait enfin cette concurrence entre États membres et entre buralistes transfrontaliers?

Réponse donnée par M. Šemeta au nom de la Commission

(8 mai 2013)

La Commission est fortement engagée dans la lutte contre le commerce illicite des produits du tabac et met actuellement en œuvre son plan d'action (18) conçu à cet effet. La Commission est également en train d'élaborer une stratégie globale de l'UE visant à combattre le trafic de cigarettes.En outre, le protocole de la Convention-cadre de l'OMS pour la lutte antitabac destiné à éliminer le commerce illicite des produits du tabac a été adopté et les parties sont invitées à le signer (19).

La Commission n’a pas l’intention de restreindre les droits fondamentaux des citoyens de l'UE en matière de mouvement à des fins non commerciales de produits pouvant être soumis à des droits d’accise. La directive 2008/118 (20) distingue les biens soumis à des droits d’accise détenus par des particuliers pour leur propre usage et les biens soumis à des droits d’accise détenus à des fins commerciales. L’affaire C-216/11 (21) portait sur les critères à appliquer au moment de déterminer à quelle fin les biens soumis à des droits d’accise sont détenus. La directive 2008/118/CE ne fixe pas de limites pour les biens soumis à des droits d’accise destinés à un usage privé. Ceux-ci peuvent, en principe, circuler librement à l’intérieur de l’UE (22). Les États membres s’appuient sur des recommandations pour estimer si des produits du tabac sont destinés à un usage privé.

La réglementation fiscale de l’UE est soumise à l’unanimité, ce qui rend difficile une harmonisation totale dans ce domaine. Un certain degré d'harmonisation a été atteint pour les taux d'accise et la structure fiscale. La directive 2011/64/UE fixe des taux minimaux pour le tabac. La Commission est en train d’analyser le fonctionnement et les effets de la réglementation afin d'évaluer la nécessité de procéder à une réforme législative.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003269/13

to the Commission

Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Restrictions on tobacco imports from other Member States

Tobacco kills 700 000 Europeans a year. The European Commission published a directive in December 2012 (COM(2012)0788 final) intended to reduce the attraction and consumption of tobacco products. Millions of EU citizens suffer from diseases caused by tobacco use, which public health systems are struggling to deal with due to cutbacks in public spending.

In order to combat tobacco use, especially by young people, certain Member States have increased duty on tobacco products by over 80%. However, consumers and criminal networks exploit price differentials between European countries in order to save money or smuggle products. The quantity of tobacco smuggled within the European Union is estimated to be twice the quantity smuggled from third countries.

Smuggling affects border areas in particular. According to a study prepared in October 2012, 55% of empty packets collected in the French town of Perpignan on the Spanish border were from abroad. Apart from the criminal aspect of smuggling, it has catastrophic consequences on cross-border tobacconists, who bear the full brunt of this unfair competition.

In order to combat this parallel market, France has restricted tobacco imported from abroad by private individuals to five cartons of cigarettes. However, in the judgment which it passed in case C-216/11 on 14 March 2013, the Court of Justice found that the General Tax Code restricting tobacco imports was in breach of EC law and should be amended. The Commission argued that France is making it difficult to buy tobacco in other Member States and is therefore restricting the free circulation of goods. Surely, however, it is counterproductive to encourage purchases of tobacco in other Member States which have lower duty on the grounds of the free circulation of goods?

— What measures does the Commission intend to take to combat this cross-border ‘fiscal tourism’ which is totally negating national efforts to combat the attraction of tobacco?

— Does the Commission plan to harmonise duty on tobacco products in Europe, thereby reducing this competition between Member States and between tobacconists in border areas?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

The Commission is strongly committed to combat illicit trade in tobacco products and is currently implementing its Action plan (23) to this effect. The Commission is also working on a comprehensive EU strategy with a view to fight cigarette smuggling. Moreover, the Protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products of the WHO FCTC has been adopted and is open for signature by the Parties (24).

The Commission does not intend to narrow the basic rights of EU citizens in non-commercial movements of excisable products. Directive 2008/118 (25) distinguishes between excise goods held by private individuals for their own use and excise goods held for commercial purposes. Case C-216/11 (26) concerned the criteria to be applied when establishing for which purpose excise goods are held. Directive 2008/118/EC does not lay down limits for excise goods intended for own use which in principle can be moved freely within the EU (27). Member States refer to guidelines when assessing whether tobacco products are for personal use.

EU tax legislation is subject to unanimity which renders full harmonisation in this area difficult. A certain level of harmonisation has been achieved for excise duty rates and tax structure. Directive 2011/64/EU sets minimum rates for tobacco. The Commission is currently analysing the functioning and effects of the rules with a view to assess whether legislative reform is required.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003271/13

aan de Commissie

Daniël van der Stoep (NI)

(21 maart 2013)

Betreft: Toegang voor vrouwen tot het schiereiland Athos

Het schiereiland Athos in Griekenland is een gebied waar vrouwen en zelfs vrouwelijke dieren al eeuwenlang niet mogen komen, kennelijk om het celibataire leven van de daar wonende monniken makkelijker te maken. (28)

In artikel 23 van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de EU staat vermeld:

„ De gelijkheid van mannen en vrouwen moet worden gewaarborgd op alle gebieden, met inbegrip van werkgelegenheid, beroep en beloning. ”

Is de Commissie het met mij eens dat de gang van zaken op Athos een inbreuk maakt op dit grondrecht, in weerwil van de door Griekenland bedongen speciale status van Athos in het Schengen-aquis? Zo niet waarom, niet?

Is de Commissie bereid deze misstand op te heffen door Griekenland  ter verantwoording te roepen? Zo niet, waarom niet?

Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie

(14 mei 2013)

De Berg Athos is een autonome monastieke regio van Griekenland met een eeuwenoude bijzondere juridische status. Overeenkomstig de gemeenschappelijke verklaring inzake de Berg Athos, waarin wordt erkend dat het aan de Berg Athos verleende bijzondere statuut uitsluitend wordt gerechtvaardigd door motieven van geestelijke en religieuze aard, verzekert de EU dat er met deze status rekening wordt gehouden bij de toepassing en verdere uitwerking van EU-wetgevingsbepalingen. De verklaring is een bijlage bij de slotakte van de conferentie die het Verdrag betreffende de toetreding van de Helleense Republiek tot de Europese Gemeenschappen (29) heeft vastgesteld. Bij de ondertekening van de Overeenkomst betreffende de toetreding van de Helleense Republiek tot de Overeenkomst  ter uitvoering van het Schengenakkoord hebben de partijen bij deze overeenkomst een soortgelijke verklaring aangenomen. Deze overeenkomst maakt deel uit van het Schengenacquis, dat in de EU-wetgeving is opgenomen (30).

Deze verklaringen zijn nog steeds geldig en relevant voor de interpretatie en toepassing van het recht van de Unie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003271/13

to the Commission

Daniël van der Stoep (NI)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Access for women to the Athos peninsula

The Athos peninsula in Greece has been out of bounds for women and even female animals for centuries, apparently to make it easier for the resident monks to live in celibacy. (31)

Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union says:

‘ Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. ’

Does the Commission agree with me that the state of affairs on Athos constitutes an infringement of this fundamental right, despite the special status of Mount Athos in the Schengen Acquis negotiated by Greece? If not, why not?

Is the Commission prepared to call Greece to account? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2013)

Mount Athos is an autonomous monastic region of Greece which is based on a centuries-old special legal status. In accordance with the Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos, annexed to the Final Act of the Conference that established the Treaty of accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities (32), which recognised that the special status granted to Mount Athos is justified exclusively on spiritual and religious grounds, the EU ensures that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of provisions of EC law. At the time of the signing of the Accession Agreement of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, the Contracting Parties to that agreement made a similar Declaration; this Agreement is part of the Schengen acquis which has been integrated into European Union law (33).

These Declarations are still valid andrelevant for the interpretation and application of Union law.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003272/13

aan de Commissie

Philip Claeys (NI)

(21 maart 2013)

Betreft: Klachten over de kwaliteit van de maaltijden bij de Commissie

Nogal wat ambtenaren gaan 's middags eten in de cafetaria van het Europees Parlement, hoewel de Commissie over eigen cafetaria's beschikt. Er bestaan naar verluidt veel klachten over de kwaliteit van de maaltijden bij de Commissie. Het heen-en-weergeloop leidt tot tijdverlies voor de Commissie-ambtenaren zelf, maar ook voor de ambtenaren van het Parlement, de leden en hun medewerkers die geconfronteerd worden met wachtrijen.

Heeft de Commissie al in kaart gebracht hoeveel ambtenaren 's middags in het Parlement gaan eten? Over hoeveel personen gaat het gemiddeld?

Het parlement financiert een deel van de kosten van de maaltijden die er geserveerd worden. Wordt dit verrekend met de Commissie? Zo ja, over welk bedrag gaat het op jaarbasis?

Welke stappen werden al ondernomen om dit probleem tegen te gaan? Werd er met de cateringfirma overlegd hoe de kwaliteit van de maaltijden bij de Commissie kan worden verbeterd?

Hoe lang loopt het contract met de betrokken firma?

Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie

(13 mei 2013)

De ambtenaren van de Commissie hebben slechts vanaf 13.30 uur toegang tot de kantine van het Parlement. Zo worden de bezoekers beter gespreid.

De Commissie beschikt niet over gegevens met betrekking tot het aantal personen dat in de kantine van het Parlement gaat eten. Desalniettemin wil de Commissie eraan herinneren dat een deel van de personeelsleden van het Parlement ook in de restaurants van de Commissie gaat eten.

Elke instelling beheert op onafhankelijke wijze haar eigen cateringdiensten. De Commissie kent geen rechtstreekse subsidies toe aan de contractanten. Op basis van een openbare aanbesteding in 2002 heeft de Commissie gekozen voor het bedrijf Eurest om haar cateringdiensten te verzorgen. Het contract loopt tot 8 januari 2014.

Elk jaar wordt bij de klanten van de kantines van de Commissie een tevredenheidsenquête gehouden. Bij de meest recente enquête van 2012 bedroeg de algemene tevredenheid 82 %.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003272/13

to the Commission

Philip Claeys (NI)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Complaints about the quality of meals at the Commission

Quite a few officials take their midday meals at the European Parliament’s cafeteria, even though the Commission has its own cafeterias. There seem to be many complaints about the quality of meals at the Commission. Walking there and back means that not only the Commission’s officials lose time but also the Parliament’s officials, MEPs and their employees because they have to wait in queues.

Has the Commission already established how many of its officials take their midday meals at the Parliament? What is the average number?

The Parliament pays part of the cost of the meals served at its cafeteria. Has this amount been settled with the Commission? If so, how much does it amount to on an annual basis?

What steps have been taken to solve this problem? Has the catering company been consulted on ways to improve the quality of meals at the Commission?

What is the duration of the contract with the company?

(Version française)

L'accès à la cantine du Parlement n'est pas autorisé aux fonctionnaires de la Commission avant 13 h 30 en vue d'éviter des pointes de fréquentation.

La Commission ne dispose pas d'informations concernant le nombre de personnes qui fréquentent la cantine du Parlement. Néanmoins, la Commission rappelle qu'une partie du personnel du Parlement fréquente les exploitations de restauration de la Commission.

Chaque Institution gère son service de restauration de façon indépendante. La Commission n'octroie aucune subvention directe aux contractants. Sur base d'un appel d'offre réalisé en 2002, c'est la société Eurest qui assure les services de restauration auprès de la Commission. Le contrat court jusqu'au 8 janvier 2014.

Chaque année, une enquête de satisfaction est réalisée parmi les clients des cantines de la Commission. Le taux de satisfaction générale de la dernière enquête réalisée en 2012 est de 82 %.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003273/13

aan de Commissie

Philip Claeys (NI)

(21 maart 2013)

Betreft: Aanwezigheid van commissaris De Gucht op missie in Rabat

Op 1 en 2 maart jongstleden bracht Commissievoorzitter Barroso een officieel bezoek aan Rabat. De Commissievoorzitter hield er besprekingen over binnenlandse zaken, bilaterale relaties en de geopolitieke toestand in de regio. Ook werd het opstarten van onderhandelingen over een vrijhandelsakkoord vermeld.

Om welke reden was commissaris De Gucht aanwezig op deze missie? Zijn naam wordt in dat verband nergens vermeld op de website van de Commissie.

Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie

(13 mei 2013)

Commissaris De Gucht nam niet deel aan de missie van Commissievoorzitter Barroso naar Rabat op 1 en 2 maart 2013 omdat hij in de Verenigde Staten was. Zijn missie naar Rabat, die aanvankelijk plaats zou vinden op 27 en 28 februari 2013, is uitgesteld tot een nader te bepalen datum.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003273/13

to the Commission

Philip Claeys (NI)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Commissioner De Gucht's participation in Rabat mission

On 1-2 March, President Barroso paid an official visit to Rabat. The President held discussions there on domestic affairs, bilateral relations and the geopolitical situation in the region. The launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement was also announced.

What was the reason for Commissioner De Gucht’s participation in this mission? His name is not mentioned in this context anywhere on the Commission’s website.

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

Commissioner De Gucht did not participate in President Barroso’s mission to Rabat on 1/2 March 2013 because he was in the United States. His mission to Rabat, that was initially foreseen to take place on 27/28 February 2013, has been postponed to a date to be determined later.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003274/13

a Bizottság számára

Iosif Matula (PPE) és Winkler Gyula (PPE)

(2013. március 21.)

Tárgy: A geotermikus energia felhasználását nehezítő akadályok felszámolása

A Bizottság „2050-ig szóló energiaügyi ütemterv” című közleménye szerint a megújuló energiaforrásokon alapuló fűtés és hűtés meghatározó szerepet játszik a szén-dioxid-mentesítési folyamatban.

A közlemény szerint a helyi és megújuló energiaforrások, köztük a távfűtési rendszerek alkalmazása révén el kell mozdulni az alacsony szén-dioxid-kibocsátással járó energiafogyasztás irányába.

A Bizottság nemrégiben kijelentette, hogy a geotermikus energia különleges szerepet játszik az uniós energiapolitikában. Európában jelenleg a megújuló energiamennyiség csupán 1%-a származik geotermikus energiaforrásból, és a geotermikus energiaforrásokon alapuló fűtés a teljes megújuló energiamennyiségnek mindössze 3%-a.

Ugyanakkor Románia nyugati régiójában számos termálvizű tó és tucatnyi 30 évvel ezelőtt fúrt termelőkút található, amelyeket adminisztratív és bürokratikus okok miatt jelenleg nem hasznosítanak.

Günther Oettinger válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. május 8.)

A megújuló energiaforrásokról szóló irányelv (34) rögzíti a megújuló energiaforrásokból előállított energia támogatásának jogi kereteit. A szóban forgó irányelv azonban technológiasemleges, azaz a tagállamok saját belátására bízza, melyik megújulóenergia-technológiának nyújtanak pénzügyi támogatást. A jelenleg hatályos román megújuló energia támogatási rendszer kétféle zöld tanúsítványt állít ki a geotermikus forrásból előállított és a hálózatba betáplált megújuló villamos energia minden egyes MW-ja után. A megújuló energiára vonatkozó román nemzeti cselekvési terv becslése szerint ez a technológia 2020-ra a fűtési és hűtési szektorban 80 ktoe energiát fog előállítani.

Az irányelv megköveteli a tagállamoktól, hogy a megújulóenergia-projektek esetében javítsák, korszerűsítsék és gyorsítsák fel közigazgatási eljárásaikat. Ez Románia esetében is fontos lépést jelentene a geotermikus energia jövőbeli elterjedése felé.

A geotermikus alkalmazások szélesebb körű használatának támogatása érdekében a Bizottság az Intelligens Energia Európának program keretében számos, e technológia szempontjából releváns projektet finanszírozott (35), egyebek között a nem technikai jellegű akadályok, a geotermikus energiába történő beruházásokra ösztönző megoldások és a finanszírozási eszközök témájában.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003274/13

adresată Comisiei

Iosif Matula (PPE) şi Iuliu Winkler (PPE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Eliminarea blocajelor în exploatarea energiei geotermale

În Comunicarea Comisiei „Perspectiva energetică 2050”, încălzirea și răcirea regenerabilă este considerată esențială în procesul de decarbonizare.

Conform comunicării, se impune o schimbare în consumul de energie înspre emisii scăzute de carbon prin valorificarea resurselor de energie la nivel local și a energiei regenerabile, inclusiv prin sisteme de încălzire urbană.

În urmă cu puțin timp, ați declarat că energia geotermală ocupă un loc special în politica de energie a Uniunii. În prezent, în Europa, doar 1% din energia regenerabilă provine din surse geotermale, iar încălzirea cu resurse geotermale reprezintă doar 3% din totalul energiei regenerabile.

În același timp, în regiunea Vest din România, există numeroase bazine de ape geotermale și inclusiv zeci de sonde forate în urmă cu 30 de ani care în prezent sunt neutilizate, din cauza unor blocaje administrative și birocratice.

Răspuns dat de dl Oettinger în numele Comisiei

(8 mai 2013)

Directiva privind energia din surse regenerabile (36) stabilește cadrul juridic pentru promovarea utilizării energiei din surse regenerabile. Directiva este însă neutră din punct de vedere tehnologic, și anume statele membre decid cu privire la ce tehnologii legate de energia din surse regenerabile să primească sprijin financiar. În temeiul schemei de sprijin aflate actualmente în vigoare în România pentru energia din surse regenerabile, se acordă două certificate verzi pentru fiecare MW de energie electrică din surse regenerabile produs din energie geotermală și exportat în rețea. În plus, Planul național al României de acțiune în domeniul energiei din surse regenerabile estimează că această tehnologie va oferi 80 ktep în sectorul încălzirii și în cel al răcirii în 2020.

De asemenea, directiva prevede obligația statelor membre de a-și îmbunătăți, raționaliza și accelera procedurile administrative atunci când este vorba despre proiecte din domeniul energiei din surse regenerabile. Ar fi important să se procedeze astfel, inclusiv în România, pentru exploatarea viitoare a energiei geotermale.

Pentru a promova o utilizare pe scară mai largă a aplicațiilor în materie de energie geotermală, Comisia, prin intermediul programului său Energie inteligentă — Europa, a finanțat până în prezent o serie de proiecte importante pentru această tehnologie (37), care s-au axat, printre altele, pe bariere fără caracter tehnic, pe soluții pentru creșterea investițiilor în energia geotermală sau pe instrumente de finanțare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003274/13

to the Commission

Iosif Matula (PPE) and Iuliu Winkler (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Removal of obstacles hindering the exploitation of geothermal energy

In the Commission Communication ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’, renewable heating and cooling are considered essential in the decarbonisation process.

According to the communication, a shift is required in energy consumption towards low carbon emissions through the utilization of local energy sources and renewable energy, including through district heating systems.

You have recently stated that geothermal energy has a special place in EU energy policy. In Europe only 1% of renewable energy comes from geothermal sources at present, and heating with geothermal sources represents just 3% of all renewable energy.

At the same time, in the Western Region of Romania there are numerous pools of geothermal water and dozens of boreholes drilled 30 years ago that are currently unused due to administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks.

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

The Renewable Energy Directive (38) lays down the legal framework for the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. However, the directive is technology neutral, meaning that Member States decide on the renewable energy technologies to be granted financial support. The Romanian support scheme for renewable energy currently in place gives two green certificates for each MW of renewable electricity produced from geothermal energy and fed into the grid. Moreover, the Romanian National Renewable Energy Action Plan estimates that this technology will provide 80 ktoe in the heating and cooling sector in 2020.

The directive also requires Member States to improve, streamline and expedite their administrative procedures when renewable energy projects are concerned. Doing so, including in Romania, would be important for the future deployment of geothermal energy.

In order to promote a wider use of geothermal applications, the Commission, through its Intelligent Energy Europe programme, has so far financed a number of projects relevant for this technology (39), which focused inter alia on non-technical barriers, solutions for increasing investments in geothermal energy or financing instruments.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003275/13

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(21. marts 2013)

Om: Løsgående søer

I Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF er det bestemt, at alle søer skal være løsgående fra 2013 (40).

Kommissionen har i et svar på spørgsmål H-0332/2010 (41) oplyst, at »udsættelse af tidsfristen den 1. januar 2013 som fastlagt i Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF(3) med hensyn til sammensætning af flokke af søer og gylte vil stille producenter, der har investeret for at nå fristen, i en konkurrencemæssigt ufordelagtig position. « (42)

Det er kun i ti medlemsstater, at alle svineproducenter opfylder Rådets direktiv til fulde. I Holland lever 98 pct. af producenterne op til kravene, i Danmarks lever 94 pct. op til kravene, mens kun 74 pct. af svineproducenterne i Frankrig lever op til kravene (43).

Det må på baggrund af ovenstående antages, at Kommissionen er enig i, at de svineproducenter, som overholder kravene i Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF, står i en konkurrencemæssigt ufordelagtig position i forhold til producenter, der ikke overholdene kravene i Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF.

Kommissionen bedes på baggrund af overstående oplyse, om den har indledt overtrædelsesprocedurer mod enkelte medlemsstater for manglende gennemførelse af Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF, og i så fald, hvilke lande?

Kommissionen bedes endvidere oplyse, hvordan den vil sikre, at svineproducenter i alle medlemsstater overholder Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg

(15. maj 2013)

For så vidt angår kravet om flokopstaldning af drægtige søer og gylte, er der i øjeblikket tolv medlemsstater, som opfylder kravet. Kommissionen indledte den 21. januar traktatbrudsprocedurer mod følgende medlemsstater: Belgien, Cypern, Danmark, Frankrig, Tyskland, Grækenland, Irland, Polen og Portugal. For seks medlemsstater er spørgsmålet stadig åbent, mens Kommissionen vurderer deres sager.

Det er endvidere medlemsstaternes ansvar at iværksætte de nødvendige håndhævelsesforanstaltninger og/eller sanktioner, jf. artikel 54 og 55 i forordning (EF) nr. 882/2004 (44) om offentlig kontrol, for at rette op på sitiuationen. Sådanne nationale foranstaltninger kan omfatte delvis lukning af avlssteder samt begrænsning af adgangen til markederne for dyr eller produkter fra enkelte erhvervsdrivende, som ikke overholder reglerne.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003275/13

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Untethered sows

Council Directive 2008/120/EC establishes that all sows shall be untethered from 2013 (45).

In its answer to Question H-0332/2010 (46) the Commission stated that ‘postponing the deadline of 1 January 2013 laid down in Council Directive 2008/120/EC(3) for the grouping of sows and gilts would put producers who have invested to meet this deadline at a competitive disadvantage’ (47).

The Council Directive is complied with in full by all pig farmers in only 10 Member States. In the Netherlands, 98% of producers meet the requirements, in Denmark the figure is 94%, while in France only 74% of pig farmers meet the requirements (48).

In view of the above, it has to be assumed that the Commission would agree that those pig farmers that meet the requirements of Council Directive 2008/120/EC are at a competitive disadvantage in relation to producers that do not meet the requirements of said Directive.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether it has initiated infringement proceedings against individual Member States for failing to implement Council Directive 2008/120/EC, and, if so, which Member States?

Can the Commission also state how it intends to ensure that pig farmers in all Member States comply with Council Directive 2008/120/EC?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2013)

With regard to the requirement for group housing of pregnant sows and gilts currently twelve Member States comply. The Commission on 21 February launched infringement procedures against the following Member States: Belgium Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Portugal. For six Member States the issue is still pending while the Commission assesses their cases.

It is furthermore the responsibility of the Member States to take all the necessary enforcement measures and/or sanctions as laid down in Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (49) on official controls to correct the situation. Such national measures may include partial closure of breeding sites as well as restriction of access to the markets of animals or products coming from individual non-compliant operators.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003276/13

a Bizottság számára

Bánki Erik (PPE), Mészáros Alajos (PPE), Sógor Csaba (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) és Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(2013. március 21.)

Tárgy: A Gyermekbarát internet program

Az EU által javasolt – a Biztonságosabb internet program részét képező – Gyermekbarát internet program jövője komoly veszélybe került. Az Európai Hálózatfinanszírozási Eszközről szóló rendelet elsősorban a műszaki megoldásokat és az infrastruktúra létrehozását érinti. Mindazonáltal úgy véljük, hogy kiemelkedő fontosságú a gyermekeket, fiatalokat, szülőket és tanárokat célzó, a biztonságos internetezéssel kapcsolatos képzés és tájékoztatás folytatása. Sajnálatos módon azonban az Európai Hálózatfinanszírozási Eszköz keretében csak minimális költségvetés áll rendelkezésre a Biztonságosabb internet program folytatására. A többmilliárdos beruházások ellenére a fiatalok továbbra sem fognak tudni biztonságosan internetezni.

Ennélfogva kulcsfontosságú lenne az évi 30 millió eurós költségvetési keret biztosítása a Biztonságosabb internet program mind a 27 tagállamban, valamint a csatlakozásra váró országokban való folytatása és kibővítése érdekében, ami összesen 210 millió eurót jelentene a 2014–2020 pénzügyi időszakban. Különösen fontos a gyermekek és fiatalok digitális jártasságának fokozása. Az EU-nak továbbra is működtetnie kell a forródrótokat és a segélyvonalakat a bajban lévő gyermekek és fiatalok segítése érdekében.

A fentiek fényében mekkora költségvetést javasolnak a Biztonságosabb internet program és a Gyermekbarát internet program folytatására?

Igaz-e, hogy a Bizottság a költségek jelenlegi 75%-áról 50%-ra kívánja csökkenteni a Biztonságosabb internet központok támogatását?

Igaz-e, hogy a program csak 2014. októbertől részesül támogatásban, amely a támogatások több hónapra való felfüggesztését eredményezi?

Igaz-e, hogy a 27 tagállam által aláírt, 2013-tól 2014 elejéig tartó időszakra vonatkozó szerződést az EU nem tudja maradéktalanul teljesíteni, mivel a költségvetési keret részben kimerült?

A Bizottság szerint lehetséges lenne-e a hardverre, a hálózati eszközökre és szoftverekre fordítandó tervezett összeg 10%-ának átcsoportosítása az oktatás és a figyelemfelkeltés, valamint a forródrótok és segélyvonalak működtetésének finanszírozására?

Neelie Kroes válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. május 7.)

A gyermekek számára megfelelőbb internet kialakításával foglalkozó közleményében a Bizottság elismerte, hogy a Biztonságosabb internet központok fontos szerepet játszanak a gyermekek védelme és felelős internethasználata terén.

A Bizottság rendkívül csalódott, amiért az Európai Tanács döntése nyomán 1 milliárd EUR-ra csökken az Európai Hálózatfinanszírozási Eszköz távközlési részére fordítható, 2014–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó költségvetés. Ez a lépés nehéz döntések meghozatalát vonja maga után a digitális szolgáltatási infrastruktúrák kiválasztása és finanszírozása terén.

Bármilyen döntések is születnek, a jelenleg javasolt szűkös költségvetési keret mellett a Bizottságnak nem lesz lehetősége valamennyi eredetileg javasolt beruházás és fejlesztés támogatására vagy a Bizottság által javasolt pénzügyi szinthez hasonló mértékű támogatására.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003276/13

do Komisji

Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) oraz Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(21 marca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Program „Lepszy Internet dla dzieci”

Planowany unijny program „Lepszy Internet dla dzieci” (stanowiący część programu „Bezpieczniejszy Internet”) jest obecnie bardzo zagrożony. Rozporządzenie w sprawie instrumentu „Łącząc Europę” dotyczy głównie rozwiązań technicznych i utworzenia infrastruktur. Uważamy jednak, że jest niezwykle ważne, aby utrzymać szkolenia i działania podnoszące świadomość w zakresie bezpiecznego korzystania z Internetu skierowane do dzieci, młodzieży, rodziców i nauczycieli. Niestety w rozporządzeniu w sprawie instrumentu „Łącząc Europę” przewidziano minimalny budżet na kontynuowanie programu „Bezpieczniejszy Internet”. Wielomiliardowe inwestycje mogą więc spełznąć na niczym, a młodzież nadal nie będzie umiała bezpiecznie korzystać z Internetu.

Dlatego też niezwykle ważne jest, aby przeznaczyć budżet w wysokości 30 mln EUR rocznie, czyli ogółem 210 mln EUR w okresie finansowania 2014-2020, na kontynuację i upowszechnianie programu „Bezpieczniejszy Internet” we wszystkich 27 państwach członkowskich oraz w krajach, które czekają na przyjęcie do UE. Podnoszenie umiejętności cyfrowych wśród dzieci i młodzieży ma szczególne znaczenie. Unijne gorące linie i telefony zaufania powinny nadal działać, aby nieść pomoc cierpiącym dzieciom i młodym ludziom.

W świetle powyższego, ile wynosi budżet proponowany na kontynuację programu „Bezpieczniejszy Internet” i przyszłego programu „Lepszy Internet dla dzieci”?

Czy jest prawdą, że Komisja zamierza zmniejszyć z 75 % do 50 % fundusze przeznaczone na centra bezpiecznego Internetu?

Czy jest prawdą, że program będzie finansowany dopiero od października 2014 r., co oznacza zawieszenie wsparcia przez wiele miesięcy?

Czy jest prawdą, że umowy podpisane przez 27 państw członkowskich na okres od 2013 r. do początku 2014 r. nie będą mogły zostać w pełni zrealizowane, ponieważ budżet został częściowy wyczerpany?

Czy według Komisji istnieje możliwość ponownego przeznaczenia 10 % kwot, które planowano przeznaczyć na sprzęt komputerowy, urządzenia sieciowe i programy, na finansowanie edukacji i podnoszenia świadomości, a także na operacje związane z gorącymi liniami i telefonami zaufania?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącą Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji

(7 maja 2013 r.)

W komunikacie dotyczącym lepszego Internetu dla dzieci uznano ważną rolę, jaką pełnią centra bezpiecznego Internetu pod względem ochrony dzieci i wzmacniania ich praw.

Komisja jest głęboko rozczarowana faktem, że Rada Europejska postanowiła ograniczyć środki budżetowe na część instrumentu „Łącząc Europę” przeznaczoną na telekomunikację do 1 mld EUR w latach 2014‐2020. Będzie to oznaczało konieczność podejmowania trudnych decyzji dotyczących wyboru i finansowania przyszłej infrastruktury usług cyfrowych.

Bez względu to, jakie zostaną podjęte decyzje, dostępne środki budżetowe zaproponowane na tym etapie są ograniczone i nie pozwolą Komisji na wsparcie wszystkich planowanych inwestycji i projektów rozwojowych lub nie pozwolą na udzielenie im wsparcia finansowego Komisji na podobnym poziomie.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003276/13

adresată Comisiei

Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) şi Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Programul „Un internet mai bun pentru copii”

Viitorul programului UE propus „Un internet mai bun pentru copii” (parte a Programului pentru un internet mai sigur sau SIP) este, în acest moment, foarte incert. Regulamentul de instituire a mecanismului „Conectarea Europei” (CEF) vizează în special soluții tehnice și crearea unor infrastructuri. Cu toate acestea, considerăm că este deosebit de important să se mențină formarea și sensibilizarea orientată către copii, tineri, părinți și profesori în ceea ce privește utilizarea în condiții de siguranță a internetului. Din nefericire, nu există decât un buget minim planificat în cadrul CEF pentru continuarea SIP. Astfel, ar putea fi irosite investiții de miliarde, iar tinerii tot nu vor putea să utilizeze internetul în condiții de siguranță.

Prin urmare, ar fi crucial să se prevadă un buget de 30 de milioane EUR pe an, adică o sumă totală de 210 milioane EUR pentru perioada financiară 2014-2020, pentru a continua și extinde SIP în toate cele 27 de state membre și în țările aflate în proces de aderare. Este deosebit de importantă sporirea competențelor digitale în rândul copiilor și al tinerilor. UE ar trebui să opereze în continuare liniile telefonice de urgență (hotlines) și, de asemenea, liniile de asistență (helplines), pentru a sprijini copiii și tinerii aflați în dificultate.

În lumina celor de mai sus, care este bugetul propus pentru continuarea SIP (viitorul program „Un internet mai bun pentru copii”)?

Este adevărat că Comisia intenționează să reducă finanțarea Centrelor pentru un internet mai sigur (SIC), de la nivelul actual de 75 % din costuri, la 50 %?

Este adevărat că programul va beneficia de finanțare doar începând cu luna octombrie 2014, fapt ce presupune suspendarea sprijinului timp de câteva luni?

Este adevărat că contractele semnate de cele 27 de state membre pentru perioada 2013 - începutul anului 2014 nu pot fi respectate pe deplin de către UE deoarece bugetul a fost parțial epuizat?

Consideră Comisia că ar fi fezabilă realocarea a 10 % din sumele planificate a fi cheltuite pe hardware, infrastructura rețelelor și software către finanțarea educației și a sensibilizării, precum și a operării liniilor telefonice de urgență (hotlines) și a liniilor de asistență (helplines)?

Răspuns dat de dna Kroeson în numele Comisiei

(7 mai 2013)

Comunicarea privind crearea unui internet mai bun pentru copii a recunoscut rolul important jucat de centrele pentru un internet mai sigur atât în ceea ce privește protecția, cât și responsabilizarea copiilor.

Este foarte dezamăgitor faptul că s-a convenit de către Consiliul European să se reducă bugetul alocat părții privind telecomunicațiile a mecanismului „Conectarea Europei” la 1 miliard EUR pentru perioada 2014-2020. Acest lucru va presupune luarea unor decizii dificile privind alegerea și finanțarea viitoarelor infrastructuri de servicii digitale.

Indiferent de deciziile luate, bugetul disponibil propus în momentul de față este limitat și nu va permite Comisiei să sprijine toate investițiile și să avanseze în ritmul pe care și l-a propus inițial sau cu un nivel similar de sprijin financiar din partea Comisiei.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003276/13

to the Commission

Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) and Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: ‘A Better Internet for Kids’ Programme

The future of the EU’s proposed programme ‘A Better Internet for Kids’ (part of the Safer Internet Programme or SIP) is now very much at risk. The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) regulation is primarily about technical solutions and establishment of infrastructures. However, we believe it is extremely important to maintain training and awareness-raising directed at children, young people, parents and teachers concerning the safe use of the Internet. Unfortunately, there is only a minimal budget planned in the framework of the CEF for continuing the SIP. Multi-billion investments could thus be spent in vain, and young people will still not be able to use the Internet safely.

Therefore, it would be crucial to provide a budget of EUR 30 million per annum, i.e. a total of EUR 210 million over the 2014-2020 financial period, in order to continue and expand the SIP in all 27 Member States and in the countries awaiting accession. Increasing the digital literacy of children and young people is particularly important. The EU should continue operating hotlines and helplines as well, in order to help distressed children and young people.

In light of the above, what is the proposed budget for continuing the SIP, the future ‘Better Internet for Kids’ programme?

Is it true that the Commission intends to reduce funding for the Safer Internet Centres (SICs) from the current 75% of costs to 50%?

Is it true that the programme will be financed only as from October 2014, entailing a suspension of support for several months?

Is it true that the contracts signed by the 27 Member States for the period from 2013 to the beginning of 2014 cannot be fully honoured by the EU because the budget has been partly exhausted?

Would it be feasible according to the Commission to reallocate 10% of the amounts planned to be spent on hardware, network facilities and software to the financing of education and awareness-raising, as well as helpline and hotline operation?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2013)

The communication on making a better Internet for children recognised the important role played by the Safer Internet Centres, both in protection and in empowering children.

It is a severe disappointment that the European Council agreed to cut the budget for the telecommunications part of the Connecting Europe Facility to EUR 1 billion for the years 2014 to 2020. This will mean taking difficult decisions about the selection and funding of future digital services infrastructures.

Whatever decisions are taken, the available budget proposed at this stage is scarce and it will not allow the Commission to support all investments and advancements originally proposed or with a similar level of Commission financial support.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003277/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Viitoarea revizuire a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1072/2009 privind accesul la piața transportului rutier de mărfuri

În cadrul audierii din 17 ianuarie 2013 privind revizuirea Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1071/2009 privind accesul la profesie și a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1072/2009 privind accesul la piața transportului rutier de mărfuri, Comisia a prezentat o listă de posibile măsuri. Comisia este rugată să precizeze când va publica concluziile acestei audieri și când are intenția de a înainta Parlamentului și Consiliului propuneri legislative în acest domeniu.

De asemenea, atragem atenția asupra următoarelor solicitări ale transportatorilor din România:

Comisia este rugată să precizeze ce măsuri ar putea avea în vedere pentru soluționarea acestor solicitări (punctele 1-3).

Răspuns dat de dl Kallas în numele Comisiei

(26 aprilie 2013)

Ar fi însă nevoie de resurse semnificative pentru colectarea, traducerea și publicarea online a volumului mare de informații constituit din legi naționale derivate din acquis-ul privind transportul rutier. Prin urmare, Comisia încurajează statele membre să furnizeze aceste informații transportatorilor de marfă într-o manieră ușor de utilizat.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003277/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Future revision of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on access to the road haulage market

At the hearing of 17 January 2013 on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 on access to occupation and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on access to the road haulage market, the Commission presented a list of possible measures. Can the Commission specify when it will publish the conclusions of this hearing and when it intends to submit legislative proposals in this area to the Parliament and the Council?

Similarly, we are drawing your attention to the following requests of hauliers from Romania:

Can the Commission state what measures it has in mind to address these requests (points 1-3)?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2013)

1 and 2. The Commission encourages cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of the road haulage acquis, as well as transport information of hauliers. However the bulk of information made up by national legislation deriving from the road transport acquis would require significant resources to compile, translate and make available online. The Commission therefore encourages Member States to provide this information to hauliers in a user friendly manner.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003278/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Un nou tip de gripă porcină rezistentă la medicamente

Recent, un grup de experți australieni s-a arătat preocupat de amenințarea pe care o prezintă un nou tip de gripă porcină, rezistentă la medicamente, arătând că populația ar trebui să fie alertată, deși cazurile sunt încă relativ rare. Experții din Marea Britanie au confirmat situații similare. Cercetătorii sunt îngrijorați de riscul ca acest virus să se răspândească la nivel global.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze:

Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei

(6 mai 2013)

Comisia este la curent cu situația epidemiologică a gripei porcine și monitorizează îndeaproape situația din Europa, în colaborare cu Centrul European de Prevenire şi Control al Bolilor (ECDC), care a publicat o evaluare a riscurilor (50) privind epidemia de gripă A(H3N2v) din America de Nord.

ECDC cunoaște situația cu care se confruntă Australia și estimează că aceasta nu constituie deocamdată o amenințare pentru cetățenii europeni. În paralel, Autoritatea Europeană pentru Siguranța Alimentară (EFSA), împreună cu experți din domeniul sănătății publice, evaluează în prezent riscurile pe care gripa A(H3N2v) le poate prezenta pentru sănătatea animalelor, precum și efectele acestei boli asupra sănătății oamenilor și animalelor.

Dovezile privind răspândirea virusului de la om la om sunt în număr foarte limitat.

Comisia și statele membre dispun de mecanisme de supraveghere, de monitorizare și de intervenție de urgență în domeniul sănătății umane și animale, care le permit să reacționeze rapid și coordonat în caz de pătrundere a virusului gripei A(H3N2v) pe teritoriul UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003278/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: New type of drug-resistant swine flu

A group of Australian experts were recently concerned by the threat of a new type of drug‐resistant swine flu, stating that the population should be alerted even though cases are still relatively rare. Experts from the United Kingdom confirmed similar situations. Researchers are concerned about the risk of this virus spreading globally.

Can the Commission state:

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

The Commission is aware of the epidemiological situation of influenza in swine. It closely monitors the situation in Europe in collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), which has published a risk assessment (51) regarding the influenza A(H3N2v) outbreak in North America.

The ECDC is aware of the Australian experience and estimates that so far it does not pose a threat to European citizens. The European Food Authority (EFSA), together with public health experts, is currently also assessing the risks that Influenza A (H3N2v) may pose to animal health and the impacts on animal and human health.

Evidence of person-to-person spread of this virus is very limited.

Surveillance, monitoring and emergency response mechanisms in the human and animal health areas are in place in the Commission and Member States allowing a rapid and coordinated reaction should the Influenza A(H3N2v) virus enter the EU territory.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003279/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Compensarea pierderilor producătorilor români de lapte în urma crizei aflatoxinei

În România, vânzările de lapte au scăzut cu aproape 45% în a doua jumătate a lunii martie ca urmare a unor suspiciuni de contaminare cu aflatoxină, care au determinat scăderea încrederii consumatorilor în calitatea produselor. Producătorii au fost obligați să distrugă circa 10 milioane de litri de lapte pe săptămână, conform reprezentanților asociațiilor de crescători de vaci de lapte.

Precizez că o situație similară s-a întâlnit și în Ungaria. Totodată, această criză a afectat și procesatorii din alte state membre, care au fost puși în imposibilitatea de a se aproviziona din România.

Comisia este rugată să răspundă la următoarele întrebări:

Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei

(30 aprilie 2013)

Sunt prevăzute măsuri excepționale în caz de restricții comerciale rezultate din aplicarea măsurilor de combatere a răspândirii bolilor animalelor (52), atunci când prețurile de pe piața Uniunii cresc sau scad semnificativ (53) sau atunci când prețurile de pe piața mondială ating un nivel care perturbă sau riscă să perturbe disponibilul necesar pentru aprovizionarea pieței Uniunii, iar situația este probabil să continue sau să se înrăutățească (54). Cum nu s-au raportat astfel de efecte, Comisia nu poate lua în considerare compensarea pierderilor menționate de distinsul membru, deoarece cazul respectiv nu corespunde niciuneia dintre situațiile în care se pot lua măsuri excepționale în sectorul laptelui.

În alte sectoare, se pot lua măsuri în caz de perturbări grave ale pieței, legate direct de o pierdere a încrederii consumatorilor cauzată de existența unor riscuri pentru sănătatea publică sau pentru sănătatea animală (55). În cadrul reformei PAC, Comisia a propus extinderea acestei posibilități la sectorul laptelui (56).

În conformitate cu regulamentul Consiliului referitor la ajutoarele de stat (57), regulamentele de minimis ale Comisiei pot fi modificate dacă se schimbă împrejurările referitoare la un element important care a determinat adoptarea lor sau dacă evoluția progresivă sau funcționarea pieței comune impune acest lucru. Criza aflatoxinei din România nu este suficientă pentru a justifica modificarea regulamentului Comisiei referitor la ajutoarele de minimis în sectorul agricol (58).

Comisia dorește să îl informeze pe distinsul membru că regulamentul menționat expiră la 31.12.2013. În prezent, Comisia pregătește un nou regulament și culege date pentru a determina la ce nivel poate fi stabilit plafonul de minimis fără a se denatura sau fără a risca să se denatureze concurența.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003279/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Compensation for losses for Romanian milk producers following the aflatoxin crisis

Milk sales fell by almost 45% in Romania in the second half of March following suspicions of contamination with aflatoxin, which led to falling consumer confidence in product quality. According to representatives of dairy farmers’ associations, producers were forced to destroy around 10 million litres of milk per week.

A similar situation took place in Hungary. At the same time, the crisis also affected processors in other Member States who were unable to obtain supplies from Romania.

Can the Commission answer the following questions?

aid in order to allow the Romanian state to intervene in this crisis?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2013)

Exceptional measures are foreseen in case of trade restrictions which may result from the application of measures against the spread of diseases in animals (59), where prices on the Union market rise of fall significantly (60), or where prices on the world market reach a level that disrupts or threatens to disrupt the availability of supply on the Union market and where that situation is likely to continue or to deteriorate (61). Such effects are not reported. Therefore, the Commission cannot consider compensating the losses referred to by the Honourable Member because the case does not match any of the situations in which exceptional measures may be taken in the milk sector.

In other sectors, measures may be taken in case of serious market disturbances directly attributed to a loss in consumer confidence due to public health or animal health risks (62). Under the CAP reform, the Commission has proposed to extend this possibility to the milk sector (63).

According to the Council Regulation on state aid (64), the Commission de minimis Regulations may be amended where circumstances have changed with respect to any important element that constituted grounds for its adoption or where the progressive development or the functioning of the common market so requires. The aflatoxin crisis in Romania is insufficient to justify amending the Commission agricultural de minimis Regulation (65).

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the agricultural de minimis Regulation expires on 31.12.2013. The Commission is currently preparing a new Regulation and is collecting data to establish at which level the de minimis ceiling can be fixed without distorting, or risking to distort, competition.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003283/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Consumer Classroom programme

The Commission’s new Consumer Classroom website for teachers, which provides resources and interactive tools for teaching 12 to 18 year olds a range of subjects and practical consumer skills, is an innovative way to merge technology and education.

Could the Commission outline which Member States will benefit from this programme and the budget that has been set aside to see it through to fruition?

How many participants does the Commission expect to make use of the Consumer Classroom over a defined period of time?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

Teachers, pupils and other interested parties (consumer associations, authorities) in all Member States will have access and benefit from the opportunities for exchanging best practices and teaching materials the Consumer Classroom offers. As it is a collaborative site, it will grow and develop in function of the involvement, demand and input of teachers and other participants.

Consumer Classroom costs from 2011 to date amount to EUR 2.5 million, which includes development, promotion and implementation through February 2014. Further funding as planned for research, promotion, user-requested translations, as well as hosting/maintenance through February 2015, adds up to EUR 0.8 million.

During its start-up phase, the Consumer Classroom aims to recruit a teachers' community of at least 2 000 registered users by the end of 2013; non-registered visitors are expected to increase to 50 000 per month.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003284/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: European Day for the Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism

The European Day for the Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism was marked in Northern Ireland and across Europe on 11 March 2013. In order to move forward from the terrorist atrocities that have taken place throughout Europe it is essential that we are mindful of the past.

As the Commission’s action arm for educating EU citizens on terrorism, how will the Radicalisation Awareness Network enable nationals from every Member State to connect, to share experiences and to learn from each other, on the European Day for the Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism and throughout the rest of the year?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The Commission is very much involved in the commemoration and support of victims of terrorism. As every year since 2005, on 11 March, the Commission took part in the European Day on Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism. This year a photo exhibition called ‘Europe against terrorism — the glance of victims’, developed by the Spanish association ‘Fundación Miguel Ángel Blanco’ and financed by the Commission, was presented in the premises of the EU Committee of the Regions. On this occasion, the directive of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (including victims of terrorism) was presented to victims of terrorism.

In addition to funding of projects, the Commission is in the process of establishing a new European Network of Associations of Victims of Terrorism aimed at enhancing the representation of victims' interests at European Union level, and raise awareness among European citizens in order to strengthen European solidarity with victims of terrorism. This Network will continue the work of the previous Network, the contract for which has recently come to an end.

Victims of terrorism also have an important place in the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN). The RAN's overall objective is to facilitate preventative cooperation, and to share experience and lessons learned amongst practitioners involved in countering violent extremism. One of the eight subgroups of the RAN is specifically devoted to the ‘voices of victims of terrorism’ and is mainly composed of associations of victims of terrorism. Within this group, the RAN offer the opportunity to play an active role in prevention of radicalisation leading to terrorism or violent extremism.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003285/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Farmers’ markets and diversification of high street shopping

Farmers’ markets are a vital and vibrant aspect of local communities. They are a means of supporting and promoting local produce and local industry right across the European Union.

Does the Commission recognise the cultural and economic value of farmers’ markets?

How does the Commission support these micro-businesses and help and encourage them to take advantage of the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2013)

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development provides different tools for farmers and micro-businesses to develop, such as investment in processing and marketing, creation of new products and technologies, promotional activities and other non-agricultural activities. Furthermore, transnational cooperation projects under the Leader programme (66) could also contain support to rural SMEs (common marketing activities, participation at fairs, etc).

The support and encouragement will be maintained in the future Rural Development policy (67), as one of the proposed priorities of the rural development policy involves ‘better integrating primary producers into the food chain through quality schemes, promotion in local markets and short supply [chains]….’. The draft Regulation offers a very wide scope with regard to the exact operations which could be supported in connection with short supply chains and local markets. The most relevant measures could be the ‘cooperation’, the ‘quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs’ and the ‘farm and business development’ measures. Under these measures, support can be provided for the setting-up / running of ‘farmers' markets’ selling local farmers' produce direct to consumers in nearby towns.

In accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (68), the Commission is preparing a report on local farming and direct sales labelling schemes to assists producers in marketing their produce locally.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003286/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Fuel laundering

Criminal activity involving fuel crime is a huge problem, particularly on the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border and at many other EU land borders. Fuel laundering costs Member States millions in lost excise duty, takes business away from legitimate organisations, funds organised crime and leaves behind waste that pollutes the environment and scars the countryside.

Does the Commission have an action plan to tackle fuel laundering in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

The Commission services are aware of the illegal practices of removing the fiscal marker and of misusing gas oil, generally referred to as ‘fuel laundering’ in the UK and in Ireland. The Commission is not aware of widespread cases of fuel laundering in other EU Member States.

Collecting taxes and dealing directly with tax fraud and tax evasion fall within the specific competences of individual EU Member States. At this stage the Commission does not envisage an EU action plan dedicated specifically to tackle fuel laundering in the EU as this problem would best be addressed at local level, as illustrated by successful operations on 13 March this year involving substantial cross-border collaboration, and again on 11 April this year within Co Louth.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003287/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Human rights abuses in China

In light of the election of a new President of the People’s Republic of China, does the Commission intend to renew its call for the administration to tackle the widely-reported human rights violations and political oppression within the country?

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

(13 May 2013)

The HR/VP shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding human rights violations and political oppression in China, particularly with regard to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief, and has paid particular attention to the deteriorating Tibetan human rights situation throughout 2012. This commitment is maintained in 2013. The EU is certainly intending to use the opportunities of engagement during 2013 — not least at the 16th EU-China Summit — to map out the further course of the relationship and continue to work towards a more effective human rights dialogue. The EU Special Representative for Human Rights is also taking a close interest in these matters.

Following the leadership change in China, the EU is currently in the process of resuming its working relations with the new Chinese administration. For the purpose of a first encounter, the HR/VP travelled to Beijing and Xi'an on 25-28 April. The new Chinese interlocutor for the Human Rights Dialogue, Li Jinghua, has recently assumed office, and the dates of the next session of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue are presently under discussion.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003288/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Large denomination banknotes

Money laundering is a huge problem for every region and every currency in the European Union. Northern Ireland and sterling are just as vulnerable despite being outside the eurozone.

It has long been suggested that large denomination bank notes such as the EUR 500 note are particularly attractive to money launderers. Does the Commission have plans to remove this bank note from circulation?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

According to the Treaty, the European Central Bank has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. Given the ECB's rights with regard to euro banknotes, the Commission cannot decide to change their denomination.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003289/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Poverty in Romania

Despite accession to the European Union in 2007 many millions of Romanian citizens continue to face conditions of extreme poverty.

Some reports indicate that Romani life expectancy can be as low as 40-45 years and that government support is often as little as EUR 20 per adult and EUR 8 per child. Furthermore, many vulnerable orphaned children do not receive the basic care, protection and support that they are entitled to as a fundamental human right.

Is the Commission aware of this situation, and what is it doing to alleviate this sort of poverty within Romania?

Does the Commission have a plan which would try to ensure that citizens living in poverty in Romania are given immediate assistance and help?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2013)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern with regard to the conditions of extreme poverty in Romania.

As matters related to social field fall primarily under the competence of the Member States, the Commission aims at supporting and facilitating their actions, as well as at promoting the fight against poverty across the EU.

The Europe 2020 strategy aims at reducing poverty by at least 20 million until 2020. In this framework, Romania committed to lift out of poverty 580 000 people. The Commission encourages Member States to take action and monitors progress including via Country Specific Recommendations.

Through the Social Investment Package, the Commission urged EU countries to put more emphasis on social investment, investing in human capital and enhancing people's capacities whilst ensuring an adequate livelihood through income support. Moreover, the recommendation Investing in children — breaking the cycle of disadvantage  (69), proposes a common framework through policy guidance and indicators to help the EU and Member States focus on successful social investment towards children.

Financially, there are EU instruments, such as Structural Funds and the upcoming Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, to invest in actions promoting access to the labour market and social inclusion, thus helping to reduce poverty. For example, the ESF in Romania co-finances projects addressing Roma people, one of the poorest population groups. The latest data show that 102 contracts targeting Roma have been signed for a total value of EUR 253.36 million for 2007-2013 . Until end April 2013 approximately 33 000 Roma people had participated in projects co-financed by the ESF.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003290/13

to the Commission

James Nicholson (ECR)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Progress of EU in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

In 2010, almost three-quarters of all energy consumed in the EU came from fossil fuels, with 35% from oil, 27% from gas and 16% from coal.

Will the Commission outline its current progress in reducing the EU’s reliance on fossil fuels in light of its long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2015?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2013)

The EU is making continued progress in decreasing its reliance on fossil fuels (70).

This decreasing trend is projected to continue through the EU's policies to increase the share of renewables and to improve energy efficiency, including the fuel efficiency of vehicles via the regulations on cars and vans (71) and the recently proposed alternative fuels strategy (72). Also the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, which was one of the key milestones set for 2020 in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (73), contributes to this end.

The Renewable Energy Directive adopted in 2009 sets binding targets for renewable energy. It focuses on achieving a 20% share of renewable energy in the EU overall energy consumption by 2020. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption.

According to the recent first Renewable Energy Progress Report (74), most Member States experienced significant growth in renewable energy consumption. 2010 figures indicate that the EU as a whole is on its trajectory towards the 2020 targets with a renewable energy share of 12.7%.

The 2050 Low-carbon and Energy Roadmaps (75), that explore routes up to 2050 which could enable the EU to deliver greenhouse gas reductions in line with the 80 to 95% target, show that energy efficiency and renewable energy will play a key role also beyond 2020. The recently published Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies (76) takes stock of the progress achieved so far.

According to projections by the IEA (77), the EU's dependency on imported oil and gas will however increase in the future unless the EU continues a strong policy on energy efficiency and renewable energy also beyond 2020.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003291/13

an die Kommission

Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)

(21. März 2013)

Betrifft: Förderung von Betriebsaufspaltungen durch Strukturfonds in Rheinland-Pfalz

Das regionale Landesförderungsprogramm, das in Form einer Verwaltungsvorschrift des rheinland-pfälzischen Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Klimaschutz, Energie und Landesplanung besteht und die Fördergrundlage für einen Teilbereich der einzelbetrieblichen Investitionsförderung in diesem Bundesland bildet, fördert nur steuerlich anerkannte Betriebsaufspaltungen. Alle anderen Formen einer tatsächlichen Betriebsaufspaltung (wie z. B. wenn die gleichen Gesellschafter an einer GmbH und an einer GmbH & Co. KG beteiligt sind und das wesentliche Betriebsvermögen sich in der GmbH befindet, während das operative Geschäft von der GmbH & Co. KG betrieben wird) werden nicht gefördert.

Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission

(8. Mai 2013)

Auf Nachfrage der Kommission hat die Verwaltungsbehörde mitgeteilt, dass die genannte Verwaltungsvorschrift sich an dem den Bundesländern durch die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ vorgegebenen Rahmen orientiert, die eine Förderung nur steuerlich anerkannter Betriebsaufspaltungen vorsieht. Die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe wurde bei der Kommission als Beihilfe notifiziert und fällt seit 2007 unter die Ausnahme nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1628/2006 vom 24. Oktober 2006 über die Anwendung der Artikel 87 und 88 EG-Vertrag auf regionale Investitionsbeihilfen der Mitgliedstaaten (ABl. L 302 vom 1.11.2006, S. 29).

Ein Widerspruch zu bestehendem EU-Recht ist nicht erkennbar, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Fördervoraussetzungen im Rahmen der Umsetzung der Strukturfonds entsprechend Art. 56 Abs. 4 der Verordnung 1083/2006 im Wesentlichen auf nationaler Ebene festgelegt werden.

Das Gebiet Rheinland-Pfalz unterliegt der Förderung durch die EU-Strukturfonds im Rahmen des Ziels „Regionale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Beschäftigung“ für den Zeitraum 2007-2013.

Die Verantwortung für die Projektauswahl, die Annahme und Prüfung von Anträgen sowie die Durchführung von Maßnahmen des operationellen Programms für den EFRE liegt ausschließlich bei der Verwaltungsbehörde des Programms. Im Falle des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz ist dies das Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau. Der Ansprechpartner wäre hier Herr Dirk Rosar, der Ihnen für Auskünfte gern zur Verfügung steht:

Herr Rosar

Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Klimaschutz, Energie und Landesplanung Rheinland-Pfalz

Schliftstrasse 9

D-55116 Mainz

Tel.: +49 6131 162249

E-Mail: Dirk.Rosar@mwkel.rlp.de

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003291/13

to the Commission

Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Promotion of company split-ups by structural funds in Rhineland-Palatinate

The regional development programme involves an administrative provision by the State Ministry of Rhineland-Palatinate for Economic Affairs, Climate Protection, Energy and Regional Planning that supports some individual investment in this state, only promoting company split-ups recognised under the tax regime. No other form of actual company split-up is promoted (for example when the same shareholders are involved in both a limited liability company and a limited partnership with a limited liability company as general partner and the greater part of the operating capital is held in the limited liability company, while the operative business is run by the limited partnership with a limited liability company as general partner).

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

Following an enquiry from the Commission, the managing authority has explained that the administrative provision in question is based on the framework imposed on the Länder by the joint Federal/Land scheme ‘Improving regional economic structure’ (Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur), which makes provision only for split-ups recognised under the tax regime. The scheme was notified to the Commission as an aid scheme and since 2007 has been covered by the exemption under Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid (OJ L 302, 1.11.2006, p. 29).

There is no obvious incompatibility with EC law, especially as the aid conditions are essentially laid down at national level as part of the implementation of the Structural Funds, in line with Article 56(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

The territory of Rhineland-Palatinate is eligible for aid from the EU Structural Funds under the ‘Regional competitiveness and employment’ objective for the period 2007-2013.

The responsibility for project selection, acceptance and examination of applications, and implementation of measures under the ERDF Operational Programme lies exclusively with the managing authority for the Programme. In the case of Rhineland-Palatinate, this is the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture. The person to contact would be Mr Dirk Rosar, who will be pleased to provide you with any information you require.

Mr Dirk Rosar

Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture

Schliftstrasse 9

D-55116 Mainz

Tel.: +49 6131 162249

E-mail: Dirk.Rosar@mwkel.rlp.de

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003292/13

to the Commission

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Homelessness and Europe 2020 strategy

Homelessness has ranked highly on the EU agenda, becoming a political priority since the European Consensus Conference held in December 2010. It is clear that the only way to eliminate this problem is for all Member States to work together and find a long-term solution.

Therefore, could the Commission outline what progress has been made since 2010 in order to meet the targets set in the Europe 2020 strategy?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2013)

While the competence for tackling homelessness lies primarily with the Member States, the EU continues to provide its active support. Homelessness features highly on the SPC (78)’s agenda. In 2010 a landmark Consensus Conference was organised followed by several key events (79). In March 2013 the Irish Presidency took the initiative for an informal ministerial conference to discuss the potential for more EU cooperation on homelessness (80). The event confirmed that there is much interest for this.

The Europe 2020 strategy addresses homelessness through its broader efforts to reduce poverty and social exclusion. Prevention of evictions and provision of adequate and affordable housing are regarded as key areas for intervention. The Social Investment Package (81) contains a separate Staff Working Document on homelessness, which analyses the latest trends, identifies the most effective integrated policy responses and explains the EU’s role in providing support.

The EU Structural Funds, in particular ESF (82), ERDF (83) and EAFRD (84), the EU's Food Distribution Programme and Progress, its successor Programme for Social Change and Innovation, are all designed to (co)finance policy actions that tackle homelessness in the Member States. The Commission proposes that 20% of the ESF budget in the 2014-2020 programming period is devoted to social inclusion and that integrated housing remains a priority for the ERDF. It has also proposed the establishment of a new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. The Commission will also continue to promote social innovation in this field through targeted calls for proposals. The Commission supports EU NGOs that defend the interest of the homeless (85).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003293/13

to the Commission

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Homelessness statistics in the EU

Swedish Government sources have recently reported that approximately 3 500 people are sleeping on the streets in the city of Gothenburg (86). Recent statistics reported by the Scottish Government in January 2013 have shown a significant fall of around 13% in the number of people assessed as homeless in Scotland. Nevertheless, at the same time, studies in England have shown a rise of 25% in homelessness over the past three years.

The difficulties in obtaining accurate figures are no doubt well known to the Commission and will have been experienced by other Member States. In order to effectively eradicate the problem of homelessness, we must ensure that no one falls through the cracks and that all of these people who are in need are accounted for.

Therefore, could the Commission clarify what steps have been taken to compile comparative statistics for levels of homelessness for the whole of the European Union?

Further, what information does the Commission already possess on the extent of homelessness throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2013)

Eurostat statistical activities on issues related to homelessness are unfortunately rather limited at European level. The only source of information is the population and housing census of 2011. Commission Regulation (EU) No 519/2010 (87) of 16 June 2010 adopting the programme of the statistical data and of the metadata for population and housing censuses provided for by Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 (88) of the European Parliament and of the Council foresees the provision of data on homelessness.

The Member States will have to provide data on the number of primary homeless persons (living in the street without shelter) and secondary homeless persons (persons moving frequently between temporary accommodation) in the Member States.

The implementing measure provides the framework for much more detailed data on the homeless:

The first results from the population censuses are being progressively released at national level but not yet officially to Eurostat. The principle route for the publication of the EU census programme data will be via the ‘Census Hub’ that will enable users to define flexible and detailed outputs to meet particular needs. The Census Hub will be available in 2014. Eurostat is also introducing a system to disseminate the main census figures before the introduction of the Census Hub.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003294/13

a la Comisión

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) y Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Comité de gestión conjunta del Acuerdo internacional en materia de captura no cruel (continuación a la pregunta escrita E-010289/2012)

El 22 de enero de 2013, el Comisario Janez Potočnik respondió a la pregunta escrita E-010289/2012, presentada por Andrea Zanoni y Nadja Hirsch, explicando que la Comisión había comenzado a negociar con los Estados Unidos con el objetivo de alcanzar en este asunto una solución aceptable para ambas partes.

Los Estados Unidos han pedido más tiempo para examinar el informe (89) realizado por la organización italiana Lega Anti Vivisezione (90) —en colaboración con Born Free USA (91) y Respect for Animals (92)—, que demuestra que el uso de cepos es una práctica común, regulada y autorizada en los Estados Unidos.

En la Unión Europea, el uso de cepos está prohibido en virtud del Reglamento (CEE) n° 3254/91 del Consejo. Esta prohibición se extiende también a la importación a la Unión de pieles y productos manufacturados de determinadas especies animales salvajes originarias de países que utilizan para su captura cepos o métodos no conformes a las normas internacionales de captura no cruel.

La firma del Acta aprobada relativa a normas de captura no cruel (93) no puede servir de excusa para utilizar libremente métodos que, por su diseño y funcionamiento, quedan recogidos por completo en la definición establecida en el artículo 1 del Reglamento (CEE) n° 3254/91 del Consejo.

La información acerca de los avances hechos hasta la fecha en materia de la gestión de las mejores prácticas de captura no cruel que presentó la delegación de los Estados Unidos en la cuarta reunión del comité de gestión conjunta del Acuerdo internacional en materia de captura no cruel no ha bastado para demostrar que los Estados Unidos hayan prohibido el uso de cepos, tal y como se hizo en la EU hace veinte años.

Los ciudadanos europeos están muy preocupados por los sufrimientos innecesarios de los animales debido al uso de métodos de captura inhumanos, como los cepos.

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(30 de abril de 2013)

En la cuarta reunión del Comité de gestión conjunta del Acuerdo internacional en materia de captura no cruel, celebrada en diciembre de 2012, la Comisión Europea señaló a la atención de la delegación de los Estados Unidos, en nombre de la UE, el informe (94) de la organización italiana Lega Anti Vivisezione (elaborado en colaboración con Born Free USA y Respect for Animals), en el que se denunciaba que el uso de cepos era una práctica muy extendida y autorizada en los Estados Unidos.

La delegación de los Estados Unidos está investigando el tema e informará de la situación a la Comisión en las próximas semanas.

En la Unión Europea, el uso de cepos ha sido prohibido por el Reglamento (CEE) n° 3254/91 del Consejo. Dicho Reglamento también prohíbe importar en la EU pieles y productos manufacturados de determinadas especies animales salvajes originarias de países que utilizan para su captura cepos o métodos no conformes a las normas internacionales de captura no cruel.

La Comisión está de acuerdo con que ninguna solución que se alcance con los Estados Unidos debe permitir excepción alguna a la prohibición del uso de cepos. Sin embargo, toda medida debe estar basada en pruebas, por lo que la Comisión no puede suspender las importaciones de pieles antes de que finalice la investigación que está en marcha y de que se haya confirmado la utilización de métodos de captura inhumanos en los Estados Unidos.

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-003294/13

Komisi

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) a Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21. března 2013)

Předmět: Společná výkonná rada Mezinárodní dohody o normách humánního odchytu do pastí (IAHTS) (otázka navazuje na otázku k písemnému zodpovězení E-010289/2012)

Dne 22. ledna 2013 komisař Janez Potočnik ve své odpovědi na otázku k písemnému zodpovězení E-010289/2012, již předložili Andrea Zanoni a Nadja Hirsch, uvedl, že Komise zahájila s USA konzultace s cílem dosáhnout oboustranně přijatelného řešení tohoto problému.

USA požádaly o pozastavení jednání po určitou dobu určenou k přezkoumání zprávy (95) vypracované italskou organizací Lega Anti Vivisezione (96) ve spolupráci s organizacemi Born Free USA (97) a Respect for Animals (98) , která ukazuje, že nášlapné pasti jsou v USA široce uplatňovanou, regulovanou a povolenou praxí.

V Evropské unii využívání nášlapných pastí zakazuje nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 3254/91. Tento zákaz se rovněž vztahuje na dovoz kožešin a finálních výrobků z některých druhů volně žijících zvířat pocházejících ze zemí, v nichž byla zvířata odchycena prostřednictvím nášlapných pastí nebo jiných metod chytání do pasti, které nedodržují mezinárodní standardy upravující tyto praktiky, do EU.

Podpis dohodnutého protokolu o normách humánního lovu do pastí (99) nelze považovat za záminku umožňující volně využívat zařízení, která svou konstrukcí a fungováním plně spadají do působnosti definice stanovené článkem 1 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 3254/91.

Informace, jež na čtvrtém zasedání společné výkonné rady IAHTS předložila delegace USA ohledně pokroku, kterého bylo doposud dosaženo v rámci správy osvědčených postupů chytání do pastí, nepostačují k prokázání toho, že USA zakázaly využívání nášlapných pastí (jak učinila EU již před více než 20 lety).

Evropští občané jsou velmi znepokojeni zbytečným utrpením zvířat, které je výsledkem používání nehumánních zařízení na odchyt zvířat, jako jsou např. nášlapné pasti.

Odpověď komisaře Potočnika jménem Komise

(30. dubna 2013)

Na čtvrtém zasedání společné výkonné rady IAHTS v prosinci 2012 upozornila Evropská komise (jménem EU) delegaci USA na zprávu (100), kterou vypracovala italská organizace Lega Anti Vivisezione (ve spolupráci s organizacemi Born Free USA a Respect for Animals) a v níž se tvrdí, že používání nášlapných pastí je v USA široce uplatňovanou a povolenou praxí.

Delegace USA v současné době tuto záležitost přezkoumává a měla by Komisi informovat v příštích týdnech.

V Evropské unii je používání nášlapných pastí zakázáno nařízením Rady (EHS) č. 3254/91. Tato opatření rovněž zakazuje dovážet do EU kožešiny a finální výrobky z některých druhů volně žijících zvířat pocházejících ze zemí, v nichž byla zvířata odchycena prostřednictvím nášlapných pastí nebo jiných metod chytání do pasti, které nedodržují mezinárodní standardy upravující tyto praktiky.

Komise souhlasí s tím, že jakékoli řešení dosažené s USA by nemělo umožnit žádné výjimky z unijního zákazu používání nášlapných pastí. Komise však nemůže pozastavit dovoz kožešin předtím, než bude vyšetřovací proces ukončen a než budou nehumánní metody lovu do pastí v USA potvrzeny, protože veškerá opatření tohoto charakteru by měla být založena na důkazech.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003294/13

til Kommissionen

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) og Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21. marts 2013)

Om: Den Fælles Forvaltningskomité for Aftale om Internationale Standarder for Human Fældefangst (IAHTS) (opfølgning af forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-010289/2012)

Den 22. januar 2013 besvarede kommissær Janez Potočnik forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-010289/2012 indgivet af Andrea Zanoni og Nadja Hirsch, idet han oplyste, at Kommissionen havde indledt drøftelser med USA for at nå frem til en gensidigt acceptabel løsning på dette spørgsmål.

USA har bedt om tid til at gennemgå rapporten (101) fremsendt af LAV (102) (i samarbejde med Born Free USA (103) og Respect for Animals (104)), der viser, at brugen af rævesakse er en udbredt, reguleret og tilladt praksis i USA.

I Den Europæiske Union er brugen af rævesakse blevet forbudt ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3254/91. Forbuddet omfatter ligeledes indførsel i EU af skind af og varer fremstillet på basis af visse vilde dyrearter med oprindelse i lande, der anvender rævesakse eller fangstmetoder, der ikke opfylder de internationale standarder for human fældefangst.

Undertegnelsen af det godkendte protokollat (EUT L219/26 af 7. august 1998)  (105) kan ikke give mulighed for frit at bruge redskaber, der ved deres udformning og funktion fuldt ud er omfattet af definitionen indeholdt i artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3254/91.

De oplysninger, som USA’s delegation forelagde på det fjerde møde i Den Fælles Forvaltningskomité for IAHTS om de fremskridt, der hidtil var blevet gjort med hensyn til bedste praksis for forvaltning af fældefangst, var ikke tilstrækkelige til at vise, at USA har forbudt brugen af rævesakse (hvilket blev forbudt for over 20 år siden i EU).

EU-borgerne er meget bekymrede over dyrs unødvendige lidelse på grund af inhumane fangstredskaber såsom rævesakse.

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik

(30. april 2013)

På det fjerde møde i Den Fælles Forvaltningskomité for IAHTS i december 2012 gjorde Europa-Kommissionen (på EU's vegne) USA's delegation opmærksom på den rapport (106), som den italienske dyreværnsforening LAV (i samarbejde med Born Free USA og Respect for Animals) har udarbejdet, og som indeholder påstande om, at det i USA er en udbredt og tilladt praksis at bruge rævesakse.

USA's delegation er i øjeblikket ved at undersøge spørgsmålet og ventes at melde tilbage til Kommissionen i løbet af de kommende uger.

I Den Europæiske Union er brugen af rævesakse forbudt ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3254/91. Forbuddet omfatter ligeledes indførsel i EU af skind af og varer fremstillet på basis af visse vilde dyrearter med oprindelse i lande, der anvender rævesakse eller fangstmetoder, der ikke opfylder de internationale standarder for human fældefangst.

Kommissionen er enig i, at EU's forbud mod brugen af rævesakse ikke bør fraviges, uanset hvilken løsning man når frem til med USA. Enhver foranstaltning (herunder suspension) bør imidlertid være baseret på beviser, og Kommissionen kan ikke suspendere importen af skind, før undersøgelsen er afsluttet, og før det er bekræftet, at der anvendes inhumane fældefangstmetoder i USA.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003294/13

an die Kommission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) und Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21. März 2013)

Betrifft: Gemeinsamer Verwaltungsausschuss zum Übereinkommen über internationale humane Fangnormen (IAHTS) (Anschlussfrage zu Anfrage E-010289/2012)

Am 22. Januar 2013 antwortete Kommissionsmitglied Janez Potočnik auf die Anfrage E‐010289/2012 der Abgeordneten Andrea Zanoni und Nadja Hirsch, dass die Kommission Konsultationen mit den USA aufgenommen habe, um zu einer für beide Seiten akzeptablen Lösung zu gelangen.

Die USA haben sich Zeit erbeten, um den Bericht( 1 )der LAV( 2 ) (erstellt in Zusammenarbeit mit Born Free USA( 3 ) und Respect for Animals( 4 )) prüfen zu können, in dem aufgezeigt wird, dass die Verwendung von Tellereisen in den USA eine weit verbreitete, gesetzlich geregelte und zulässige Praxis ist.

In der Europäischen Union ist die Verwendung von Tellereisen mit der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3254/91 des Rates verboten worden. Das Verbot schließt die Einfuhr von Pelzen und Waren von bestimmten Wildtierarten aus Ländern, die Tellereisen oder den internationalen humanen Fangnormen nicht entsprechende Fangmethoden anwenden, in die EU ein.

Die Unterzeichnung der Vereinbarten Niederschrift (ABl. L 219 vom 7. August 1998, S. 26) (107) darf nicht dazu genutzt werden, Geräte, die hinsichtlich ihrer Konzeption und Funktionsweise uneingeschränkt der Begriffsbestimmung in Artikel 1 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3254/91 des Rates entsprechen, ungehindert zu verwenden.

Die Angaben der Delegation der USA in der vierten Sitzung des Gemeinsamen Verwaltungsausschusses des IAHTS zu den bisher erzielten Fortschritten im Hinblick auf die besten Verfahrensweisen beim Fallenstellen waren nicht ausreichend, um den Nachweis zu erbringen, dass die USA die Verwendung von Tellereisen verboten haben (wie es in der EU seit über 20 Jahren der Fall ist).

Die Bürger Europas sind sehr besorgt über das unnötige Leiden der Tiere wegen inhumaner Fangvorrichtungen wie Tellereisen.

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(30. April 2013)

Die Europäische Kommission hat (im Namen der EU) die US-Delegation in der vierten Sitzung des Gemeinsamen Verwaltungsausschusses des IAHTS im Dezember 2012 über den von der italienischen „Lega Anti Vivisezione“ (in Zusammenarbeit mit „Born Free USA“ und „Respect for Animals“) verfassten Bericht (108) in Kenntnis gesetzt, wonach die Verwendung von Tellereisen in den USA eine weit verbreitete und zulässige Praxis ist.

Die US-Delegation prüft die Angelegenheit derzeit und dürfte der Kommission in den nächsten Wochen Bericht erstatten.

In der Europäischen Union ist die Verwendung von Tellereisen aufgrund der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3254/91 des Rates untersagt. Das Verbot schließt auch den EU-Import von Pelzen und Waren von bestimmten Wildtierarten aus Ländern ein, die Tellereisen oder den internationalen humanen Fangnormen nicht entsprechende Fangmethoden anwenden.

Die Kommission teilt die Auffassung, dass eine mit den USA erzielte Lösung auf keinen Fall Ausnahmen von dem in der EU geltenden Verbot von Tellereisen ermöglichen sollte. Jede Maßnahme sollte allerdings auf Fakten beruhen, und die Kommission kann die Einfuhr von Pelzen nicht aussetzen, solange die Untersuchung noch andauert und sich die Anwendung inhumaner Fangmethoden in den USA nicht bestätigt haben sollte.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003294/13

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) e Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Comitato congiunto di gestione dell'accordo internazionale sulle norme relative a metodi di cattura non crudeli (seguito dell'interrogazione E-010289/2012)

Il 22 gennaio 2013, il Commissario Janez Potočnik ha risposto all'interrogazione scritta E-010289/2012 presentata da Andrea Zanoni e Nadja Hirsch, indicando che la Commissione aveva avviato una consultazione con gli Stati Uniti al fine di conseguire una soluzione al problema che fosse accettabile per entrambe le parti.

Gli Stati Uniti hanno chiesto del tempo per esaminare la relazione (109) presentata dalla Lega anti-vivisezione italiana (110) (in collaborazione con Born Free USA (111) e Respect for Animals (112)) che dimostra che l'uso di tagliole rappresenta una pratica diffusa, regolamentata e autorizzata negli Stati Uniti.

Nell'Unione europea l'uso di tagliole è vietato ai sensi del regolamento (CEE) n. 3254/91 del Consiglio. Il divieto riguarda anche l'importazione nell'UE di pellicce e di prodotti manifatturati di talune specie di animali selvatici originari di paesi che utilizzano per la loro cattura tagliole o metodi non conformi alle norme concordate a livello internazionale in materia di cattura mediante trappole senza crudeltà.

La firma del verbale concordato sulle norme relative a metodi di cattura non crudeli (113) non può essere considerata una scusa per usare liberamente sistemi che, per la loro concezione e il loro funzionamento, rientrano appieno nella definizione di cui all'articolo 1 del regolamento (CEE) n. 3254/91 del Consiglio.

Le informazioni presentate dalla delegazione statunitense, in occasione della quarta riunione del comitato congiunto di gestione dell'accordo internazionale sulle norme relative ai metodi di cattura non crudeli, sui progressi conseguiti finora in termini di migliori prassi in materia di gestione dei metodi di cattura non sono state sufficienti per dimostrate che gli Stati Uniti hanno vietato l'uso di tagliole (come è invece avvenuto nell'UE oltre vent'anni fa).

I cittadini europei sono molto preoccupati in merito alle inutili sofferenze causate agli animali da sistemi di cattura crudeli come le tagliole.

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(30 aprile 2013)

Alla quarta riunione del comitato di gestione comune dell'Accordo internazionale sulle norme relative a metodi di cattura non crudeli (IAHTS) nel mese di dicembre 2012, la Commissione europea ha sottoposto all'attenzione della delegazione statunitense, per conto dell'UE, la relazione (114) presentata dalla Lega antivivisezione italiana (in collaborazione con Born Free USA e Respect for Animals), che dimostra che l'uso di tagliole rappresenta una pratica diffusa, regolamentata e autorizzata negli Stati Uniti.

La delegazione degli USA sta esaminando la questione e dovrebbe riferire alla Commissione nelle prossime settimane.

Il regolamento (CEE) n. 3254/91 del Consiglio vieta l'uso di tagliole nell'Unione europea. Il divieto riguarda anche l'importazione nell'UE di pellicce e di prodotti manufatti di alcune specie di animali selvatici originari di paesi che utilizzano per la loro cattura tagliole o metodi non conformi alle norme concordate a livello internazionale in materia di cattura mediante trappole senza crudeltà.

La Commissione concorda che la soluzione raggiunta con gli USA non dovrebbe consentire deroghe al divieto imposto dall'UE sull'utilizzo di tagliole. Tuttavia, tali misure devono essere basate su prove concrete e la Commissione non può sospendere le importazioni di pellicce finché le indagini non sono terminate e finché non è dimostrato che negli USA si impiegano metodi di cattura crudeli.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003294/13

aan de Commissie

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) en Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21 maart 2013)

Betreft: Gezamenlijk beheerscomité van de Internationale overeenkomst over normen voor humane vallen (IAHTS) (follow-up van schriftelijke vraag E-010289/2012)

Op 22 januari 2013 vermeldde Commissielid Janez Potočnik in haar antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E‐010289/2012 van Andrea Zanoni en Nadja Hirsch dat de Commissie in overleg met de VS was getreden om voor deze kwestie een wederzijds aanvaardbare oplossing te vinden.

De VS had om tijd gevraagd voor de bestudering van het verslag (115) van de Italiaanse Lega Anti Vivisezione (116) (opgesteld in samenwerking met Born Free USA (117) and Respect for Animals (118)) dat aantoont dat het gebruik van wildklemmen een wijd verbreide, gereguleerde en toegestane praktijk in de VS is.

In de Europese Unie is het gebruik van wildklemmen op grond van Verordening (EEG) nr. 3254/91 van de Raad verboden. Het verbod geldt ook voor de invoer naar de EU van pelzen en verwerkte goederen van bepaalde diersoorten die afkomstig zijn uit landen waar de dieren worden gevangen met wildklemmen of andere vangstmethoden die niet voldoen aan de internationale humane wildvangnormen.

De ondertekening van de goedgekeurde notulen inzake normen voor humane vallen (119) kan niet worden beschouwd als excuus om vrijelijk gebruik te maken van apparaten die op grond van hun ontwerp en werkingswijze geheel vallen onder de definitie zoals bedoeld in artikel 1 van Verordening van de Raad (EEC) nr. 3254/91.

De informatie die de delegatie van de VS naar de vierde bijeenkomst van het Gezamenlijk beheerscomité van de IAHTS heeft verstrekt over de vooruitgang die tot dusver is geboekt op het gebied van de beste praktijken voor het beheer van vallen heeft niet voldoende aangetoond dat de VS het gebruik van wildklemmen heeft uitgebannen (zoals meer dan 20 jaar geleden in de EU werd gedaan).

De burgers in Europa maken zich ernstige zorgen over onnodig lijden van dieren wegens inhumane vangstmethoden zoals het gebruik van wildklemmen.

Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie

(30 april 2013)

De Europese Commissie heeft (namens de EU) tijdens de vierde bijeenkomst van het Gezamenlijk beheerscomité van de internationale overeenkomst over normen voor humane vallen (IAHTS) het verslag (120) van de Italiaanse Lega Anti Vivisezione (in samenwerking met Born Free USA and Respect for Animals) bij de delegatie van de VS onder de aandacht gebracht waarin de VS ervan beschuldigd wordt dat het gebruik van wildklemmen een wijdverbreide en toegestane praktijk zou zijn.

De delegatie van de VS onderzoekt dit onderwerp momenteel en zal hier in de komende weken verslag van uitbrengen aan de Commissie.

In de Europese Unie is het gebruik van wildklemmen verboden bij Verordening (EEG) nr. 3254/91 van de Raad. Onder het verbod valt ook de invoer in de EU van pelzen en goederen die vervaardigd zijn van bepaalde in het wild levende diersoorten uit landen waar gebruik wordt gemaakt van de wildklem of andere vangmethoden die niet voldoen aan de normen voor humane vangst met behulp van vallen.

De Commissie is van mening dat een oplossing die met de VS wordt bereikt geen uitzondering mag vormen op het EU-verbod op het wildklemgebruik. Iedere maatregel zou gebaseerd moeten zijn op bewijs, en de Commissie kan de invoer van pelzen niet opschorten voor het einde van het onderzoeksproces en voordat de inhumane vangstmethoden in de VS bevestigd zijn.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003294/13

adresată Comisiei

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) şi Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21 martie 2013)

Subiect: Comitetul mixt de gestionare a Acordului internațional asupra standardelor pentru vânătoarea cu capcane fără cruzime (IAHTS) (continuare la întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-010289/2012)

La 22 ianuarie 2013, comisarul Janez Potočnik a răspuns întrebării cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-010289/2012, adresate de Andrea Zanoni și Nadja Hirsch, precizând că Comisia a inițiat consultări cu SUA pentru a ajunge la o soluție acceptabilă pentru ambele părți în ceea ce privește această chestiune.

SUA a solicitat timp pentru a examina raportul (121) elaborat de asociația Lega Anti Vivisezione (122) din Italia (în colaborare cu Born Free USA (123) și Respect for Animals (124)), conform căruia utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală este o practică răspândită, reglementată și autorizată în SUA.

În Uniunea Europeană, utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală este interzisă de Regulamentul Consiliului (CEE) nr. 3254/91. Interdicția include, de asemenea, importul în UE de blănuri și produse prelucrate de la anumite specii de animale sălbatice originare din țări care le capturează folosind capcane cu pedală sau alte metode în dezacord cu standardele internaționale de vânătoare cu capcane fără cruzime.

Semnarea procesului-verbal agreat privind standardele pentru vânătoarea cu capcane fără cruzime (125) nu poate fi considerată drept pretext pentru a utiliza instrumente care, ca urmare a modului de creare și funcționare, intră pe deplin în domeniul de aplicare al definiției prevăzute la articolul 1 din Regulamentul Consiliului (CEE) nr. 3254/91.

Informațiile prezentate de delegația SUA la cea de a patra reuniune a Comitetului mixt de gestionare a IAHTS privind progresele înregistrate până în prezent în ceea ce privește cele mai bune practici de gestionare a vânătorii cu capcane nu sunt suficiente pentru a demonstra că SUA a interzis vânătoarea cu capcane cu pedală (astfel cum a făcut-o UE cu peste 20 de ani în urmă).

Cetățenii europeni sunt foarte preocupați de suferința inutilă a animalelor cauzată de instrumentele de capturare cu cruzime, cum ar fi capcanele cu pedală.

Răspuns dat de domnul Potočnik în numele Comisiei

(30 aprilie 2013)

În cadrul celei de-a patra reuniuni a Comitetului mixt de gestionare a IAHTS din decembrie 2012, Comisia Europeană (în numele UE) a adus în atenția delegației SUA raportul (126) prezentat de asociația Lega Anti Vivisezione din Italia (în colaborare cu asociațiile Born Free SUA și Respect for Animals) care conține afirmații privind faptul că utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală este o practică răspândită și autorizată în SUA.

În prezent, delegația SUA investighează problema și ar trebui să raporteze Comisiei în următoarele săptămâni.

În Uniunea Europeană, utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală este interzisă prin Regulamentul (CEE) nr. 3254/91 al Consiliului. Interdicția include, de asemenea, importul în UE de blănuri și bunuri fabricate din anumite specii de animale sălbatice originare din țările în care animalele sunt capturate cu ajutorul capcanelor cu pedală sau cu ajutorul altor metode de vânătoare cu capcane care nu îndeplinesc standardele internaționale pentru vânătoarea cu capcane cu suferință minimă.

Comisia este de acord că nicio soluție convenită cu SUA nu ar trebui să permită excepții de la interdicția la nivelul UE privind utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală. Dar orice astfel de măsură ar trebui să fie bazată pe dovezi, iar Comisia nu poate suspenda importurile de blănuri înainte de încheierea procesului de investigație și înainte de confirmarea existenței oricăror tehnici de vânătoare cu capcane altele decât cele cu suferință minimă, în SUA.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003294/13

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(21 March 2013)

Subject: Joint Management Committee of the International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards (IAHTS) (follow-up to Written Question E-010289/2012)

On 22 January 2013, Commissioner Janez Potočnik replied to Written Question E‐010289/2012 submitted by Andrea Zanoni and Nadja Hirsch, indicating that the Commission had started consultation with the USA in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution to this issue.

The USA has asked for time to examine the report (127) produced by Italy’s Lega Anti Vivisezione (128) (in collaboration with Born Free USA (129) and Respect for Animals (130)), which shows that the use of leghold traps is a widespread, regulated and authorised practice in the USA.

In the European Union the use of leghold traps is banned by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. The ban also includes the import into the EU of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries where animals are caught by means of leghold traps or other trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.

The signing of the Agreed Minute on humane trapping standards (131) cannot be regarded as an excuse to freely use devices which, by their design and functioning, are fully covered by the definition set out in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91.

Information presented by the US delegation to the Fourth Joint Management Committee Meeting of the IAHTS, on progress made so far in terms of trapping management best practices, has not been sufficient to demonstrate that the USA has banned the use of leghold traps (as was done in the EU over 20 years ago).

European citizens are very concerned about unnecessary suffering of animals as a result of inhumane capture devices such as leghold traps.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2013)

The European Commission (on behalf of the EU) had brought to the attention of the US delegation the report (132) produced by Italy’s Lega Anti Vivisezione (in collaboration with Born Free USA and Respect for Animals) containing allegations that the use of leghold traps was a widespread and authorised practice in the US, during the Fourth Joint Management Committee Meeting of the IAHTS in December 2012.

The US delegation is currently investigating the issue and should report back to the Commission in the coming weeks.

In the European Union the use of leghold traps is banned by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. The ban also includes the import into the EU of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries where animals are caught by means of leghold traps or other trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.

The Commission agrees that any solution reached with the USA should not allow for any exceptions to the EU ban on the use of leghold traps. But any such measure should be based on evidence, and the Commission cannot suspend imports of furs before the end of the investigation process and before any non-humane trapping methods in the US have been confirmed.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-003295/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 Μαρτίου 2013)

Θέμα: Ενεργειακή φτώχεια

Στην Ευρώπη αυτή τη στιγμή, παρατηρούμε ότι το κόστος της ενέργειας ολοένα και αυξάνεται και δημιουργείται ένα φαινόμενο ενεργειακής φτώχειας.

Το υψηλό κόστος της ενέργειας έχει δημιουργήσει ενεργειακή φτώχεια σε πολλά κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Τα τεράστια κοινωνικά προβλήματα που δημιουργεί η ακριβή ενέργεια προκάλεσε την πτώση της κυβέρνησης στη Βουλγαρία. Επιπρόσθετα στις χώρες της Νότιας και Κεντρικής Ευρώπης, οι περισσότερες οικογένειες ξοδεύουν το 50% του οικονομικού τους προϋπολογισμού για την κάλυψη των ενεργειακών τους αναγκών. Εάν δεν ληφθούν ειδικά μέτρα αντιμετώπισης του θέματος προβλέπεται αλυσίδα παρόμοιων επαναστάσεων κατά της ενεργειακής φτώχειας, σε πολλά κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Απάντηση του κ. Oettinger εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(30 Απριλίου 2013)

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=el&catId=815

(English version)

Question for written answer P-003295/13

to the Commission

Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Energy poverty

Energy prices in Europe are rising constantly and energy poverty is now an emerging problem.

The high cost of energy has led to energy poverty in many EU Member States. It was huge social problems linked to energy prices that brought about the fall of the government in Bulgaria. Most families in southern and central European countries are spending half their household budget on meeting their energy needs. Unless specific measures are taken to tackle the problem, we are likely to see a series of similar uprisings against energy poverty in many EU Member States.

— Is the Commission considering any specific measures to tackle energy poverty?

— Is it considering the possibility of including the cost of energy in its social policy for certain sections of the population? Could something of this sort be covered by the Social Fund, if certain changes were made to the guidelines governing that Fund?

— Has any decision been taken and a timetable established to include a heating allowance in a package of social benefits?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2013)

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-003296/13

adresată Comisiei

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 martie 2013)

Subiect: Privatizarea șantierelor navale croate aflate în proprietatea statului

Comisia a solicitat privatizarea șantierelor navale croate aflate în proprietatea statului și a celor care înregistrează pierderi, înaintea aderării Croației la Uniunea Europeană (anexa VIII la Actul de aderare). În august 2012, Comisia a fost de acord cu contractul de privatizare propus pentru șantierul naval Brodosplit. În plus, în aprilie 2012, Comisia a declarat, în raportul său de monitorizare, că guvernul croat a hotărât să inițieze procedura de faliment pentru șantierul Kraljevica și să caute noi modalități de privatizare și restructurare pentru șantierele 3.Maj și Brodotrogir în termen de 90 de zile. În octombrie 2012, Comisia a reiterat această declarație, ceea ce indică faptul că nu s-a înregistrat, de fapt, niciun progres în această privință.

Vânzarea acestor șantiere navale trebuie să aibă loc în temeiul legilor relevante ale pieței, inclusiv Legea privind impozitul pe profit. Cu toate acestea, au fost manifestate îngrijorări cu privire la măsura în care Legea croată privind impozitul pe profit, în special articolele 6 și 31 din aceasta, respectă standardele internaționale.

,

și

?

Răspuns dat de Füle în numele Comisiei

(6 mai 2013)

Procedura de privatizare a șantierului naval Brodosplit, precum și a celorlalte șantiere navale croate aflate în dificultate, enumerate în anexa VIII la Actul de aderare al Croației la UE, avea la bază o procedură de licitație concurențială. Planurile de restructurare au fost prezentate de ofertanți și în cele din urmă acceptate de Agenția de Concurență a Croației și de Comisia Europeană, înainte de semnarea Actului de aderare. În cazul șantierului naval Brodosplit, ofertantul ales în urma procedurii de licitație concurențiale a fost întreprinderea DIV d.o.o. Samobor.

În ceea ce privește șantierul naval Kraljevica, Tribunalul Comercial din Rijeka a pronunțat hotărârea sa privind inițierea procedurii falimentului la 28 august 2012. Hotărârea Curții a fost înscrisă la grefa tribunalului. Procedura falimentului este în curs. În ceea ce privește șantierul naval 3. MAJ, Croația a informat Comisia cu privire la intenția sa de a prezenta un plan de restructurare revizuit, pe baza privatizării șantierului naval Uljanik. În acest caz, Comisia va trebui să ia o decizie. În ceea ce privește șantierul naval Brodotrogir, contractul de privatizare a fost semnat la data de 6 aprilie 2013.

Referitor la legea croată privind impozitul pe profit, în prezent, serviciile Comisiei nu examinează și nici nu au observații asupra vreunui element, inclusiv în ceea ce privește articolele 6 și 31 ale legii. Legislația în vigoare în UE în materie de standarde internaționale de contabilitate se aplică situațiilor consolidate ale societăților UE cotate pe piețele reglementate ale UE și nu legislației fiscale ca atare.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-003296/13

to the Commission

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Privatisation of Croatian state-owned shipyards

The privatisation of Croatian state-owned and loss-making shipyards has been requested by the Commission prior to the country’s accession to the European Union (Annex VIII to the Act of Accession). In August 2012, the Commission agreed with the proposed privatisation contract for the Brodosplit shipyard. Moreover, in April 2012, the Commission stated in its monitoring report that the Croatian Government had decided to initiate bankruptcy proceedings for the Kraljevica yard and to seek new privatisation and restructuring arrangements for the 3.Maj and Brodotrogir yards within 90 days. In October 2012, the Commission reiterated the same comment, which indicates that no progress was actually made.

The sale of those shipyards must be based on the relevant market laws, including the Tax on Profit Law. However concerns have arisen regarding the compliance of the Croatian Tax on Profit Law, in particular paragraphs 6 and 31 thereof, with international standards.

shipyard?

,

and

shipyards?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

The procedure for the privatisation of the Brodosplit shipyard, as well as the other Croatian shipyards in difficulties listed in Annex VIII of the Act of Accession of Croatia to the EU, was based on a competitive tendering procedure. Restructuring plans were submitted by the bidders and eventually accepted by the Croatian Competition Agency and the European Commission prior to the signing of the Act of Accession. In the case of the Brodosplit yard, the bidder chosen after the competitive tendering process was the undertaking DIV d.o.o. Samobor.

As regards the Kraljevica shipyard, the Commercial Court in Rijeka issued its decision on the formal opening of the bankruptcy proceedings on 28 August 2012. The Court’s decision was thereupon entered into the Court’s Registry. The bankruptcy proceedings are ongoing. As regards the 3. MAJ shipyard, Croatia informed the Commission of its intention to submit a revised restructuring plan, which will be based on the privatisation of the Uljanik shipyard. In such a case, the Commission will have to take a decision. As regards the Brodotrogir shipyard, the privatisation contract was signed on 6 April 2013.

As regards the Croatian Profit Law, there are currently no specific items under scrutiny or critically viewed by the Commission services, including in relation to Articles 6 and 31 of the law. The legislation in force in the EU on International Accounting Standards applies to consolidated statements of EU companies listed on EU regulated markets and not to taxation laws as such.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-003297/13

alla Commissione

Carlo Casini (PPE)

(22 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Finanziamenti europei per la cooperazione allo sviluppo

Può la Commissione europea fornire un elenco esaustivo delle organizzazioni non governative (ONG) o delle organizzazioni governative (OG) impegnate nella cooperazione allo sviluppo, che beneficiano di finanziamenti della Commissione europea?

Può la Commissione fornire informazioni dettagliate in merito all'ammontare dei finanziamenti europei erogati alle ONG ed alle OG che si dedicano, nel quadro della cooperazione allo sviluppo, alla promozione di programmi per la salute sessuale e riproduttiva?

Può inoltre la Commissione specificare se tali finanziamenti mirano a sostenere, direttamente o indirettamente, programmi, progetti o attività che favoriscono l'interruzione della gravidanza?

Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione

(29 aprile 2013)

La banca dati sul sito EuropeAid (137) contiene dati completi su tutti i beneficiari delle sovvenzioni e dispone di una funzione di ricerca per ottenere per ogni anno informazioni su tutte le sovvenzioni erogate ai programmi riguardanti, per esempio, le cure per la salute riproduttiva.

Nella presente risposta non è possibile elencare tutte le organizzazioni e agenzie e gli importi delle rispettive sovvenzioni. L'onorevole parlamentare è invitato a consultare la banca dati citata.

Come per gli altri interventi a tutela della salute, la Commissione promuove le migliori pratiche e metodi economicamente efficaci, fra cui la prevenzione sanitaria e la gestione delle cause originarie delle malattie. Per la salute riproduttiva e sessuale, questo significa incoraggiare e assistere i partner, le ONG e i governi a fornire informazioni, istruzione e consulenze, educazione sessuale e pianificazione familiare. In questo modo le persone possono proteggersi dalle malattie sessualmente trasmissibili, decidere quanti figli avere ed evitare gravidanze indesiderate. Questo approccio globale è in linea con la posizione dell'UE basata sul documento finale della Conferenza internazionale su popolazione e sviluppo e ha dimostrato di essere il modo più efficace per migliorare la salute riproduttiva. La Commissione incoraggia i paesi partner ad attuare politiche che garantiscano un'assistenza sanitaria completa e sicura per tutti, comprese le misure essenziali per la salute sessuale e riproduttiva, nel rispetto delle disposizioni giuridiche stabilite dai paesi partner.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-003297/13

to the Commission

Carlo Casini (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: European development cooperation funding

Can the Commission supply a complete list of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government agencies involved in development cooperation which receive European funding?

Can it specify the amounts of European funding granted to NGOs and government agencies which, within the wider field of development cooperation, promote sexual and reproductive health programmes?

Can it say in addition whether that funding serves to support, directly or indirectly, programmes, projects, or activities which encourage abortion?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2013)

Comprehensive information on all beneficiaries of grants can be found in the database on the EuropeAid website (138). This database has a search function enabling information to be obtained on a year by year basis for all grants awarded to programmes related to, for instance, reproductive healthcare.

Listing all the related organisations and agencies and the corresponding grant amounts would go beyond the possibilities of the present reply and the honourable MEP is referred to the aforementioned database for the requested details.

As with other health aid, the Commission promotes best practices and cost-effective methods such as disease prevention and tackling the underlying causes of ill health. For sexual and reproductive health (SRH), this means encouraging and supporting partners, NGOs and governments, to provide information, education and counselling, sexuality education and family planning. This in turn allows people to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases, to choose the number of children they want to have and to prevent unintended pregnancies. Such a comprehensive approach is in line with the EU consensus based on the outcome document of the International Conference on Population and Development, and has proven to be the best way for improving reproductive health. The Commission encourages its partner countries to implement policies that ensure the provision of comprehensive and safe healthcare for all, including essential SRH interventions, within the legal framework set by partner countries.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003298/13

a la Comisión

María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) y Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE)

(22 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Impacto sobre el comercio internacional de la revisión de la Directiva 2001/37/CE que regula los productos del tabaco

El 19 de diciembre de  2012 la Comisión Europea adoptó una propuesta para revisar y actualizar la vigente Directiva 2001/37/CE que regula los productos del tabaco. La propuesta conllevaría una revisión sustancial de la actual legislación, abarcando diferentes áreas como el empaquetado y etiquetado, los ingredientes y aditivos, las ventas a distancia transfronterizas, así como su trazabilidad y medidas de seguridad.

Es importante tener en cuenta que la legislación europea debe respetar y ser consistente con el Derecho internacional y en particular con las normas establecidas por la OMC.

Con relación a esto último cabe mencionar que el pasado 18 de enero la UE notificó la propuesta de Directiva al Comité de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio de la OMC, siendo objeto de una discusión los días 6 y 7 de marzo. Durante la misma, varios países miembros de la OMC manifestaron sus preocupaciones sobre la inconsistencia de la propuesta de Directiva de la UE con diferentes obligaciones contenidas en acuerdos internacionales como son el Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT), el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (OTC) y el Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC).

¿Ha tenido debidamente en cuenta la Comisión la posible inconsistencia de su propuesta de Directiva con las obligaciones asumidas por la UE ante la OMC? ¿Ha considerado asimismo la Comisión el posible impacto negativo que sobre el comercio internacional podría suponer esta propuesta de Directiva al poder crear un importante precedente sobre otros productos?

Respuesta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de mayo de 2013)

La Comisión ha tenido muy en cuenta las obligaciones internacionales de la Unión Europea a la hora de presentar su propuesta de revisión de la Directiva sobre productos del tabaco. Tales obligaciones incluyen, en particular, las normas de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) y el Convenio Marco de la Organización Mundial de la Salud para el Control del Tabaco, que son vinculantes para la UE y sus Estados miembros.

En opinión de la Comisión, la Directiva propuesta es plenamente compatible con las obligaciones derivadas de la OMC. En cuanto al argumento de que la Directiva va a sentar un precedente para otros productos, la Comisión desea subrayar que, debido a sus efectos particularmente dañinos para la salud de las personas, los productos del tabaco no son mercancías normales y, por tanto, no pueden compararse con otros productos comercializados. Además, no hay planes a nivel de la UE para hacer extensivo un enfoque regulador similar a otros productos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003298/13

to the Commission

María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) and Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Revision of Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC) — impact on international trade

On 19 December 2012 the Commission adopted a proposal to revise and update the existing Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC). The proposal would involve a substantial revision of the current legislation, covering different areas such as packaging and labelling, ingredients and additives, cross-border distance sales and traceability and safety measures.

It is important to note that EU legislation should respect and be consistent with international law and in particular with the rules established by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

With regard to the latter it is worth noting that on 18 January the EU notified the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade of the proposed Directive, which was then the subject of a discussion on 6 and 7 March. During the meeting, several WTO member countries expressed their concerns about the proposed EU Directive’s inconsistency with various obligations under international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Has the Commission taken due account of the proposed Directive’s possible inconsistency with the EU’s WTO obligations? Has it also considered the potential negative impact that this proposed Directive may have on international trade, by setting an important precedent for other products?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2013)

The Commission has fully taken into account the European Union's international obligations when making its proposal to revise the Tobacco Products Directive. Such obligations notably include WTO rules, and the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, both of which are binding for both the EU and its Member States.

In the view of the Commission, the proposed Directive is fully compatible with WTO obligations. As to the argument that the directive will set a precedent for other products, the Commission would stress that, given the particularly harmful effect of tobacco products on people's health, tobacco products are no ordinary commodities and cannot therefore be compared to other products placed on the market. Furthermore, there are no plans at EU level to extend a similar regulatory approach to other products.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003299/13

an die Kommission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(22. März 2013)

Betrifft: Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2008/50/EG über Luftqualität und saubere Luft für Europa

In der Richtlinie 2008/50/EG über Luftqualität und saubere Luft für Europa werden den Mitgliedstaaten strenge Grenzwerte bezüglich der Höchstkonzentrationen von Schadstoffen in der Luft vorgeschrieben. Da viele deutsche Regionen — trotz der Erarbeitung von Luftreinhalteplänen zur Umsetzung von Maßnahmen zur Senkung der Schadstoffkonzentrationen — die in der Richtlinie festgelegten Grenzwerte für Stickstoffdioxid nicht einhalten konnten, beantragten sie bei der Kommission eine Fristverlängerung bis zum 1. Januar 2015. Von insgesamt 57 eingereichten Anträgen deutscher Regionen wurden 33 von der Kommission abgelehnt.

Kann die Kommission vor diesem Hintergrund folgende Fragen beantworten:

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(3. Mai 2013)

1.Die Kommission hat von 18 Mitgliedstaaten Mitteilungen bezüglich einer Verlängerung der Frist für die Einhaltung der NO2-Grenzwerte erhalten. Sämtliche Informationen zu diesen Mitteilungen sind allgemein zugänglich unter:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm

2.Alle Mitgliedstaaten erfüllen die Anforderung der Richtlinie 2008/50/EG über Luftqualität (nachstehend „die Richtlinie“), wonach der Kommission spätestens neun Monate nach Ablauf jedes Jahres Informationen über die Luftqualität übermittelt werden müssen. Für die Zuverlässigkeit dieser Informationen sind in erster Linie die Mitgliedstaaten verantwortlich. Bestehen Zweifel an der Richtigkeit und Zuverlässigkeit der Angaben, so bemüht sich die Kommission stets um eine Fortsetzung des Dialogs, um auf der Grundlage der besten verfügbaren Informationen entscheiden zu können.

3.Die Richtlinie enthält eine Reihe von Kriterien in Bezug auf die Errichtung von Messstationen und die Mindestanzahl der Probenahmestellen. Darüber hinaus organisiert die Kommission regelmäßig vergleichende Untersuchungen und einen breiten Informationsaustausch, um die Luftqualitätsmessungen europaweit zu vereinheitlichen (139), (140).

4.Zur Verlängerung der für die Einhaltung der NO2-Grenzwerte geltenden Frist können die Mitgliedstaaten neue Mitteilungen vorlegen, wenn anhand zusätzlicher Informationen belegt werden kann, dass die Einhaltung der Grenzwerte zum 1. Januar 2015 erreicht wird. Bei Nichteinhaltung der Grenzwerte in Gebieten, für die keine Fristverlängerungen gelten, kann die Kommission ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen den betreffenden Mitgliedstaat einleiten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003299/13

to the Commission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe lays down strict limit values for Member States with regard to the maximum concentrations of pollutants in the air. Since many regions in Germany — despite air quality maintenance plans being drawn up to implement measures to reduce concentrations of pollutants — are not able to comply with the limit values laid down in the directive for nitrogen dioxide, they asked the Commission to postpone the deadline to 1 January 2015. Of a total of 57 applications submitted by German regions, 33 were rejected by the Commission.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

deadline from 18 Member States. All the information regarding the notifications is publicly available at :

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm

‘Directive’) to ensure that information on ambient air quality is made available to the Commission no later than nine months after the end of each year. It is mainly the responsibility of the Member State to ensure that the information made available is reliable. If the veracity and reliability of the information is put in question, the Commission always attempts to continue the dialogue in order to base its decision on the best available information.

deadline if there is additional information showing that compliance will be reached by 1 January 2015. As regards zones not covered by time extensions, the Commission may launch an infringement procedure if a Member State fails to comply with the limit values.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003300/13

to the Commission

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Fairness and transparency in programmes between Member States

The Italian National Institute of Social Security (INPS) recently issued a call for tenders relating to the Valore Vacanza Programme. In this call many countries were eligible, including the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.

The north of Ireland was excluded, and no reason was given for this. No other regions of any Member State were excluded.

When questioned, the organisation concerned refused to put anything in writing, saying that it was due to fear about the political situation in the region.

Other projects funded by the Italian Government (PON and Safarijob) do allow applications to be made from the north and have cooperated successfully with the region.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

On the basis of the available elements, the Commission considers that the problems raised by the Honourable Member do not entail a violation of the internal market rules. A limitation of the scope of the services covered by a call for tender, in the specific case concerning the locations where the services are provided, remains within the discretion of contracting authorities and does not per se violate Article 56 of the TFEU.

With particular regard to the respect of EU public procurement law, the call for tender does not seem to be discriminatory since it is open to candidates from all EU countries. Furthermore, the respect of equal treatment and transparency in call for tenders is ensured by the correct application of EU public procurement law, notably Directive 2004/17/EC and Directive 2004/18/EC, requiring Member States to award public contracts through procedures that are transparent and allow participation of tenderers from all EU Member States on an equal footing.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003301/13

a la Comisión

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) y Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Acuerdo comercial entre la UE y los EE.UU. y obligaciones con arreglo al Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (Pidesc)

La UE tiene la obligación de respetar, proteger y garantizar el ejercicio de los derechos humanos consagrados en el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (Pidesc). Esta obligación es fruto de las tradiciones constitucionales comunes a los Estados miembros (artículo 6, apartado 3, del TUE), habida cuenta de que todos los Estados miembros han ratificado el Pidesc. La UE debe desistir de todo acto y omisión que pueda suponer un verdadero riesgo para los derechos enunciados en el Pidesc por su capacidad para anular o impedir el pleno ejercicio de los mismos (véase también el asunto C-73/08, Nicolas Bressol y otros).

Los Estados Unidos han firmado el Pidesc pero no lo han ratificado.

¿Cómo va a garantizar la Comisión que, en el transcurso de las negociaciones del anunciado acuerdo comercial con los EE.UU., se respetarán los derechos recogidos en el Pidesc, incluido el derecho de toda persona a «participar libremente de manera activa e informada, y sin discriminación, en los procesos importantes de adopción de decisiones que puedan repercutir en su forma de vida y en los derechos que les reconoce el párrafo 1 a) del artículo 15 (143)»?

Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de mayo de 2013)

La Comisión concede gran importancia a los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. Además, considera que la transparencia es fundamental para la comprensión mutua y la aceptabilidad de las políticas en cualquier área, conforme a la Observación General n° 21, apartado 49, letra e), del Consejo Económico y Social de las Naciones Unidas a que hace referencia Su Señoría.

En las negociaciones sobre la Asociación Transatlántica sobre Comercio e Inversión con Estados Unidos (EE.UU.), la Comisión respetará la necesidad de que el público esté informado sobre el Acuerdo, de conformidad con el artículo 11 del Tratado de Lisboa.

A tal fin, la Comisión llevará a cabo un diálogo estructurado con la sociedad civil a través de reuniones periódicas sobre política comercial, con objeto de reforzar la comunicación y el entendimiento mutuo. Los días 20 de marzo de 2012 y 4 de abril de 2013 se celebraron dos sesiones específicas sobre las posibles negociaciones con EE.UU.

Además, en 2012 se iniciaron dos consultas públicas a fin de recopilar puntos de vista detallados de los interesados en relación con las futuras relaciones comerciales y económicas entre la UE y Estados Unidos.

Por otra parte, la Comisión ha informado al Comité Económico y Social Europeo.

La UE plantea regularmente la cuestión de la ratificación del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales con el Gobierno de Estados Unidos.

La Comisión seguirá informando periódicamente al Parlamento sobre la evolución de este asunto.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003301/13

an die Kommission

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) und Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22. März 2013)

Betrifft: Handelsabkommen EU-USA und Verpflichtungen aus dem Internationalen Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte (IPWSKR)

Die EU ist verpflichtet, die im Internationalen Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte (IPWSKR) verankerten Menschenrechte zu achten, zu schützen und zu gewährleisten. Diese Verpflichtung ergibt sich aus den gemeinsamen Verfassungsüberlieferungen der Mitgliedstaaten (Artikel 6 Absatz 3 EUV), da alle Mitgliedstaaten den IPWSKR ratifiziert haben. Die EU muss von Handlungen und Unterlassungen absehen, die eine reelle Gefahr bergen, dass der Genuss von Rechten aus dem IPWSKR aufgehoben oder beeinträchtigt wird (siehe auch Rechtssache C‐73/08, Bressol u. a.).

Die Vereinigten Staaten haben den IPWSKR zwar unterzeichnet, aber nicht ratifiziert.

Wie wird die Kommission bei den Verhandlungen zum geplanten Handelsabkommen mit den USA sicherstellen, dass die Rechte aus dem IPWSKR, einschließlich des Rechts jedes Menschen, ungehindert, aktiv, aufgeklärt und ohne Diskriminierung an jedem wichtigen Entscheidungsprozess teilzuhaben, der sich auf seine Lebensweise oder seine Rechte nach Artikel 15 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a (144) auswirken könnte, geachtet werden?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(15. Mai 2013)

Die Kommission legt großen Wert auf die Achtung wirtschaftlicher, sozialer und kultureller Rechte. Zudem ist sie im Einklang mit der Allgemeinen Bemerkung Nr. 21 des Wirtschafts‐ und Sozialrats der Vereinten Nationen (Absatz 49 Buchstabe e), die die Abgeordneten anführen, der Auffassung, dass Transparenz wesentlich für das wechselseitige Verständnis und die Akzeptanz der Politik in jedem Bereich ist.

Während der Verhandlungen mit den Vereinigten Staaten (USA) über die transatlantische Handels‐ und Investitionspartnerschaft wird die Kommission das Bedürfnis der Öffentlichkeit, hierüber informiert zu werden, entsprechend Artikel 11 des Vertrags von Lissabon durchweg respektieren.

In diesem Sinne führt die Kommission einen strukturierten Dialog mit der Zivilgesellschaft in der Form regelmäßiger Sitzungen zur Handelspolitik, durch die die Kommunikation und das wechselseitige Verständnis gestärkt werden sollen. Zwei Sitzungen speziell zu den möglichen Verhandlungen mit den USA fanden am 20. März 2012 sowie am 4. April 2013 statt.

Ferner wurden 2012 zwei öffentliche Konsultationen durchgeführt, um die Meinungen von Interessenträgern zu den künftigen Handels‐ und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen der EU und den USA in ausführlicher Form einzuholen.

Außerdem hat die Kommission den Europäischen Wirtschafts‐ und Sozialausschuss unterrichtet.

Darüber hinaus spricht die EU der Regierung der USA gegenüber regelmäßig die Frage der Ratifizierung des Internationalen Pakts über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte an.

Die Kommission wird dem Parlament weiterhin regelmäßig über den Sachstand in dieser Angelegenheit Bericht erstatten.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003301/13

à la Commission

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) et Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22 mars 2013)

Objet: Accord commercial entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis et obligations au titre du pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels (Pidesc)

L'Union européenne se doit de respecter, de protéger et de faire valoir les Droits de l'homme inscrits dans le pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels (Pidesc). L'obligation de l'Union européenne est une obligation qui résulte des traditions constitutionnelles communes aux États membres (article 6, paragraphe 3 du traité sur l'Union européenne), depuis que l'ensemble des États membres a ratifié le Pidesc. L'Union doit s'abstenir de tout acte ou omission qui créent un risque réel de violer de sa substance ou de mettre en péril la jouissance des droits inscrits dans le Pidesc (voir l'affaire C-73/08 Nicolas Bressol e.a)

Les États-Unis ont signé le Pidesc mais ne l'ont pas encore ratifié.

Comment la Commission veillera-t-elle, durant les négociations de l'accord commercial annoncé avec les États-Unis , au respect des droits relevant du Pidesc, y compris du droit de chacun «de participer librement, activement, en connaissance de cause et sans discrimination, à tout processus important de prise de décisions susceptible d'avoir des effets sur son mode de vie et ses droits en vertu du paragraphe 1, point a), de l'article 15» (145).

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

(15 mai 2013)

La Commission attache une grande importance aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. De plus, elle considère la transparence comme fondamentale pour la compréhension mutuelle et l'acceptation des politiques, quel que soit le domaine, dans le droit fil de l'observation générale no 21, paragraphe 49 e), du Conseil économique et social des Nations unies (ONU) à laquelle l'auteur de la question fait référence.

Tout au long des négociations du partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement avec les États-Unis, la Commission respectera le besoin d'informer le public à propos de cet accord, conformément à l'article 11 du Traité de Lisbonne.

À cette fin, la Commission mène un dialogue structuré avec la société civile dans le cadre de réunions régulières portant sur la politique commerciale, dans le but de renforcer la communication et la compréhension mutuelle. Deux sessions consacrées aux éventuelles négociations avec les États-Unis ont eu lieu le 20 mars 2012 et le 4 avril 2013.

En outre, deux consultations publiques ont été lancées en 2012 pour tenter de recueillir les avis précis des parties intéressées concernant les futures relations commerciales et économiques entre l'UE et les États-Unis.

La Commission a également informé le Comité économique et social européen.

L'UE aborde régulièrement avec les autorités américaines la question de la ratification du Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.

La Commission continuera à informer régulièrement le Parlement européen de l'état d'avancement du dossier.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003301/13

aan de Commissie

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) en Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22 maart 2013)

Betreft: Handelsovereenkomst tussen de EU en de VS en verplichtingen in het kader van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake economische, sociale en culturele rechten (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR)

De EU is verplicht de in het Internationaal Verdrag inzake economische, sociale en culturele rechten vastgelegde mensenrechten in acht te nemen, te beschermen en na te komen. Aangezien alle lidstaten het ICESCR hebben geratificeerd, vloeit deze verplichting voort uit de constitutionele tradities die de lidstaten gemeen hebben (artikel 6, lid 3, VEU). De EU moet ophouden te handelen en nalaten te handelen als dit een reëel risico inhoudt het genot van ICESCR-rechten teniet te doen of er afbreuk aan te doen (zie ook C-73/08, Bressol e.a.).

De Verenigde Staten hebben het ICESCR ondertekend, maar niet geratificeerd.

Hoe zal de Commissie ervoor zorgen dat tijdens de onderhandelingen over de aangekondigde handelsovereenkomst met de VS de ICESCR-rechten worden in acht genomen, met inbegrip van eenieders recht om „zonder discriminatie op een actieve en geïnformeerde wijze vrij deel te nemen aan elk belangrijk besluitvormingsproces dat een impact kan hebben op zijn of haar levenswijze en op zijn of haar rechten overeenkomstig artikel 15, lid 1, onder a” (146)?

Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie

(15 mei 2013)

De Commissie hecht groot belang aan economische, sociale en culturele rechten. Bovendien beschouwt zij transparantie, in overeenstemming met paragraaf 49 (e) van General Comment 21 van de Economische en Sociale Raad van de Verenigde Naties (VN), waarnaar het Parlementslid verwijst, als essentieel voor wederzijds begrip voor en aanvaarding van beleid op welk vlak dan ook.

Tijdens de volledige duur van de onderhandelingen over een trans-Atlantisch handels‐ en investeringspartnerschap met de Verenigde Staten (VS) zal de Commissie in overeenstemming met artikel 11 van het Verdrag van Lissabon de bevolking informeren met betrekking tot het partnerschap.

Daarom houdt de Commissie een gestructureerde dialoog met het maatschappelijk middenveld door middel van regelmatige bijeenkomsten over het handelsbeleid met het doel de communicatie en het wederzijdse begrip te versterken. Twee sessies die specifiek gewijd waren aan de mogelijke onderhandelingen met de VS vonden op 20 maart 2012 en 4 april 2013 plaats.

Verder zijn in 2012 twee openbare raadplegingen van start gegaan om gedetailleerde visies van belanghebbenden te verkrijgen over de toekomstige economische en handelsbetrekkingen tussen de EU en de VS.

De Commissie heeft ook het Europees Economisch en Sociaal Comité geïnformeerd.

De EU brengt de ratificatie door de VS van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake economische, sociale en culturele rechten regelmatig  ter sprake bij de regering van de VS.

De Commissie zal het Parlement regelmatig blijven informeren over de stand van zaken met betrekking tot dit dossier.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-003301/13

till kommissionen

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) och Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22 mars 2013)

Angående: Handelsavtal mellan EU och Förenta staterna samt skyldigheter inom ramen för den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter

EU har skyldighet att respektera, skydda och uppfylla de mänskliga rättigheter som fastslås i den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter. Denna skyldighet är ett resultat av medlemsstaternas gemensamma konstitutionella traditioner (artikel 6.3 i fördraget om Europeiska unionen), eftersom alla medlemsstaterna ratificerat den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter. EU måste avstå från handlingar eller underlåtenhet som utgör en faktisk risk att upphäva eller försämra åtnjutandet av rättigheterna i den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter (se även mål C‐73/08, Bressol m.fl.).

Förenta staterna har undertecknat men inte ratificerat den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter.

Hur kommer kommissionen, under förhandlingen om det tillkännagivna handelsavtalet med Förenta staterna, att garantera att rättigheterna i den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter respekteras, inbegripet allas rätt att fritt delta på ett aktivt och informerat sätt, och utan diskriminering, i alla viktiga beslutsprocesser som kan ha en inverkan på denna persons livsstil eller på dennes rättigheter, i enlighet med artikel 15, punkt 1 a (147)?

Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar

(15 maj 2013)

Kommissionen fäster stor vikt vid ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter. Dessutom anser vi att öppenhet är en grundförutsättning för ömsesidig förståelse och acceptans av politiken på alla områden i linje med artikel 49 e i den allmänna kommentaren nr 21 från FN:s ekonomiska och sociala råd som parlamentsledamöterna hänvisar till.

Vid förhandlingarna om ett transatlantiskt partnerskap för handel och investeringar med USA kommer kommissionen att respektera allmänhetens behov av information om avtalet i enlighet med artikel 11 i EU-fördraget.

Därför för kommissionen en strukturerad dialog med civilsamhället i form av regelbundna möten om handelspolitiken för att förbättra kommunikationen och den ömsesidiga förståelsen. Två speciella möten om förhandlingarna med USA hölls den 20 mars 2012 och den 4 april 2013.

Dessutom hölls två offentliga samråd 2012 för att få in synpunkter från berörda aktörer om de framtida handelsförbindelserna och ekonomiska förbindelserna mellan EU och USA.

Kommissionen har också informerat Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén.

EU tar regelbundet upp frågan om ratificering av den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter med den amerikanska administrationen.

Kommissionen fortsätter att regelbundet rapportera till Europaparlamentet om hur det går i det här ärendet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003301/13

to the Commission

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) and Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: EU-US trade agreement and obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

The EU is obliged to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This obligation results from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States (Article 6(3) TEU), since all the Member States have ratified the ICESCR. The EU must desist from acts and omissions that create a real risk of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment of ICESCR rights (see also Case C‐73/08, Bressol and Others).

The United States has signed but not ratified the ICESCR.

How will the Commission ensure, during the negotiation of the announced trade agreement with the US, that the ICESCR rights are respected, including everyone’s right ‘to take part freely in an active and informed way, and without discrimination, in any important decision‐making process that may have an impact on his or her way of life and on his or her rights under Article 15, paragraph 1 (a)’ (148)?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2013)

The Commission attaches great importance to economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, it considers that transparency is essential for mutual understanding and acceptability of policy in any area in line with the General Comment No 21, paragraph 49 (e) of the United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Council that the Honourable Member refers to.

Throughout the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the United States (US), the Commission will respect the need of the public to be informed about the agreement in compliance with Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty.

To this end, the Commission conducts a structured dialogue with civil society through regular meetings on trade policy with the purpose of strengthening communication and mutual understanding. Two dedicated sessions on the possible US negotiations were held on 20 March 2012 and on 4 April 2013.

Furthermore, two public consultations were launched in 2012 to enable the gathering of detailed views from stakeholders relating to the future trade and economic relationship between the EU and the US.

The Commission has also informed the European Social and Economic Committee.

The EU regularly raises the issue of ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with the US Government.

The Commission will continue reporting regularly to Parliament on the state-of-play of the file.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003302/13

to the Commission

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Funding to tackle transgender discrimination

Are there currently any EU funding streams available to encourage the creation of equality‐ or LGBT-related, specifically transgender forums and organisations?

Are there any such streams envisaged under the next MFF, and will they be crossborder or involve more than one Member State?

Will the rights and citizenship programme have specific funds to deal with issues of transgender equality, in terms of support, challenging discrimination and best-practice sharing?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

Under the current financial framework the PROGRESS Programme (149) provides funding to support the effective implementation of the principle of non-discrimination (Section 4: Antidiscrimination and diversity), and aims, among others, to promote networking, mutual learning, identification and dissemination of good practice and innovative approaches, as well as to support the capacity of key European level networks. Funding is available from the PROGRESS Programme to organisations which are active to combat discrimination and meet the priorities and provisions established in the annual work programmes and in the relevant calls for proposals.

As the Honorable Member is aware of, under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework the Commission has included the Anti-discrimination and Diversity section of the PROGRESS Programme into the Rights and Citizenship Programme, currently under negotiation with the European Parliament and the Council. In the Commission's proposal, one of the specific objectives of this Programme is to support the effective implementation of the principle of non-discrimination and possible types of actions to be funded include support to main actors, networking among specialised bodies and organisations, mutual learning, identification and dissemination of good practices, etc. The Commission proposal allows funding for either national or transnational actions.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003303/13

to the Commission

Roger Helmer (EFD)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: EU aid to Palestine

The EU is, according to the European External Action Service’s website, the largest donor of financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (150), and therefore has considerable responsibility.

While there is little doubt that Palestinians experience hardship and assistance is needed, it is also alleged that the Palestinian Authority continues to misappropriate funds:

While I am aware that basic data is provided on EU grants to Palestine, I am also informed that substantial documentation on grants relating to organisations involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict remains hidden. Can the Commission explain why there is a lack of transparency in this instance?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

The Olaf Report of 2004 found no proof that EU funds were misappropriated. Nevertheless a number of measures have been taken to address the recommendations made to the Commission at that time.

Under the Temporary International Mechanism (TIM) from 2006-2008 and the PEGASE (152) which replaced it in 2008 and continues, the EU no longer provides direct budget support to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Funds for civil service salaries and pensions, as well as for social security allocations, are paid into a Single Treasury Sub-Account, established by the Ministry of Finance specifically for this purpose.

Disbursements are made on the basis of lists of eligible beneficiaries, submitted by the PA and subject to ex ante authorisation and ex post verification by audit companies employed by the Commission specifically for this purpose. Through this system the EU is able to verify the amount of money paid to each individual beneficiary.

The TIM was subject to an external evaluation and audit which provided reasonable assurance on the procedures used. PEGASE has also been subject to an internal audit which reached similar conclusions. An audit by the Court of Auditors of the PEGASE direct financial support mechanism is ongoing.

The Commission does not accept the allegations of a lack of transparency in funding for projects implemented by NGOs in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Grants for projects which are awarded to NGOs under the EIDHR (153) and Partnership for Peace initiative are attributed following public calls for proposals. These calls — as well as the names of the projects selected and the beneficiary — are published on the website of the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation and of the EU Delegations concerned (154).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003304/13

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Nutrition and healthy eating in hospitals and nursing homes

Food nutrition is vital for a healthy lifestyle and is even more important when people are unwell or recovering from illness or medical procedures. Increasingly studies are demonstrating that malnourished patients can suffer from decreased appetite, reduced cardiac output, slower healing of wounds and higher rates of mortality.

It was recently reported that patients in Irish hospitals are being fed a high-fat, high-calorie diet based mainly on processed foods, in direct contravention of departmental healthy eating guidelines. For example, the sick and elderly in more than 100 public hospitals and nursing homes in Ireland are being offered highly processed foods such as potato waffles, pies with just 10% meat, fish dishes that were only 50% fish, etc.

Further studies have highlighted the fact that 11% of people who go into Irish hospitals are malnourished and 30% show nutritional decline during their stay.

Given that a study carried out in 70 hospitals in the USA showed that patients who got proper nutrition stayed in hospital 2.1 fewer days on average, thus saving almost USD 700 per bed day, it is clear that proper nutrition for hospital patients could also save money, for the national health authorities as well as the patient.

In this regard, could the Commission comment on what policy is in place in relation to nutrition in hospitals and nursing homes on an EU-wide basis? Has the Commission conducted research on what constitutes best practice in relation to food nutrition in hospitals and nursing homes across the EU? What recommendations does the Commission make to Member States in relation to food nutrition and public bodies such as national health authorities and care organisations?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

The Commission is promoting EU action to promote healthier diets as set out in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related Health issues (155). The strategy is implemented through the High Level Group for Nutrition and Physical Activity (156) and the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (157).

The food provided at hospitals and nursing homes is a Member State responsibility and national authorities have a key role in providing appropriate meals to the patients. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to inform or comment on the specific policies in this area in the Member States.

The Commission will be supporting a two year pilot project aimed at promoting healthy diets targeting pregnant women, children, as well as elderly people. This project will involve relevant stakeholders comprising among others paediatric doctors, nurses, midwives and nutritionists, and will be implemented in specific settings including hospitals.

Moreover, under the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, there is a commitment by German retailers (in cooperation with other organisations) on offering healthy meals in German canteens and nursing homes.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003305/13

adresată Comisiei

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 martie 2013)

Subiect: Instituirea unui registru public pentru cel de al 8-lea, al 9-lea și al 10-lea Fond european de dezvoltare

În raportul său privind descărcarea de gestiune pentru execuția bugetului celui de al 8-lea, al 9-lea și al 10-lea Fond european de dezvoltare aferent exercițiului financiar 2010, Parlamentul a solicitat Comisiei și statelor membre să creeze un registru public în care să fie enumerate în mod transparent acordurile de sprijin bugetar, procedurile și indicatorii de dezvoltare. Comisia pentru control bugetar a Parlamentului a reiterat această solicitare în proiectul său de raport privind descărcarea de gestiune 2011 pentru execuția bugetului celui de al 8-lea, al 9-lea și al 10-lea Fond european de dezvoltare, pe care l-a adoptat la 18 martie 2013.

Poate Comisia să prezinte stadiul măsurilor adoptate și calendarul stabilit pentru instituirea acestui registru public?

Răspuns dat de dl Piebalgs în numele Comisiei

(16 mai 2013)

Comisia s-a angajat, în Comunicarea din 2011 privind o nouă abordare a sprijinului bugetar, să publice informații relevante privind operațiunile de sprijin bugetar ale UE (158).

În prezent, există mai multe instrumente, care nu sunt specifice pentru sprijinul bugetar, prin care se asigură transparența ajutoarelor și a operațiunilor Comisiei [de exemplu, sistemul de transparență financiară (159) sau instrumentul pentru transparența ajutoarelor (TR-AID) (160)].

În 2012 și 2013, Comisia a pus în aplicare noile instrumente și proceduri introduse de noua abordare a sprijinului bugetar, cum ar fi cadrul de gestionare a riscurilor. Pornind de la această revizuire radicală a sistemului de sprijin bugetar, Comisia a început în 2013 să analizeze natura informațiilor pe care trebuie să le publice în lumina angajamentelor politice asumate, precum și cele mai potrivite mijloace prin care pot fi puse la dispoziție aceste informații.

A fost instituit un grup de lucru care să examineze implicațiile juridice, tehnice și de comunicare ale structurii și naturii informațiilor ce trebuie furnizate.

În contextul pregătirii următorului cadru financiar multianual (CFM 2014-2020) și a celui de al 11-lea Fond european de dezvoltare, Comisia urmărește dezvoltarea instrumentului de informare necesar. Publicarea acestor informații va trebui să fie corelată cu bazele de date existente, de exemplu bazele de date menționate anterior.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003305/13

to the Commission

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Establishment of a public register for the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds

In its report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2010, Parliament called on the Commission and Member States to create a public register in which budget support agreements, procedures and development indicators would be fully transparently listed. Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control reiterated this call in its draft report on the 2011 discharge in respect of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds, which it adopted on 18 March 2013.

Can the Commission outline the state of play and time framework regarding the establishment of this public register?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2013)

The Commission has committed itself, in the 2011 Communication on a new approach to Budget Support, to publishing relevant information on EU budget support operations (161).

Currently, several instruments, not specific to Budget Support, allow for transparency of aid and Commission's operations (for instance the financial transparency system (FTS) (162) or the Transparent Aid (TR-AID) tool (163)).

In 2012 and 2013, the Commission put in place the new tools and procedures introduced by the new approach to Budget Support, such as the Risk Management Framework. Based on this overhaul of the Budget Support system, the Commission has started in 2013 to analyse the nature of the information to be published in line with its policy commitment and the best media for publishing it.

A working group has been established to look into the legal, technical and communication aspects of the information structure and nature to be provided.

In the framework of the preparation of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2014 — 2020) and the 11th European Development Fund, the Commission aims at developing the needed information tool. The publication of this information will have to be linked to existing databases such as those mentioned above.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003306/13

adresată Comisiei

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 martie 2013)

Subiect: Mai multă transparență cu privire la achizițiile publice pe site-ul de internet al OLAF

Site-ul de internet al Oficiului European de Luptă Antifraudă (OLAF) oferă acces la lista contractanților cărora le-au fost atribuite contracte cu valoare scăzută între 2005 și 2011, așa cum prevăd articolul 91 din Regulamentul financiar și articolul 129 din Normele de aplicare și în conformitate cu articolul 119 alineatul (3) din Normele de aplicare.

Pe de altă parte, lista contractanților cărora li s-au atribuit contracte cu valoare ridicată nu a fost pusă la dispoziție pe site-ul de internet. În plus, pagina de internet a OLAF prezintă doar procedurile recente de achiziții pentru „Crearea unui mecanism de evaluare al UE în domeniul combaterii corupției, acordând o atenție deosebită identificării și reducerii costurilor corupției în achizițiile publice care implică fonduri europene” și „Furnizarea și instalarea de fișete mobile”. Aceasta constituie o deficiență gravă în materie de transparență și îngreunează monitorizarea de către contribuabilii și părțile interesate din UE a modului în care OLAF cheltuiește banii publici.

Răspuns dat de dl Šemeta în numele Comisiei

(6 mai 2013)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003306/13

to the Commission

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Increasing the transparency of OLAF's website with regard to public procurement

The website of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) offers access to the list of contractors awarded low-value contracts between 2005 and 2011. This is in accordance with Article 91 of the Financial Regulation and Article 129 of the Implementing Rules and based on Article 119(3), paragraph 2 of the Implementing Rules.

On the other hand, the list of contractors awarded high-value contracts has not been made available on this website. Moreover, OLAF’s website only presents recent calls for tenders for the ‘Development of an EU Evaluation Mechanism in the area of Anti-Corruption with a particular focus on identifying and reducing the costs of corruption in Public Procurement involving EU Funds’ and ‘Supply and installation of mobile filing cabinets’. This represents a serious weakness in terms of transparency and makes it more difficult for EU taxpayers and interested parties to monitor OLAF’s public spending.

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2013)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003307/13

to the Commission

Fiona Hall (ALDE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: National policies regarding electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure across the EU

In 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. In 1999, the Council published its recommendation on the limitation of the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (174), based on the limitations recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines. The Commission last reported on the implementation of the Council’s recommendation in 2008, and in 2011 the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment published a report entitled ‘Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields)’.

Is the Commission aware of any research or evidence which indicates that different national (or even regional) policies on the limitation of EMF exposure have had any effect on the health of citizens living in different areas?

Would the Commission be willing to instigate research into the impact on health of the differing policies to limit EMF exposure across EU Member States?

Given that in 2011 it was estimated that 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and that this number is significantly increasing, especially as a result of 3G and 4G technology, does the Commission consider the EU’s current legislation on EMF exposure, which dates back more than a decade, to still be sufficient to protect the general public?

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

(6 May 2013)

The Commission is not aware of the studies mentioned by the Honourable Member. Health impact assessment of exposure to EMF poses a significant scientific challenge as to date no firm conclusions can be drawn as to potential adverse health effects of exposure to EMFs.

The Commission is currently funding three projects on health impacts of EMFs (175), with a possible fourth one coming from a currently open call, which may serve as a basis for health impact assessment research in the future. The evaluation and measurement of effective EMF exposures are one of the main scientific questions addressed by these projects.

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (176) provides for clear limitations of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields.

To make sure that the exposure limits of the Council Recommendation do indeed provide a high level of protection, the Commission requests periodically an independent update of the scientific evidence available and checks whether it still supports the proposed exposure limits. The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has a standing mandate to provide these independent updates.

All assessments to date have concluded that there is no scientific rationale to revise the exposure limits. A new update has been launched, with an expected public consultation by June 2013 (177).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003308/13

aan de Commissie

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE) en Esther de Lange (PPE)

(22 maart 2013)

Betreft: Prestaties van de Geriatric Expert Group met betrekking tot de veiligheid van geneesmiddelen voor ouderen

Via haar antwoord op onze vraag E-011147/2012 heeft de Commissie ons medegedeeld dat het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau (EMA) een Geriatric Expert Group heeft opgericht, die wetenschappelijk advies geeft aan het Comité voor geneesmiddelen voor menselijk gebruik (CHMP) en het EMA-secretariaat over kwesties met betrekking tot ouderen.

Het is voor ons echter niet duidelijk op welke wijze deze deskundigengroep invloed uitoefent op de bescherming van de belangen van ouderen bij het testen van medicijnen. Deze invloed lijkt tot nu toe zeer beperkt te zijn, hetgeen onaanvaardbaar zou zijn. Bovendien moeten ouderen volledig kunnen vertrouwen op de geneesmiddelen die zij innemen.

Kan de Commissie specifieker zijn bij het beantwoorden van de volgende vragen:

Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie

(14 mei 2013)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003308/13

to the Commission

Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE) and Esther de Lange (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Achievements of the Geriatric Expert Group in keeping medicines safe for older people

The Commission has informed us, answering our Question E-011147/2012, that in 2011 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) created a Geriatric Expert Group, which provides scientific advice to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) and the EMA secretariat on issues related to older people.

However, the impact of this Expert Group in terms of safeguarding the interests of older people when testing medicines is unclear to us. So far, its influence seems very limited. If this were to be the case it would not be acceptable. Also, older people should be able to completely trust the medicines they take.

Can the Commission be more specific and answer the following questions:

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2013)

— scientific advice on geriatric aspects of guidelines to be released for consultation;

— scientific advice on specific geriatric aspects of medicines development, assessment of products or pharmacovigilance issues;

— geriatric expertise during to Agency meetings, when needed;

— participation in other activities linked to the implementation of the Agency's geriatric medicines strategy.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003309/13

alla Commissione

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(22 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Certificazione SOA

Considerato che l'Attestazione SOA è la certificazione obbligatoria per la partecipazione a gare d'appalto per l'esecuzione di appalti pubblici di lavori, ovvero un documento necessario e sufficiente a comprovare, in sede di gara, la capacità dell'impresa di eseguire, direttamente o in subappalto, opere pubbliche di lavori con importo a base d'asta superiore a 150.000 euro.

Considerato che l'Attestazione SOA ha validità quinquennale (sempre che ne venga verificata la validità al terzo anno dal primo rilascio) e viene rilasciata a seguito di un'istruttoria di validazione dei documenti prodotti dall'impresa, facenti capo agli ultimi dieci esercizi di attività dell'impresa (dieci anni di lavori e i migliori cinque esercizi tra gli ultimi dieci) da appositi Organismi di Attestazione, ovvero società autorizzate ad operare dall'Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici (AVCP).

Considerato che l'Attestazione SOA qualifica l'azienda ad appaltare lavori per categorie di opere quali opere di carattere generale (edilizia civile e industriale, fogne e acquedotti, strade, restauri, etc.) e opere specializzate (impianti, restauri di superfici decorate, scavi, demolizioni, arredo urbano, finiture tecniche, finiture in legno, in vetro e in gesso, arginature etc.).

Considerato che il rilascio dell'Attestazione SOA ha un costo minino di 5.296,57 euro e che pertanto, in un momento di crisi come quello attuale, imprese in difficoltà rischiano di essere tagliate fuori da procedure di gare di appalto che facilitano le imprese economicamente più forti a scapito delle piccole e medie aziende in difficoltà.

Considerato che in altri paesi come Regno Unito e Germania esistono sistemi volontari e preventivi di qualificazione che non comportano costi per le imprese partecipanti a gare di appalto.

Considerato che regole di funzionamento omogenee in tutti gli Stati membri garantirebbero un mercato interno più efficiente.

— Non ritiene la Commissione che sia necessario intervenire al fine di armonizzare un settore normativo dove le differenze esistenti in materia di accesso alla gara di appalto rendono farraginoso il mercato interno?

— Non ritiene inoltre che l'Attestazione SOA sia discriminatoria e tenda a privilegiare le aziende che possono permettersi la cifra necessaria all'ottenimento della stessa?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(13 maggio 2013)

Per valutare quanto le attestazioni SOA gravano sulle imprese, occorre considerare che sono valide cinque anni e che sono obbligatorie solo per gli appalti per lavori pubblici di valore superiore a 150 000 euro. Inoltre, ai sensi della normativa italiana le imprese di altri Stati membri non sono tenute a essere in possesso di un'attestazione SOA e possono dimostrare la loro idoneità con strumenti alternativi. Questo assicura, conformemente alla direttiva 2004/18/CE, l'assenza di discriminazione nei confronti delle imprese di altri Stati membri ed evita ostacoli alle offerte transfrontaliere. Gli Stati membri sono autorizzati ad avere in vigore norme quali quella in questione, a condizione che rispettino la legislazione dell'UE in materia di appalti pubblici e i principi del trattato.

La Commissione condivide tuttavia la preoccupazione di ridurre al minimo gli oneri amministrativi a carico degli offerenti potenziali. Visto il contesto, la proposta della Commissione di una nuova direttiva in materia di appalti pubblici dispone che le amministrazioni aggiudicatrici accettino autodichiarazioni come prova preliminare che i candidati e gli offerenti non presentano motivi di esclusione e soddisfano i criteri di selezione. Questa proposta ridurrà ulteriormente gli ostacoli all'accesso agli appalti pubblici.

La proposta della Commissione intende inoltre promuovere gli appalti elettronici — rendendoli obbligatori — e rafforzare il ruolo di e-Certis, un sistema di informazione che aiuta le imprese a individuare quali attestazioni e certificati sono necessari nelle gare di appalto degli Stati membri definendo le equivalenze fra le varie certificazioni. In questo modo le procedure di partecipazione alle gare di appalto risulteranno snellite.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003309/13

to the Commission

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: SOA certification

The SOA certificate (Certification Body certificate) is the certificate required in Italy for submitting tenders for public works contracts, or a necessary and sufficient document for proving a company’s ability in a tendering process, either directly or as a subcontractor, to execute public works contracts with a bid price greater than EUR 150 000.

A SOA certificate is valid for five years (provided its validity is checked in the third year after it was first issued) and is issued after examination and validation of the documents produced by the company relating to the company’s last 10 years of operation (10 years’ work and the best five years out of the last 10) conducted by specific certification bodies, which are organisations authorised to operate by the Public Contract Supervisory Authority (AVCP). A SOA certificate qualifies the company to undertake work in categories such as general works (civil and industrial construction, sewerage and water supply systems, highways, restoration work, etc.) and specialised works (industrial plant, restoration of decorated surfaces, excavations, demolitions, urban design, technical finishes, timber, glass and plaster finishes, embankments, etc.).

It costs at least EUR 5 296.57 to issue a SOA certificate and, therefore, in an economic crisis such as the one we are experiencing companies in difficulties are likely to be excluded from tendering procedures, which favour companies in a stronger financial position over small and medium-sized enterprises in difficulties.

Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany have voluntary, provisional qualification systems that entail no cost to tendering companies.

Uniform operating rules for all Member States would ensure a more efficient single market.

— Does the Commission not think that intervention is needed to harmonise an area of legislation in which the existing differences in access to tendering procedures leave the single market in a state of confusion?

— Does it not also believe that the SOA certificate is discriminatory and tends to favour those companies that can afford one?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

When assessing the burden of SOA certificates on companies it should be considered that they are valid for five years and are compulsory only for public works contracts of value exceeding EUR 150,000. Furthermore, under Italian law companies from other Member States are not obliged to hold a SOA certificate and can prove their qualification by alternative means. This ensures, in compliance with Directive 2004/18/EC, that there is no discrimination against companies from other Member States and avoids obstacles to cross-border bids.As long as EU public procurement legislation and the principles of the Treaty are complied with, Member States are allowed to have in force rules such as those in question.

The Commission shares however the concern that the administrative burden on potential tenderers should be limited as much as possible. In this context, the Commission’s proposal for a new Directive on Public Procurement provides that contracting authorities accept self-declarations as preliminary evidence that candidates and tenderers do not present any grounds for exclusion and fulfill the selection criteria. This proposal will further reduce entry barriers to public procurement.

The Commission proposal also aims at promoting e-procurement — by making it mandatory — and at strengthening the role of e-Certis, an information system that helps companies to identify certificates and attestations required in Member States’ tendering procedures, by setting out the equivalence between certificates. This will also help making participation in tendering procedures less burdensome.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003310/13

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(22 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Possibile nuova violazione da parte dell'Italia delle procedure di cui alla direttiva 2004/18/CE, in relazione alla realizzanda opera «Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta»

Si fa seguito alle due precedenti interrogazioni P-009842/2011 e E-007368/2012, depositate rispettivamente in data 20 ottobre 2011 e 23 luglio 2012 in merito alla realizzanda Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta, per sottoporre all'attenzione della Commissione i possibili profili di violazione della direttiva 2004/18/CE relativa al coordinamento delle procedure di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici di lavori, di forniture e di servizi, che potrebbero caratterizzare la convenzione di concessione di progettazione definitiva ed esecutiva, costruzione e gestione dell'opera del 21 ottobre 2009. Convenzione della quale, come riferito nelle precedenti interrogazioni, viene sistematicamente negata copia da parte delle autorità competenti agli espropriati e ai comitati e associazioni costituitisi a contrasto dell'infrastruttura (180).

In base allo schema di tale convenzione, a suo tempo allegato al bando di gara, che disciplina la costruzione e gestione della Superstrada in regime di concessione, sono previsti alcuni meccanismi volti a spostare il rischio imprenditoriale legato all'opera dal concessionario (la Società Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta S.P.V. s.r.l.), come proprio della forma della concessione, al concedente (la Regione Veneto (181)), come avviene invece nell'appalto pubblico. In particolare, viene previsto l'obbligo in capo al concedente di garantire l'equilibrio economico finanziario dell'accordo nel caso in cui il concessionario consegua ricavi da pedaggio minori rispetto a quelli previsti.

Secondo la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee, proprio nell'elemento della sussistenza del rischio in capo al concessionario risiede la distinzione tra il contratto di concessione di lavori o servizi pubblici e quello di appalto pubblico, discrimine che, come ha chiarito la Corte stessa, va valutato esclusivamente alla stregua del diritto comunitario (182), a garanzia della concorrenza nell'Unione europea (183). L'Italia, in particolare, è già stata condannata in passato dalla Corte per violazione delle direttive 92/50/CEE e 93/37/CEE (ora rifuse nella direttiva 2004/18/CE) a causa del mancato rispetto delle procedure ivi previste (184).

Tutto ciò premesso, non ritiene opportuno aprire un'indagine per chiarire se, nel caso in esame, la citata convenzione sia stata stipulata impropriamente come concessione di lavori o servizi anziché come appalto pubblico, in violazione del disposto dalla direttiva 2004/18/CE?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(14 maggio 2013)

La Commissione desidera informare l'onorevole deputato che un'indagine è attualmente in corso per verificare, da un lato, l'accesso alle informazioni ai sensi della direttiva 2003/4/CE in merito alla costruzione della superstrada Pedemontana Veneta in Italia e, dall'altro, l'applicazione delle direttive 85/337/CE e 92/43/CE al progetto in questione.

I servizi competenti stanno esaminando le ultime risposte trasmesse dalle autorità italiane nel mese di dicembre 2012 e informeranno l'onorevole deputato sul risultato dell'analisi.

L'onorevole deputato attira l'attenzione della Commissione su nuovi elementi riguardanti una possibile violazione, da parte dell'Italia, delle procedure stabilite nella direttiva 2004/18/CE in relazione alla superstrada Pedemontana Veneta, attualmente in costruzione.

Le informazioni trasmesse dall'onorevole deputato non sono sufficienti affinché la Commissione possa valutare la presenza di un'eventuale violazione della normativa dell'UE in materia di appalti pubblici. La Commissione esaminerà ulteriormente il caso e terrà informato l'onorevole deputato sugli ulteriori sviluppi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003310/13

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Possible further infringement by Italy of the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC in relation to the Pedemontana Veneta expressway, currently under construction

Following the previous two questions — P-009842/2011 and E-007368/2012, lodged on 20 October 2011 and 23 July 2012, respectively — concerning the Pedemontana Veneta expressway, which is currently under construction, I would draw the Commission’s attention to possible infringements of Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in the agreement of 21 October 2009 awarding the contract for the final execution plan, construction and management of the project. As mentioned in the previous questions, the competent authorities have consistently refused to provide copies of the agreement to the people whose properties have been subject to compulsory purchase and the committees and associations formed to oppose the project (185).

The agreement outline, which was originally attached to the invitation to tender and governs the construction and management of the expressway under a concession arrangement, provides for certain mechanisms designed to shift the business risk associated with the project from the concessionaire (Società Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta S.P.V. s.r.l.), who would normally bear it under a concession, to the contracting authority (the Veneto Regional Government (186)), as would happen instead under a public contract. In particular, the contracting authority is required to guarantee the financial and economic stability of the agreement in the event that the concessionaire’s toll revenue is less than expected.

According to European Court of Justice case law, the difference between works or service concessions and public contracts lies in whether the risk is retained by the contracting authority. As the Court itself has made clear, this distinction should be assessed purely on the basis of EC law (187) in order to safeguard competition within the EU (188). The Court has already found Italy guilty of breaching Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/37/EEC (now recast in Directive 2004/18/EC) by failing to comply with the procedures they laid down (189).

In view of all the above, does the Commission believe it should set up an enquiry into the case in question to determine whether the abovementioned agreement has been improperly drawn up as a works or service concession instead of as a public contract, in breach of Directive 2004/18/EC?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2013)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it is currently investigating on the one hand access to information under Directive 2003/4/EC with regard to the construction of the Pedemontana Veneta toll expressway in Italy, and on the other hand the application of Directives 85/337/EC and 92/43/EC to the same project of Pedemontana Veneta toll expressway.

The last replies submitted by the Italian authorities in December 2012 are currently under assessment by the competent services. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed on the outcome of this assessment.

The Honourable Member draws the Commission’s attention to new elements concerning a possible infringement by Italy of the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC in relation to the Pedemontana Veneta expressway, currently under construction.

The information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient for the Commission to assess whether an infringement of EU public procurement law has been committed. The Commission will therefore look into this case more closely and keep the Honourable Member informed of further developments.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003311/13

alla Commissione

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(22 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Possibile violazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1007/2009 del Parlamento e del Consiglio e del regolamento (UE) n. 737/2010 della Commissione

Il 7 marzo 2013, in Italia, a seguito di segnalazione delle organizzazioni HSI (190) e LAV (191), il Corpo Forestale dello Stato ha effettuato un sequestro di calzature (90 pelli grezze e oltre 100 paia di scarpe) realizzate con pelli di foca, prodotte e commercializzate da un'azienda italiana.

Tale azienda dichiarava sul proprio sito web che le pelli di foca utilizzate provenivano da fonti sostenibili Inuit e direttamente importate dalla Groenlandia, nel rispetto del regolamento (UE) n. 737/2010.

Secondo il regolamento (UE) n. 737/2010, prodotti originati dalla caccia praticata dalla popolazione Inuit o da altre comunità indigene possono essere immessi sul mercato solo quando conformi a determinati parametri, e solo se accompagnati da un documento di certificazione emesso da un'autorità competente riconosciuta dalla Commissione europea.

Nella lista di autorità riconosciute dalla Commissione e pubblicate sul sito della Direzione Generale Ambiente (192), tuttavia, non compare alcuna autorità della Groenlandia.

Considerato che le pellicce di foca utilizzate dall'azienda italiana sono state importate per il tramite di una società danese, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(27 maggio 2013)

Il recente sequestro di prodotti derivati dalla foca da parte del corpo forestale dello Stato italiano, immessi in libera pratica dalle autorità doganali danesi, è stato appurato presso le autorità competenti danesi e italiane. La Commissione porterà la questione all'attenzione degli Stati membri in seno al comitato per la protezione di specie della flora e della fauna selvatiche mediante controllo del loro commercio, al fine di evitare casi simili in futuro.

Si noti che il 25 aprile 2013 la Commissione ha riconosciuto il ministero della Pesca, della caccia e dell'agricoltura della Groenlandia tra le autorità autorizzate a rilasciare le certificazioni necessarie per l'immissione sul mercato dei prodotti derivati dalla foca.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003311/13

to the Commission

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Possible breach of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of the Commission

On 7 March 2013, in Italy, after being tipped off by the organisations HSI (193) and LAV (194), the State Forestry Corps seized footwear (90 raw hides and over 100 pairs of shoes made out of seal hide) manufactured and marketed by an Italian firm.

The company claimed on its website that the seal hides came from sustainable Inuit sources and had been directly imported from Greenland, in compliance with Regulation (EU) No 737/2010.

According to Regulation (EU) No 737/2010, products originating from hunts conducted by the Inuit and other indigenous communities may be placed on the market only when they meet certain criteria and must be accompanied by certification issued by a competent authority recognised by the European Commission.

However, on the list of authorities recognised by the Commission and published on the website of the Directorate-General for the Environment (195), there are none from Greenland.

Given that the seal hides used by the Italian company were imported through a Danish company:

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2013)

The recent seizure of seal products by the Italian State Forestry Corps, which were released for free circulation by the Danish customs authorities, has been clarified with the Danish and Italian competent authorities. The Commission will raise this issue with Member States through the Committee on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, with a view to avoid such cases in the future.

Please note that Commission recognised, on 25 April 2013, the Greenland Department of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, as a body that can issue the attesting documents that are needed when seal products are placed on the market.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003312/13

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(22 marca 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Obywatelka Polski bezprawnie przetrzymywana na terenie Białorusi

Jak informują media, obywatelka Polski Teresa Strzelec od dwóch tygodni nie może wydostać się z Białorusi, gdyż białoruscy celnicy zabrali jej paszport i anulowali wizę.

Rok temu Teresa Strzelec pojechała na wycieczkę do Mińska. Gdy zepsuł jej się samochód, zostawiła go u mechanika. Autem bez wiedzy właścicielki jeździł syn mechanika, którego zatrzymała białoruska milicja. Samochód został zarekwirowany i przekazany do składu celnego.

Białoruski sąd orzekł w styczniu tego roku, że auto ma być oddane właścicielom. Jednak celnicy wcześniej je sprzedali i wprawdzie zaproponowali rodzinie zwrot pieniędzy, ale naliczyli wysokie cło i podatki – 80 tys. złotych. Strzelcowie nie zapłacili, więc gdy przed dwoma tygodniami przybyli do Brześcia, Teresie Strzelec anulowano wizę, zatrzymując ją na Białorusi.

W związku z tymi doniesieniami zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Komisja ma zamiar wyjaśnić sprawę bezprawnego przetrzymywania obywatelki kraju członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej na terytorium Białorusi oraz podjąć interwencję w tej sprawie?

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

(23 maja 2013 r.)

Instytucje UE nie posiadają uprawnień w zakresie ochrony konsularnej obywateli UE, a kwestią tą zajmowały się właściwe służby polskie. Delegatura UE w Mińsku została jednak poinformowana o tej sprawie i podniosła ją w rozmowach z władzami Białorusi. Teresa Strzelec otrzymała pozwolenie na opuszczenie Białorusi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003312/13

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Polish woman unlawfully held in Belarus

According to media reports, Teresa Strzelec from Poland has been unable to leave Belarus for two weeks after Belarusian customs agents confiscated her passport and cancelled her visa.

Teresa travelled to Minsk one year ago. When her car broke down, she left it with a mechanic. The mechanic’s son then took the car for a drive without the owner’s knowledge and was detained by the Belarusian police. The car was confiscated and transported to a customs warehouse.

In January 2013, a Belarusian court ruled that the car must be returned to its owners. However, the customs agents had already sold the car. They did offer to reimburse the money to the Strzelec family, but only after charging high customs duty and taxes amounting to PLN 80 000. The Strzelec family did not pay, and when they travelled to Brest two weeks ago, Teresa Strzelec’s visa was cancelled and she was held in Belarus.

Does the Commission intend to seek clarification on the unlawful holding of a citizen of an EU Member State in Belarus and intervene in this matter?

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

(23 May 2013)

EU institutions have no competence for the consular protection of EU citizens and the matter was dealt with by the competent services of Poland. The EU Delegation in Minsk was however aware of this case and raised it with the Belarusians authorities. Teresa Strzelec was allowed to leave Belarus.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-003313/13

to the Commission

Julie Girling (ECR)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Delay in signing off shark finning ban

There appears to be a delay in getting the final sign-off regarding the shark finning ban, despite the agreement reached between the Council and Parliament (Fish stock conservation: removal of fins of sharks on board vessels, amending Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003).

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the delay? What is being done to bring this to a final conclusion?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2013)

The Commission was informed that on 22 March 2013 a letter was sent from the Secretary General of the Council to the Secretary General of the Parliament in order to secure the final signing of the regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003. According to the letter the delay in signing was caused by the introduction of modifications agreed during the joint legal-linguistic revision of the Parliament and the Council. The Commission is confident that Parliament and Council will ensure a swift conclusion of the procedure so that the amended Regulation can enter into force as soon as possible.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003314/13

a la Comisión

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)

(22 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Turismo náutico — Aplicación del IEDMT en España

La Ley española de Impuestos Especiales (Ley 38/1992), que regula el Impuesto Especial sobre Determinados Medios de Transporte (IEDMT), grava con este impuesto las embarcaciones de más de 15 metros de otros Estados de la UE destinadas al arrendamiento (chárter náutico) y que operan en aguas jurisdiccionales españolas, aunque ya hayan cumplido todos los requisitos de abanderamiento y matriculación en sus respectivos Estados.

En la respuesta a la pregunta E-003584/2011 sobre este mismo asunto, la Comisión manifestó que, en el arrendamiento de medios de transporte, los Estados miembros deben ajustarse a los requisitos que derivan del principio de libertad de prestación de servicios conforme a la interpretación del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE en los asuntos Cura Anlagen y van de Coevering: el principio de libertad de prestación de servicios se opone a que un Estado miembro exija el pago total del impuesto de matriculación a una empresa establecida en dicho Estado miembro por el arrendamiento de un vehículo matriculado en otro Estado miembro.

Respuesta del Sr. Šemeta en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de abril de 2013)

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a la respuesta que dio a la pregunta escrita E-011079/2012.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003314/13

to the Commission

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Maritime tourism — Application of IEDMT in Spain

Spanish Law 38/1992 on special taxes regulates a special tax on certain means of transport (Impuesto Especial sobre Determinados Medios de Transporte — IEDMT). It uses the latter to tax chartered boats over 15 metres in length from other EU Member States operating within Spanish waters, despite them having complied with all the flagging and registration requirements of their respective States.

In its answer to Question E-003584/2011 on this subject, the Commission said that as regards the leasing or hiring of means of transport, Member States must respect the requirements flowing from the principle of freedom to provide services as interpreted by the EU Court in Cura Anlagen and van de Coevering: the principle of the freedom to provide services precludes a Member State from requiring the full payment of the registration tax from an undertaking established in that Member State which leases a vehicle registered in another Member State.

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-011079/2012.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003315/13

an die Kommission

Werner Langen (PPE)

(22. März 2013)

Betrifft: Prüfung potenzieller Beihilfen für von Netzentgelten befreite große Stromverbraucher in Deutschland

Am 6. März 2013 hat die Kommission bekannt gegeben (IP/13/191), dass sie überprüft, ob die Befreiung großer Stromverbraucher von Netzentgelten in Deutschland eine staatliche Beihilfe darstellt und ob, gegebenenfalls, diese Beihilfe zu übermäßigen Wettbewerbsverzerrungen führt oder gerechtfertigt werden kann.

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(11. Juni 2013)

Am 6. März 2013 hat die Kommission eine ergebnisoffene förmliche Prüfung nach Artikel 108 Absatz 2 AEUV eingeleitet, um die verschiedenen Aspekte dieses Sachverhalts eingehend zu untersuchen. Dadurch erhalten Deutschland und andere Beteiligte die Gelegenheit, zu den ersten Erkenntnissen der Kommission Stellung zu nehmen. Die Kommission hat bereits eine Stellungnahme Deutschlands erhalten. Die Ergebnisse der vorläufigen Prüfung wurden im Amtsblatt C 128 vom 4. Mai 2013 veröffentlicht. Alle Beteiligten haben einen Monat Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme.

Der Fall ist komplex, und vor einer abschließenden Würdigung der Kommission liegen noch mehrere Verfahrensschritte: die Veröffentlichung, die Stellungnahmen von Beteiligten, die Weiterleitung dieser Stellungnahmen an Deutschland und die Äußerungen Deutschlands zu den Stellungnahmen. Zudem ist nicht auszuschließen, dass die Kommission Deutschland um weitere Auskünfte ersuchen wird. Aus diesen Gründen lässt sich derzeit nicht vorhersagen, wann mit einem abschließenden Beschluss zu rechnen ist. Generell ist es jedoch das Ziel der Kommission, innerhalb von 18 Monaten nach Einleitung eines förmlichen Prüfverfahrens zu einem abschließenden Beschluss zu gelangen.

Ob und in welchem Umfang die Besonderheiten der großen Stromverbraucher beziehungsweise der energieintensiven Unternehmen berücksichtigt werden können, ist einer der Aspekte, den die Kommission nun im Rahmen der förmlichen Prüfung untersucht. Die Fragen des Herrn Abgeordneten werden im abschließenden Beschluss ordnungsgemäß beantwortet werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003315/13

to the Commission

Werner Langen (PPE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Inquiry into potential aid for large electricity consumers exempted from network charges in Germany

On 6 March 2013, the Commission announced (IP/13/191) that it is investigating whether an exemption for large electricity consumers from network charges in Germany constitutes state aid and, where relevant, whether this aid will lead to undue distortion of competition or whether it can be justified.

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2013)

On 6 March 2013, the Commission opened its formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU. The formal investigation does not prejudice the outcome of the investigation. It enables the Commission to examine various aspects of the case in greater detail. It also offers Germany and other interested parties the opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's initial findings. The Commission has already received Germany's comments. The opening findings were published in the Official Journal on 4 May 2013 (OJ C 128). Third parties have a one-month deadline to submit comments.

The case is complex and several procedural steps still need to happen before the Commission can make its final assessment (publication, third parties' comments, transmission of third parties' comments to Germany, Germany's observations on third parties' comments), nor can it be ruled out that the Commission will ask for further information from Germany. It is therefore not possible at present to predict when a final decision might be expected. However, in general, the Commission aims to adopt final decisions within 18 months of a formal investigation being opened.

Whether and to what extent the particularities of large electricity consumers or electro-intensive undertakings can be taken into account is one of the issues that the Commisison is in the course of examining during the formal investigation procedure. The Honourable Member's questions will be duly answered in the final decision.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003316/13

à la Commission

Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE)

(22 mars 2013)

Objet: U-Multirank

La commissaire à l'éducation, à la culture, à la jeunesse et au multilinguisme, Androulla Vassiliou, était à Paris les 18 et 19 mars dernier pour évoquer le classement U‐Multirank développé ces dernières années sous l'égide de l'Union européenne.

La France ayant annoncé le lancement de son projet de cartographie des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche (CERES), auquel devraient participer dans un premier temps une trentaine d'établissements, la Commission pourrait-elle préciser comment cette initiative s'articulera avec U-Multirank?

D'autres États membres envisagent-ils de développer des systèmes parallèles de classement? Dans l'affirmative, comment U-Multirank pourrait-il en tirer parti?

Réponse donnée par Mme Vassiliou au nom de la Commission

(7 mai 2013)

Des projets nationaux tels que le projet CERES (cartographie des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche), mis en œuvre en France, viendront compléter le classement européen des universités, à l'instar d'organisations nationales telles que l'Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST), qui fait partie du consortium exploitant U-Multirank. Les organisations nationales impliquées dans le classement et l'établissement de profils d'universités coopéreront avec U-Multirank afin d'éviter que les mêmes données ne soient collectées deux fois auprès des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de faire en sorte que ces données soient fiables et représentatives des domaines de performance couverts par U-Multirank. La participation à U-Multirank permettra également de comparer les résultats des initiatives de classement nationales à l'échelon international en dotant les établissements d'enseignement supérieur et les responsables politiques d'un ensemble de données disponibles plus vaste. D'autres pays comme la Pologne, l'Espagne, l'Allemagne et l'Autriche, par exemple, ont déjà mis au point des classements nationaux qui seront reliés à U-Multirank.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003316/13

to the Commission

Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: U-Multirank

The Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, Androulla Vassiliou, was in Paris on 18 and 19 March to discuss U-Multirank, the new European Union-backed university ranking.

As France has announced the launch of the CERES (cartographie des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche) project to map the country’s higher education system, which will initially involve some thirty institutions, could the Commission explain how this initiative will work with U-Multirank?

Do other Member States plan to develop parallel ranking systems? If so, how could U-Multirank benefit from them?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2013)

National projects like CERES (cartographie des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche) in France will complement the European university ranking as will National Organisations such as the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST) which forms part of the consortium running U-Multirank. National organisations involved in the ranking and profiling of universities will cooperate with U-Multirank in order to both avoid duplicating the collection of data from higher education institutions and to ensure that data is both reliable and representative of the performance areas covered by U-Multirank. Equally, participation in U-Multirank will enable national ranking initiatives to compare their results internationally, providing a wider evidence base for higher education institutions and policy-makers. Other countries, for example Poland, Spain, Germany and Austria have already developed national rankings that will link in to U-Multirank.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003317/13

alla Commissione

Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)

(22 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Recepimento in Italia della direttiva 89/391/CEE concernente l'attuazione di misure volte a promuovere il miglioramento della sicurezza e della salute dei lavoratori durante il lavoro

Il 21 novembre 2012 la Commissione, nell'ambito della procedura d'infrazione n. 2010/4227, ha trasmesso al governo italiano le sue osservazioni circa il non corretto recepimento della direttiva 89/391/CEE.

La Commissione, a seguito dell'analisi della risposta fornita l'8 dicembre 2011 dalle autorità italiane, ha comunque deciso di procedere con la messa in mora, con particolare riferimento a due delle sei osservazioni contenute nella precedente lettera di costituzione in mora (SG(2011)D/16130).

La Commissione, conformemente all'articolo 258 del TFUE, ha concesso due mesi di tempo all'Italia per conformarsi alla direttiva 89/391/CEE in relazione a due punti: 1) deresponsabilizzazione del datore di lavoro in caso di delega o sub-delega (violazione dell'articolo 5) e 2) proroga dei termini prescritti per la redazione del documento di valutazione dei rischi per una nuova impresa o per le modifiche sostanziali apportate a un'impresa esistente (violazione dell'articolo 9).

I due mesi dal ricevimento del parere sono ampiamente trascorsi, e di conseguenza il termine imposto all'Italia è spirato senza che il paese si adeguasse.

Alla luce di quanto sopra l'interrogante chiede:

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(22 maggio 2013)

Nell'ambito della procedura di infrazione menzionata, il 21 novembre 2012 la Commissione ha inviato alle autorità italiane un parere motivato.

L'11 febbraio 2013 le autorità italiane hanno inviato una risposta che è ora in corso di analisi.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003317/13

to the Commission

Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Implementation in Italy of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work

In relation to infringement procedure No 2010/4227, on 21 November 2012 the Commission sent the Italian Government its observations on the failure to implement Directive 89/391/EEC correctly.

After examining the reply given by the Italian authorities on 8 December 2011, the Commission decided to continue with the formal notice procedure, particularly in relation to two of the six points made in the previous letter of formal notice (SG(2011)D/16130).

In accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Commission gave Italy two months to comply with Directive 89/391/EEC in relation to two points: 1) avoidance of employer responsibilities with regard to delegation and sub-delegation (in breach of Article 5), and 2) extension of the prescribed deadline for drafting the risk assessment document for a new business or for substantial changes made to an existing business (in breach of Article 9).

Far more than two months have gone by since the opinion was received and consequently Italy’s deadline has passed without the country having made the necessary changes.

In light of the above, I would ask the Commission:

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2013)

The Commission sent a reasoned opinion on the infringement procedure concerned to the Italian authorities on 21 November 2012.

On 11 February 2013 the Italian authorities sent a reply, which is currently being analysed.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003318/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Eleni Theocharous (PPE) και Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 Μαρτίου 2013)

Θέμα: Αντιμετώπιση των επιπτώσεων της οικονομικής κρίσης στην Κύπρο μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση (ΕΤΠ)

Με βάση τα σενάρια για τη συμφωνία διάσωσης της κυπριακής οικονομίας, όπως αυτή προωθήθηκε στην Κυπριακή Βουλή, είναι εμφανής ο κίνδυνος απώλειας εργασίας τουλάχιστον σε μία από τις μεγαλύτερες τράπεζες του τόπου (LAIKI BANK). Λόγω της κρίσης, υπάρχει κίνδυνος και για απώλεια εργασίας σε άλλες τράπεζες και επιχειρήσεις.

Είναι έτοιμη η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, και ειδικότερα το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση (ΕΤΠ), να στηρίξει, επί τη βάσει εθνικών προγραμμάτων και κατόπιν αιτήσεως της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και των ενδιαφερομένων μερών, τους ανέργους αφενός, για να εκπαιδευτούν και αφετέρου, για να εξεύρουν νέες θέσεις εργασίας, να καταπολεμηθεί η ανεργία και να διατηρηθεί η κοινωνική συνοχή;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(7 Μαΐου 2013)

Οι κ. βουλευτές γνωρίζουν ότι στο τέλος του 2011 έληξε η ισχύς του κριτηρίου για την κρίση του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Προσαρμογής στην Παγκοσμιοποίηση (ΕΤΠ). Κάθε επιλέξιμη αίτηση πρέπει, επομένως, σύμφωνα με τον ισχύοντα κανονισμό, να αποδείξει την ύπαρξη σχέσης μεταξύ των απολύσεων και της παγκοσμιοποίησης σε επίπεδο εμπορίου. Αυτό θα μπορούσε να είναι δύσκολο στην περίπτωση των επιχειρήσεων που δραστηριοποιούνται στον τραπεζικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, αν στην Κύπρο γίνονται απολύσεις στη Λαϊκή Τράπεζα, σε άλλες τράπεζες ή σε εταιρείες, και αν η Κύπρος μπορεί να αποδείξει τη σχέση μεταξύ των εν λόγω απολύσεων και της παγκοσμιοποίησης σε επίπεδο εμπορίου (π.χ. που προκύπτει από ταχεία απώλεια του μεριδίου της αγοράς της ΕΕ, ή από την αύξηση των εισαγωγών καταγωγής χωρών μη μελών της ΕΕ, ή από μετεγκατάσταση των εργοδοτών από την Κύπρο σε άλλες χώρες εκτός της ΕΕ), τότε η Κύπρος μπορεί να αποφασίσει να υποβάλει αίτηση για στήριξη από το ΕΤΠ, ώστε οι απολυμένοι εργαζόμενοι να μπορούν να βοηθηθούν για να βρουν νέα απασχόληση όσο το δυνατόν γρηγορότερα.

Για την περίοδο 2014-2020, η Επιτροπή πρότεινε να επαναφέρει το κριτήριο για την κρίση σε μόνιμη βάση, ως ένα από τα κριτήρια για πιθανή στήριξη από το ΕΤΠ. Η στήριξη του Κοινοβουλίου θα είναι αποφασιστικής σημασίας για τη νομοθετική διαδικασία ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται η τελική έγκριση του στοιχείου αυτού.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003318/13

to the Commission

Eleni Theocharous (PPE) and Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Action via the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to address the impact of the economic crisis in Cyprus

On the basis of scenarios tabled in the Cypriot Parliament for an agreement to rescue the Cypriot economy, there is clearly a risk of job losses in at least one of the biggest banks in Cyprus (Laiki Bank). There is also a danger that the crisis will trigger job losses in other banks and companies.

Are the European Union and, more importantly, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) prepared to support unemployed persons in obtaining training and finding new jobs, on the basis of national programmes and following requests by the Republic of Cyprus and the parties concerned, in a bid to combat unemployment and maintain social cohesion?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2013)

The Honourable Members are aware of the fact that the crisis criterion of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) lapsed at the end of 2011. Any eligible application must therefore according to the applicable regulation demonstrate a link between the redundancies and trade-selected globalisation. This could be difficult in the case of enterprises operating in the banking sector. However, if redundancies in the Laiki Bank, other banks or companies occur in Cyprus, and if Cyprus can establish a link between these redundancies and trade-related globalisation (e.g. resulting from a rapid loss of EU market share, or from rising imports originating in non-EU countries, or by delocalisation of employers from Cyprus to other countries outside the EU), Cyprus may decide to apply for support from the EGF, so that the redundant workers can be helped to find new jobs as quickly as possible.

For the period of 2014-2020, the Commission has proposed to reintroduce the crisis criterion on a permanent basis, as one of the criteria for potential EGF support. The Parliament’s support will be critical in the legislative process to ensure the final adoption of this element.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003319/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 Μαρτίου 2013)

Θέμα: Πρόγραμμα επανένταξης εργαζομένων

Μετά τις πρόσφατες αποφάσεις του Eurogroup για την αναδιάρθρωση του τραπεζικού τομέα της Κύπρου με τις γνωστές δραματικές συνέπειες για την οικονομία της χώρας, οι οποίες περιλαμβάνουν και πολλές απολύσεις, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Μαΐου 2013)

Οι ενέργειες για ένα πρόγραμμα με σκοπό την επανένταξη των εργαζομένων του τραπεζικού τομέα τόσο στην Κύπρο όσο και στην Ελλάδα μπορούν να χρηματοδοτούνται από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία της ΕΕ για την περίοδο 2007-2013, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου (ΕΚΤ).

Για το ΕΚΤ εφαρμόζεται επιμερισμένη ευθύνη και, ως εκ τούτου, αποτελεί ευθύνη των αρμόδιων αρχών του κράτους μέλους η πρόταση και η επιλογή νέων έργων στο πλαίσιο κατάλληλου επιχειρησιακού προγράμματος για χρηματοδότηση από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία της ΕΕ, σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες των σχετικών κανονισμών. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει άμεση επιρροή στην ταχύτητα με την οποία θα μπορούσε να καταρτιστεί το πρόγραμμα αυτό.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003319/13

to the Commission

Niki Tzavela (EFD)

(22 March 2013)

Subject: Worker reintegration programme

Following recent Eurogroup decisions to reform the banking sector in Cyprus and in light of the drastic and widely reported consequences which this has had on the country’s economy, including numerous redundancies, will the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

Actions for a programme for the reintegration of workers of the banking sector in both Cyprus and Greece can be financed under the 2007-2013 EU Structural Funds, including European Social Fund (ESF).

The ESF is under shared management, hence it is the responsibility of the competent Authorities of the Member State to propose and select new projects within the appropriate operational programme for financing by the EU Structural Funds according to the rules of the relevant Regulations. The Commission has no direct influence on how quickly such a programme could be drawn up.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003321/13

an die Kommission

Richard Seeber (PPE)

(25. März 2013)

Betrifft: Interpretation der Richtlinie 2009/43/EG in Bezug auf Zielfernrohre

Anmerkung 4 der Unternummer ML1d des Anhanges zur Richtlinie 2009/43/EG scheint im deutschen Sprachraum Auslegungsunsicherheiten mit sich zu bringen. So hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber in seiner Umsetzung der Richtlinie eine generelle Ausnahme von der Einstufung als Verteidigungsgut für Zielfernrohre, die nicht für militärische Zwecke konstruiert sind, festgelegt. Der österreichische Gesetzgeber wiederum, scheint dieselbe Richtlinienpassage so zu interpretieren, dass nur „Zielfernrohre ohne elektronische Bildverarbeitung mit bis zu vierfacher Vergrößerung, vorausgesetzt, sie sind nicht besonders konstruiert oder geändert für militärische Zwecke“ von der Einstufung als Verteidigungsgut ausgenommen sind. Diese Auslegungsunterschiede führen zu großer Rechtsunsicherheit und potenziellen Wettbewerbsverzerrungen.

Wie ist die Anmerkung 4 der Unternummer ML1d des Anhanges zur Richtlinie 2009/43/EG korrekt auszulegen?

Antwort von Herrn Tajani im Namen der Kommission

(29. April 2013)

Die Kommission prüft die unterschiedliche Auslegung der Liste der Verteidigungsgüter im Anhang der Richtlinie 2009/43/EG unter dem Aspekt der Einbeziehung von Zielfernrohren. Das Problem wird außerdem auf der Tagesordnung der Sitzung des im Rahmen der Richtlinie 2009/43/EG eingerichteten Ausschusses stehen, die am 28. Juni stattfindet und bei der alle Mitgliedstaaten vertreten sein werden.

Die Kommission möchte jedoch darauf hinweisen, dass die Liste im Anhang der Richtlinie auf der Gemeinsamen Militärgüterliste der Europäischen Union beruht, die wiederum im Rahmen des Wassenaar-Abkommens regelmäßig aktualisiert wird. Die Kommission wird daher auch mit dem Sekretariat des Wassenaar-Abkommens in Kontakt stehen, um diese Frage zu klären.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-003321/13

to the Commission

Richard Seeber (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Interpretation of Directive 2009/43/EC with regard to optical weapon sights

There seems to be some uncertainty in the German-speaking Member States about the interpretation of Note 4 on sub-item ML1.d. of the annex to Directive 2009/43/EC. In Germany, the legislation implementing the directive makes optical weapon sights not designed for military purposes generally exempt from classification as defence-related products. By contrast, in the corresponding legislation in Austria this section of the directive has been interpreted so as to exempt from classification as defence-related products only ‘optical weapon sights without electronic image processing, with a magnification of 4 times or less, provided they are not specially designed or modified for military use’. These differences of interpretation create considerable legal uncertainty and could potentially distort competition.

What is the correct interpretation of Note 4 on sub-item ML1.d. of the annex to Directive 2009/43/EC?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2013)

The Commission is investigating the issue of differences of interpretation of the content of the list of defence-related products set out in the annex to the Directive 2009/43/EC regarding the inclusion of optical weapon sights. The question shall also feature on the agenda of the 28 June meeting of the Committee established under Directive 2009/43 EC where all Member States are represented.

The Commission would like however to stress that the list in the annex to the directive is based on the Common Military List of the European Union which is, in turn, regularly updated in the context of the Wassenaar Arrangement. Therefore, the Commission will also be in contact with the secretariat of the Wassenaar Arrangement in order to clarify this question.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003322/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(25 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Gestión de los bosques

Quiero referirme a las respuestas escritas E-003711/12, E-003713/12, de 30 de mayo de 2012, del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión, donde explicaba: «la Comisión está realizando, en colaboración con los Estados miembros y las partes interesadas, la cartografía de los ecosistemas y una evaluación del estado de los ecosistemas y de sus servicios en la UE. Los resultados de esta iniciativa deben tenerlos en cuenta las autoridades nacionales y locales a la hora de preparar la segunda ronda de planes hidrológicos de cuenca en 2015 » , ya que el papel de los bosques está muy relacionado con la protección de los recursos hídricos y, por lo tanto, relacionado directamente con la Directiva marco sobre el agua.

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de mayo de 2013)

De acuerdo con el objetivo 2 de la Estrategia de la UE sobre la biodiversidad hasta 2020 está previsto que los Estados miembros realicen la cartografía y una evaluación de los ecosistemas y de sus servicios antes de 2014.

El «Plan para salvaguardar los recursos hídricos de Europa» (196) propone una serie de acciones para favorecer la adopción de medidas de retención natural de agua en la segunda ronda de planes hidrológicos de cuenca que deben ser adoptados por los Estados miembros en 2015. Las medidas de retención natural de agua incluyen actuaciones que abordan el papel de los bosques para proteger los recursos hídricos. Las acciones propuestas en el Plan incluyen la elaboración de orientaciones en el marco de la estrategia común de aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua (197) de aquí a 2014. Dichas orientaciones también abarcarán la integración de los servicios ecosistémicos en la aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua teniendo en cuenta la cartografía de los ecosistemas y sus servicios.

Todos los Estados miembros discutieron las propuestas del Plan en el Consejo, que adoptó sus Conclusiones a este respecto el 17 de diciembre de 2012 (198).

Por otra parte, los Estados miembros, incluida España, participan en el trabajo de seguimiento del Plan a través de la estrategia común de aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua y, en el caso de las actividades de apoyo de la Estrategia de la UE sobre la biodiversidad hasta 2020, a través del Grupo de coordinación sobre biodiversidad y naturaleza en virtud del marco de aplicación común. Se espera que los Estados miembros se comprometan activamente en la elaboración de los documentos sobre las directrices desarrolladas al respecto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003322/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Forest management

I would like to address Commissioner Potočnik’s answer of 30 May 2012, on behalf of the Commission, to Written Questions E-003711/12 and E-003713/12 which states that: ‘the Commission is working together with Member States and stakeholders on ecosystem mapping and an assessment of the state of ecosystems and their services in the EU.The results of this initiative should be taken on board by national and local authorities when drafting the second round of the River Basin management Plans in 2015’. The role of forests is closely related to the protection of water resources and is therefore directly related to the Water Framework Directive.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2013)

The mapping and assessment of the ecosystems and their services is expected to be performed by Member States by 2014 according to Target 2 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

The ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources’ (199) proposes actions to support the uptake of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) in the second River Basin Management Plans to be adopted by Member States in 2015. NWRMs include measures that address the role of forests to protect water resources. The actions proposed by the Blueprint include the development of guidance under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (200) by 2014. This guidance will also cover the integration of ecosystems services into WFD implementation taking into account the mapping of the ecosystems and their services.

The Blueprint proposals have been discussed by all Member States in the Council which adopted Conclusions on it on 17 December 2012 (201).

Moreover, Member States, including Spain, participate in the Blueprint follow up work through the CIS of the WFD and, for the activities in support of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, through the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature under the Common Implementation Framework (CIF). They are expected to actively engage in the development of the Guidance documents developed thereunder.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003323/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(25 de marzo de 2013)

Asunto: Límites a los depósitos

El Banco de España ha decidido limitar al 1,75 % la remuneración de los depósitos a un año, al 2,25 % para los de dos y al 2,75 % para los que tengan un plazo superior. (202) Esta decisión tendrá como consecuencia hacer más atractivos otros instrumentos financieros e incentivará la toma de riesgos de los ahorradores españoles. Se ha de tener en cuenta que la inflación anual se sitúa alrededor del 2,75 % y que por lo tanto los ahorradores pierden dinero en términos reales.

La nueva norma, no sólo se aplicará a las entidades nacionalizadas, sino a todo el sector.

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(30 de mayo de 2013)

Según la información de que dispone la Comisión, el Banco de España no ha dictado ninguna norma. La Comisión entiende que el Banco de España ha formulado recomendaciones para casos concretos de conformidad con los reglamentos sobre solvencia, que vinculan el riesgo contraído por las entidades financieras con determinados requisitos de capital y solvencia.

Las normas y reglamentos emitidos por el Banco de España con objeto de garantizar el adecuado funcionamiento y la estabilidad del sistema financiero en España se aplican a todas las entidades bancarias que operan en ese país. En esa medida, no distinguen entre los bancos que son propiedad privada y los que puedan estar controlados por el Gobierno de España.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003323/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Deposit limits

The Bank of Spain has decided to limit remuneration on one-year deposits to 1.75%, on two-year deposits to 2.25% and on longer-term deposits to 2.75% (203). This decision will render other financial instruments more attractive and will encourage Spanish savers to take risks. Annual inflation stands at around 2.75% and savers are therefore losing money in real terms.

The new rule will not only apply to nationalised entities, but to the entire banking sector.

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2013)

According to the information available to the Commission, no rule was issued by the Bank of Spain. The Commission understands that recommendations were issued by the Bank of Spain on a case-by-case basis in accordance with solvency regulations, which link the risk undertaken by financial institutions with the requirements in terms of capital and solvency.

Rules and regulations issued by the Bank of Spain which are aimed at ensuring the proper working and the stability of the financial system in Spain apply to all banking entities operating in Spain. As such, they do not differentiate between privately owned banks and banks which may be controlled by the Spanish Government.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003324/13

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(25. marts 2013)

Om: Godkendelse af dansk støtte til biogas

Den 22. marts 2012 indgik en række danske partier et energiforlig, som skal sikre Danmark en fremtidig energiforsyning dækket af vedvarende energi. Aftalen fastlægger de energipolitiske initiativer fra 2012-2020. Aftalen indebærer bl.a. en ambitiøs udbygning med biogas, som betyder, at den samlede støtte til biogas, der anvendes til kraftvarme eller sendes ud i naturgasnettet, beløber sig til 115 DKK/GJ. (204)

Aftalen om støtte til biogas venter stadig på godkendelse af Kommissionen.

En række danske virksomheder producerer i dag biogas, men har det økonomisk svært uden en statsstøtte på 115 DKK/GJ. Nogle biogasvirksomheder er i dag lukningstruede. Hvis den danske statsstøtte til biogas godkendes af Kommissionen, vil en række biogasvirksomheder kunne fortsætte deres produktion. Ligeledes står nogle biogasproducenter i den situation, at de er blevet pålagt, jf. loven om Finansiel Stabilitet, at sælge deres biogasvirksomhed på grund af bankkrak. Prisen for virksomheden er afhængig af, om biogasproduktion i Danmark fremover vil modtage statsstøtte.

På baggrund af overstående oplysninger bedes Kommissionen svare på, om den er opmærksom på de problemer, mange biogasvirksomheder står i på grund af uvished om, om biogasproduktion vil modtage statsstøtte eller ej?

Kommissionen bedes ligeledes oplyse, hvornår den forventer at have en godkendelse eller underkendelse af den danske statsstøtte til biogas klar?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Joaquin Almunia

(27. juni 2013)

De danske myndigheder har anmeldt en støtteordning vedrørende biogas til Kommissionen, som undersøger sagen. Den nye ordning ændrer i væsentlig grad den hidtidige støtteforanstaltning, som Kommissionen havde godkendt. Den igangværende undersøgelse har givet anledning til vanskelige tekniske spørgsmål, som skal besvares i samarbejde med de danske myndigheder.

Kommissionen er opmærksom på, at det haster med at få skabt retssikkerhed på biogasmarkedet i Danmark og fører derfor i øjeblikket intensive drøftelser med de danske myndigheder om støtteordningens forenelighed med statsstøttereglerne.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003324/13

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Approval of Danish aid for biogas

On 22 March 2012, a number of Danish parties entered into an energy agreement intended to safeguard Denmark’s future energy supply covered by renewable energy. The agreement establishes the energy policy initiatives for 2012‐2020. It includes, among other things, an ambitious expansion of biogas, which means that the total aid for biogas used for combined heat and power or distributed in the natural gas network will amount to DKK 115/GJ (205).

The agreement on aid for biogas is still awaiting the approval of the Commission.

A number of Danish undertakings currently produce biogas, but are finding it difficult financially without the state aid of DKK 115/GJ. Some biogas undertakings are currently struggling to stay in business. If the Danish state aid for biogas is approved by the Commission, a number of biogas undertakings will be able to continue production. Similarly, some biogas producers are in a situation where they have been ordered to sell their biogas undertaking on account of bank failure, cf. the Act on financial stability. The price of the undertaking is dependent on whether biogas production in Denmark will receive state aid in future.

On the basis of the above information, can the Commission state whether it is aware of the problems faced by many biogas undertakings on account of the uncertainty as to whether or not biogas production will receive state aid?

Can the Commission also say when it expects to be ready with an approval or non-approval of the Danish state aid for biogas?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2013)

The Danish authorities have notified a support scheme for biogas to the Commission which is currently being examined. The new scheme changes significantly the support mechanism which has been in place so far and which was approved by the Commission. The assessment raises difficult technical questions which need to be answered in cooperation with the Danish authorities.

The Commission is aware of the urgency to establish legal certainty on the biogas market in Denmark and is therefore currently in intensive discussions with the Danish authorities regarding the compatibility of the support scheme with state aid rules.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003325/13

an die Kommission

Norbert Neuser (S&D)

(25. März 2013)

Betrifft: EU-Beihilfeverfahren Rennstrecke „Nürburgring“

Seit geraumer Zeit läuft ein EU-Beihilfeverfahren zu der Autorennstrecke „Nürburgring“ in Deutschland, die im Bundesland Rheinland-Pfalz liegt. Auf dem 86 Jahre alten Nürburgring in der Eifel werden unterschiedliche Rennsportveranstaltungen ausgetragen. Diese Rennsportveranstaltungen sind zu rund 90 % Breitensportveranstaltungen. Diese Veranstaltungen werden von Motorsportklubs veranstaltet und widmen sich dem Amateursport. Daneben finden auch andere Amateur-Sportveranstaltungen, wie z. B. Radrennen und leichtathletische Läufe, Duathlonwettkämpfe für Jedermann statt. Zusammengefasst kann gesagt werden, dass die Autorennstrecke „Nürburgring“ ein einzigartiges Kulturgut darstellt, das vorrangig dem Breitensport dient.

Vor diesem Hintergrund frage ich die Kommission:

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(13. Mai 2013)

Die Rennstrecke des Nürburgrings kann nicht von einem offenen, nichtdiskriminierenden und bedingungsfreien Ausschreibungsverfahren ausgenommen werden. Interessierte Parteien könnten geltend machen, dass der Verkauf des Kerngeschäfts ohne ein solches Ausschreibungsverfahren nicht gerechtfertigt sei und dass sie einen besseren Preis geboten hätten. Es wäre daher unklar, ob der Verkaufspreis dem Marktwert entsprechen würde. Eine Übertragung der Beihilfe auf den Käufer könnte nicht ausgeschlossen werden.

Im Hinblick auf den Vorschlag der Insolvenzverwalter hinsichtlich der Aufnahme bestimmter Bedingungen haben gemäß der Mitteilung der Kommission betreffend Elemente staatlicher Beihilfe bei Verkäufen von Bauten oder Grundstücken durch die öffentliche Hand vom 10.7.1997 bestimmte Bedingungen in Verbindung mit der Anwendung von Regulierungsaufgaben des Staates (d. h. Stadt‐ und Regionalplanung gemäß nationalem Recht) im Prinzip keine Auswirkung auf die Neutralität des Verkaufs und bevorzugen auch keinen potenziellen Käufer. Bei besonderen Vorkaufsrechten, bei denen Eigentum gemäß nationalem Recht öffentlichen Behörden vorbehalten wird, ist dies jedoch nicht der Fall.

Andere Bedingungen auf der Grundlage von politischen Anliegen (Aufrechterhaltung des Betriebs oder Weiterbeschäftigung von Arbeitnehmern) würden ebenfalls nicht dem Grundsatz des marktwirtschaftlich handelnden Kapitalgebers entsprechen, da sie die Anzahl der Käufer unter Umständen beschränken würden. Deutschland müsste nachweisen, dass solche Bedingungen gerechtfertigt sind. Sie müssten nach deutschem Recht eingeführt werden und nicht über Anforderungen in der Leistungsbeschreibung. Sie müssten auch mit den allgemeinen Legalitätsanforderungen übereinstimmen, die im Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union festgeschrieben sind.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003325/13

to the Commission

Norbert Neuser (S&D)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: EU State aid procedure — ‘Nürburgring’ race track

For some time there has been an ongoing EU State aid procedure relating to the ‘Nürburgring’ motor racing track in Germany, located in the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Various racing events are held at the 86-year old ‘Nürburgring’ in the Eifel region. Around 90% of these racing events are grassroots sporting events. These events are organised by motor sport clubs and are devoted to amateur sports. Other amateur sports events also take place, such as cycling and athletics track events and duathlon competitions for all comers. In short, it can be said that the ‘Nürburgring’ motor racing track is a unique cultural asset that caters primarily for grassroots sports.

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

The Nürburgring race tracks cannot be excluded from an open, non-discriminatory and unconditional bidding procedure. Interested parties could claim that the sale of the core business without such a bidding procedure is not justified, and that they would have offered a better price. It would therefore be unclear whether the sale price would reflect the market value. A transfer of the aid to the buyer could not be ruled out.

As regards the proposal by the insolvency trustees concerning the inclusion of certain conditions, according to the Commission Communication on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities of 10/07/97, certain conditions which are linked with the application of the State regulatory functions (i.e. urban and regional planning according to national law) do not in principle affect the neutrality of the sale or favour any potential buyer. However, this is not the case with special pre-emption rights, reserving property for public authorities under national law.

Other conditions based on policy concerns (maintenance of the operation, or employee retention etc.) would also not be in line with the market economy investor principle, as they may restrict the number of buyers. Germany would have to demonstrate that any such conditions are justified. These would need to be introduced under German public law, rather than by requirements in the tender specifications. They would also have to be compatible with the general legality requirements laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003326/13

to the Commission

Catherine Stihler (S&D)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Avoidance of EU tax duty

There have been repeated cases of Israeli companies labelling their products ‘Made in Israel’ when, in fact, their factories are located in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, meaning that goods produced there cannot be labelled in such a manner.

What measures has the EU developed in order to track where Israeli products are physically made? What methods has the EU adopted in order to protect its customers from buying products with misleading labels indicating their place of origin?

I would like to enquire whether this is not also being done by Israeli companies in order to avoid paying EU tax on exports to the EU?

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

(6 May 2013)

The VP/HR's position with regard to the first two questions can be found in answer to Written Question E-244/2013 (206).

As regards the third question, the Commission would like to point out that a technical arrangement between the EU and Israel is in place since 1 January 2005 the aim of which is to avoid that products originating in territories beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders benefit, upon importation in the EU, from preferential customs tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. More information on that technical arrangement can be found at the following Internet address (207).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003328/13

to the Commission

Syed Kamall (ECR)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Increase of registration fee by Antwerp City Council

I have been contacted by a constituent who has informed me that a recent edition of ‘Flanders Today’ has reported that Antwerp City Council intends to increase its registration fee for all non-Belgian residents to EUR 250 in April 2013. My constituent is concerned that this is an illegal proposal which is in breach of the free movement of EU citizens, and that if Antwerp is allowed to make this change other cities in the EU may also raise their fees.

Could the Commission confirm:

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member of the Parliament to its answers to parliamentary questions P-001746/2013 and E-003069/2013.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003330/13

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Scarsa trasparenza nella procedura di finanziamento da parte dell'Unione europea delle ONG attive nel conflitto arabo-israeliano — Accesso limitato alla documentazione pertinente

La scarsa trasparenza nelle procedure attraverso cui vengono erogati consistenti finanziamenti alle organizzazioni non governative coinvolte nell'ambito del conflitto arabo-israeliano comporta gravi problemi. Ogni anno la Commissione eroga un contributo finanziario a queste ONG con l'intento di garantire pari diritti individuali e collettivi. Tuttavia, in passato, quando le ONG hanno chiesto documentazione dettagliata per comprovare tutte le attività specificatamente contemplate dal regolamento (CE) n. 1049/2001, sono stati trasmessi soltanto dati incompleti e di scarsa qualità, in cui mancavano importanti informazioni che invece erano disponibili presso altre fonti. Secondo la Commissione l'esigenza di serbare la riservatezza sul contenuto dei documenti e la conseguente mancanza di dati dettagliati sarebbero dettate da ragioni di pubblica sicurezza, tutela dei dati personali e interessi commerciali, nonché dalla necessità di non complicare ulteriormente le relazioni tra Israele e Palestina. La questione è stata portata dinanzi la Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, ma non è stata ancora pronunciata alcuna sentenza.

Tenuto conto del fatto che:

può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione

(11 giugno 2013)

Con sentenza del 27 novembre 2012 (causa T-17/10 Steinberg/Commissione), la Corte di giustizia ha respinto il ricorso cui si riferiscono gli onorevoli parlamentari in quanto in parte manifestamente irricevibile e in parte privo di qualunque fondamento giuridico.

Non esistono disparità di trattamento in merito alle procedure a livello di apertura e trasparenza tra Israele e Palestina ed eventuali altri paesi citati nelle domande.

Riguardo alle informazioni fornite sui finanziamenti, alle procedure seguite e alle decisioni prese in tale ambito, la Commissione rimanda gli onorevoli parlamentari al testo della sentenza in questione per ulteriori dettagli sulle argomentazioni presentate e le conclusioni motivate della Corte (208).

Le valutazioni sono effettuate conformemente ai criteri stabiliti nel trattato sull'Unione europea, nello strumento europeo per la democrazia e i diritti umani, nelle direttive sull'informazione dei cittadini e negli accordi interistituzionali pertinenti tra Commissione europea, Consiglio dei ministri e Parlamento europeo.

La Commissione invita inoltre gli onorevoli parlamentari a prendere visione della risposta all'interrogazione E-003077/13 (209).

(Suomenkielinen versio)

Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-003386/13

komissiolle

Sari Essayah (PPE)

(25. maaliskuuta 2013)

Aihe: Eräiden kansalaisjärjestöjen EU-rahoituksen avoimuuden parantaminen

Komissio rahoittaa vuosittain yli 10 miljoonalla eurolla palestiinalaisia ja israelilaisia kansalaisjärjestöjä (esim. EIDHR ja Partnership for Peace). On esitetty vakavia epäilyjä siitä, että tätä rahoitusta on käytetty esimerkiksi kampanjoihin, joissa on lietsottu ”oikeutettua” väkivaltaa ja terrorismia israelilaisia siviilejä vastaan, juurrutettu kuvaa israelilaisista viranomaisista ”sotasyyllisinä” sekä ajettu Palestiinalaishallinnon hajottamista. Nämä epäillyt toimet ovat EU:n arvojen vastaisia eivätkä mitenkään edistä rauhan toteutumista Lähi-idässä, vaan päinvastoin. Tässä tilanteessa on huolestuttavaa, että komissio ei ole antanut edes pyydettäessä asetuksen 1049 mukaisesti tarkkoja ja kattavia tietoja EU-rahoituksesta, siihen liittyvästä päätöksenteosta ja toiminnan arvioinnista.

Komissio on käyttänyt vuonna 2009 NGO Monitor ‐järjestölle antamassaan vastauksessa perusteluna asetuksen poikkeusta ”yleisen turvallisuuden suojelemiseksi”. Vastaus ei kuitenkaan tarjoa tarvittavia yksityiskohtaisia esimerkkejä siitä, mitä vaaraa kansalaisjärjestöille tai yleiselle turvallisuudelle EU:n antaman tuen avoimuudesta on ollut tai olisi pelättävissä. Ristiriidassa komission perustelun kanssa on se tosiasia, että monet kyseisistä organisaatioista itse pitävät rahoitustietoja esillä avoimesti ja jopa niitä korostaen.

Onko komissio todennut, että Lähi-idän konfliktin ympärillä toimiville järjestöille myönnetyn EU-rahoituksen avoimuudesta aiheutuu konkreettisia ongelmia tai odotettavissa olevia uhkia, jotka vaarantavat yleisen turvallisuuden? Mitä eroa Lähi-idän tilanteella on esimerkiksi Somalian, Sri Lankan ja Iranin tilanteisiin, joiden osalta vastaavaa rahoitustietoa on avoimesti saatavilla?

Mihin pikaisiin toimiin komissio ryhtyy, jotta näiden kolmansissa maissa toimivien, hallituksista riippumattomien israelilaisten ja palestiinalaisten järjestöjen EU-lähteistä peräisin oleva rahoitus ja siihen liittyvä päätöksenteko sekä tulosten arviointi olisivat julkisesti saatavilla EU:n avoimuuden ja vastuullisuuden periaatteen mukaisesti?

Štefan Fülen komission puolesta antama yhteinen vastaus

(11. kesäkuuta 2013)

Unionin tuomioistuin hylkäsi 27. marraskuuta 2012 antamallaan päätöksellä (asia T-17/10 Steinberg v. Euroopan komissio) kanteen, johon arvoisat parlamentin jäsenet viittaavat. Kanne hylättiin osittain siksi, että tutkittavaksi ottamisen edellytykset puuttuivat selvästi, ja osittain siksi, että kanne oli selvästi täysin perusteeton.

Israelia ja Palestiinaa ja muita kysymyksissä mainittuja maita ei kohdella eri tavoin avoimuusmenettelyjen suhteen.

Rahoituksesta annettuun tietoon sekä siihen liittyviin menettelyihin ja tehtyihin päätöksiin liittyen komissio pyytää arvoisia parlamentin jäseniä tutustumaan kyseisen päätöksen tekstiin, josta ilmenevät esitettyjen väitteiden yksityiskohdat ja tuomioistuimen perustellut päätelmät (210).

Arviointeja järjestetään sen mukaisesti, mitä on sovittu Euroopan unionista tehdyssä sopimuksessa, demokratiaa ja ihmisoikeuksia koskevasta eurooppalaisesta rahoitusvälineestä annetussa asetuksessa, julkiseen tietoon liittyvissä direktiiveissä sekä asiaa koskevissa toimielinten välisissä sopimuksissa, jotka on tehty Euroopan komission, ministerineuvoston ja Euroopan parlamentin kesken.

Komissio myös pyytää arvoisia parlamentin jäseniä tutustumaan vastaukseen, jonka se antoi kysymykseen E-003077/2013 (211).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003330/13

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Lack of transparency in EU funding process of NGOs active in Arab-Israeli conflict — limited access to the related documentation

The lack of transparency in processes which provide significant funding for non-governmental organisations involved in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict is an issue that raises serious problems. Every year the Commission makes its financial contribution to these NGOs as it strives to achieve equal individual and collective rights. However, in the past when the NGOs asked for detailed materials documenting all activities specifically related to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, it received only incomplete, badly written material from which important information available elsewhere was missing. The Commission maintained that the need for secrecy concerning the content of the documents and the consequent lack of detailed data arose from reasons of public safety, privacy and commercial interests and from the need not to make the Israel-Palestine relationship even more difficult. The matter has been taken to the European Court of Justice, but there has been no ruling yet.

Taking into account that:

can the Commission state:

Question for written answer E-003386/13

to the Commission

Sari Essayah (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Improvements to the transparency of EU funding for certain NGOs

Each year the European Commission provides Palestinian and Israeli NGOs, such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and Partnership for Peace, with more than EUR 10 million in funding. There have been serious suspicions that this money has been used for purposes such as campaigns to fan the flames of ‘justified’ violence and terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians, instil the image of the Israeli authorities as ‘war criminals’, and promote the break-up of the Palestinian Authority. These suspicious moves run counter to the EU’s values and are in no way conducive to peace in the Middle East: just the opposite. Given this situation, it is worrying that the Commission, even when asked, has not provided any accurate and comprehensive information, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, on EU funding, decisions taken in connection with it or any evaluation of the measures taken.

In its reply to NGO Monitor in 2009, the Commission justified its decision with reference to the exception in the regulation which deals with the interests of ‘public security’. However, that reply fails to provide the necessary detailed examples of what danger to NGOs or public security transparency we should have been, or should be, fearful of, with respect to EU aid. What contradicts the Commission’s reasoning in this case is the fact that many of these organisations make information on funding readily available for inspection and even draw attention to it.

Has the Commission established that the transparency of EU funding for organisations associated with the conflict in the Middle East will lead to substantial problems or anticipated threats that will endanger public security? What is the difference between the situation in the Middle East and, say, that in Somalia, Sri Lanka or Iran, regions for which similar information on funding is openly available?

What urgent steps will the Commission take to ensure that funding from EU sources for non-governmental Israeli and Palestinian organisations active in third countries, decisions taken in connection with it and an evaluation of the results are in the public domain in line with the EU’s principles of transparency and accountability?

Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2013)

By its judgment of 27th November 2012 (Case T-17/10 Steinberg v European Commission), the Court of Justice dismissed the application referred to by the Honourable Members as, in part manifestly inadmissible and, in part, lacking any foundation in law.

There is no differentiation of treatment regarding procedures on openness and transparency between Israel and Palestine and any of the countries referred to in the questions.

Concerning the information provided on funding and procedures and decisions taken in this regard, the Commission refers the Honourable Members to the text of the judgment in question for details of the arguments presented and the reasoned conclusions of the Court (212).

Evaluations are organised in accordance with the Treaty of the European Union, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Regulation, public information directives and the relevant interinstitutional agreements between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Members to its reply to Question E 003077/13 (213).

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-003331/13

Komisijai

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)

(2013 m. kovo 25 d.)

Tema: ES ir Armėnijos bendradarbiavimas

Būdama Europos Parlamento nare ir EURONEST parlamentinės asamblėjos komiteto pirmininke, atidžiai stebinčia ES ir Armėnijos santykius, labai džiaugiuosi šios Pietų Kaukazo šalies padaryta pažanga ir žinau, kokį svarbų vaidmenį jos siekiant atliko ES patariamoji grupė Armėnijos Respublikos klausimais. Esu šio reikšmingo pastarųjų trejų metų bendradarbiavimo projekto įnašo liudininkė ir Parlamentas keturiose dabartinės kadencijos metu priimtose rezoliucijose yra pabrėžęs, jog remia ES patariamąją grupę.

Taip pat žinau, kad šis projektas svarbus Armėnijos valstybinėms institucijoms ir kad dabar jos glaudžiai bendradarbiauja su ES patariamosios grupės patarėjais.

Tačiau iš mūsų kolegų armėnų sužinojau, kad per pastaruosius 12 mėnesių ES delegacija sąmoningai neįtraukė Armėnijos valstybinių institucijų į sprendimų priėmimo procesą dėl šio susitarimu pagrįsto projekto – atsidūrėme padėtyje, kuri prieštarauja ne tik mūsų santykių esmei, bet ir ES patariamosios grupės teisiniam pagrindui.

Dėl šio nepriimtino ir padriko ES delegacijos atliekamo valdymo, neatitinkančio su Armėnija pasiekto susitarimo lygio, ES patariamoji grupė neteko visų pagrindinių patarėjų, Armėnijos valstybinėse institucijose kilo nerimas ir bereikalingas nepasitenkinimas, o tai gali pakenkti mūsų tolimesniems santykiams.

Š. Füle atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. gegužės 30 d.)

Komisija sutaria, kad ES Patariamoji grupė (EUAG) buvo svarbi ES ir Armėnijos bendradarbiavimo priemonė. Kaip visoms ES finansinę paramą gaunančioms priemonėms, jai turėtų būti taikomos atitinkamos valdymo ir vertinimo procedūros.

Armėnijos valdžios institucijų dalyvavimą užtikrina EUAG patariamosios tarybos veikimas – ji renkasi kas ketvirtį ir priima jos įgaliojimus atitinkančius sprendimus. Pagal šią sistemą su naudos gavėjais konsultuotasi dėl ataskaitų ir veiklos planų; be to, jie dalyvavo visose darbuotojų atrankos komisijose. Be to, EUAG neseniai sutarė reguliariai rengti darbo posėdžius, skirtus parengti patariamąją tarybą.

EU delegacijai suteikti projekto valdymo ir priežiūros įgaliojimai yra aiškiai apibrėžti, kaip ir jos vykdančiojo partnerio, Jungtinių tautų vystymosi programos (JTVP). Komisija reguliariai gauna ES delegacijos ataskaitas apie projekto įgyvendinimą, kurios rodo nuoseklų ir kruopštų valdymą. Jokiu būdu negalima sakyti, kad UAG prarado visus pagrindinius patarėjus: dviem iš jų neseniai atsistatydinus, EUAG greitai pradėjo atitinkamas darbuotojų atrankos procedūras.

Atsižvelgdama į būsimus naujus asociacijos susitarimu nustatomus ES ir Armėnijos sutartinius santykius, ES imasi žingsnių užtikrinti, kad patariamoji parama padėtų Armėnijai veiksmingai reaguoti į naujus poreikius. Pavyzdžiui, paskelbtas papildomas su Nacionaline Asamblėja susijęs etatas, siekiant padėti Armėnijos parlamentui didinti institucinius pajėgumus, kad būtų galima geriau spręsti sudėtingą teisės aktų derinimo prie ES teisės sistemos užduotį.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003331/13

to the Commission

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: EU-Armenia cooperation

As a Member of the European Parliament and a Euronest Parliamentary Assembly committee Chair who closely monitors EU-Armenia relations, I am very pleased with the progress made by this South Caucasus country, and aware of the important role that the EU Advisory Group to the Republic of Armenia has played in it. I have witnessed the contribution made by this important cooperation project in the last three years, and Parliament has underlined its support for the EU Advisory Group in four resolutions adopted during the current term.

I am also well aware of the importance accorded to this project by Armenian state institutions and of the high level of interaction they now have with the advisers in the EU Advisory Group.

However, I have learned from our Armenian colleagues that during the last 12 months the EU Delegation has deliberately excluded Armenian state institutions from the decision-making process for this agreement-driven project, a situation that is contrary not only to the spirit of our relations but also to the legal base of the EU Advisory Group.

This unacceptable and erratic management by the EU Delegation, which does not correspond to the level of understanding reached with Armenia, has resulted in the loss of all the key advisers in the EU Advisory Group and created worrisome and unnecessary discontent in Armenian state institutions, which could undermine our wider relations.

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2013)

The Commission agrees that the EU Advisory Group (EUAG) has been an important cooperation instrument in the EU's relations with Armenia. Like all measures supported by EU financial assistance, it should be the subject of appropriate management and evaluation procedures.

The involvement of the Armenian authorities has been ensured in the framework of the EUAG Advisory Board which meets on a quarterly basis and takes decisions in line with its mandate. Within its framework, the beneficiaries have been consulted on reports and work plans, and have also participated in all recruitment committees. The EUAG has also recently established regular working meetings to prepare the Advisory Board.

The mandate of the EU Delegation in the management and oversight of the project is clearly defined, as is that of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the implementing partner. The Commission receives regular reports from the EU Delegation on the implementation of the project, and these demonstrate consistent and diligent management. The EUAG has certainly not lost all key advisors: following two recent resignations, the EUAG has quickly launched appropriate recruitment procedures.

In view of the forthcoming new contractual relationship between the EU and Armenia, governed by the Association Agreement, the EU is taking steps to ensure that the advisory support to Armenia provides an effective response to newly emerging needs. As an example, an additional post attached to the National Assembly has been published in order to assist the Armenian parliament in increasing its institutional capacities, with a view to tackling the complex task of approximation to the EU legislation.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003332/13

to the Commission

Arlene McCarthy (S&D)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Non-bank finance

Effective competition in the EU’s banking sector is necessary to ensure a well-functioning and efficient sector which funds the real economy by reducing the cost of banking services. In 2011, a British local entrepreneur set up a company which acts as a link between savers and borrowers. The company is an innovative peer-to-peer lending scheme that enables people who have struggled to obtain finance from high-street banks to obtain affordable loans, and offers 5% AER on loan repayments. All borrowing and lending transactions are entered into in the company’s office following a face-to-face interview. The company holds a consumer credit licence with the Office of Fair Trading, but is not regulated by the Financial Services Authority as its activities do not fall within the regulatory framework.

Is the Commission aware of any examples of innovative financing companies being set up across the EU?

What action can the Commission take to promote such innovative models across Europe?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2013)

Peer-to-peer lending schemes fall under the general concept of crowdfunding, where financing of various projects are channelled through open calls to the wider public. Promoters of an initiative can collect funds (214) directly or use a web-based intermediary which will assist in promotion and collecting funds.

While crowdfunding may constitute a financing source, especially for small firms or local projects, it may also carry some risks in terms of fraud or investor protection. Due to the dynamic nature of this phenomenon, the Commission considers it too early to judge whether a specific regulatory framework for these activities is needed. It might, however, monitor market (215) and national legal developments and assess whether the subsidiarity and proportionality conditions of any EU action would be fulfilled.

The recent ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ (216) contains an invitation for Member States to assess the need to amend current national financial legislation with the aim of facilitating new, alternative forms of financing for start-ups and SMEs in general, in particular as regards platforms for crowdfunding.

The recent Commission Staff Working Document ‘Strengthening the environment for Web entrepreneurs in the EU’ (217) includes an action aimed at supporting a network of European crowdfunding platforms in view of providing support, visibility, transparency and interconnectivity among existing EU platforms, including those specialised in Web start-ups.

More generally, the recent Commission Green Paper on long-term financing of the European economy (218) recognises the need to reflect further on how to diversify the financing system in Europe to ensure it better supports the real economy, without jeopardising financial stability (219).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003334/13

aan de Raad

Marietje Schaake (ALDE)

(25 maart 2013)

Betreft: NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

Op 21 maart 2013 werd er op de website „The Verge” melding gemaakt (220) van een nieuw document van de NAVO over cyberdefensie, namelijk het „Handboek van Tallinn over het internationale recht toepasselijk op cyberoorlogvoering” (221) (het handboek van Tallinn). Hierin wordt het internationale recht vermeld dat van toepassing is op cyberoorlogvoering en worden aanbevelingen gedaan voor vergeldingsacties — onder meer met gebruik van traditionele wapens — en aanvallen op hackers die pogingen hebben gedaan om in computernetwerken in te breken. Op 7 februari 2013 stelde de Commissie de cyberveiligheidsstrategie van de Europese Unie (de cyberstrategie) (222) voor, opgesteld door de commissaris voor de digitale agenda, de commissaris voor binnenlandse zaken en de vicevoorzitter van de Commissie/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en veiligheidsbeleid. In scherpe tegenstelling met het handboek van Tallinn omvat de cyberstrategie geen enkel concreet voorstel met betrekking tot het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid van de EU noch betreffende de ontwikkeling van offensieve cyberverdedigingscapaciteiten of regels inzake het in de aanval gaan in het kader van cyberoorlogvoering. Kan de Raad antwoord geven op de volgende vragen?

het handboek van Tallinn integraal in de cyberstrategie op te nemen? Zo niet, wat is dan het verband tussen de twee documenten?

de Raad van mening dat de EU-lidstaten op het vlak van cyberveiligheid en ‐defensie een offensief beleid en vergeldingsmaatregelen moeten uitwerken?

de Raad bereid conclusies goed te keuren over de toepasselijkheid van traditionele juridische concepten op het internet, in de context van de op digitale wijze eengemaakte wereld, in het bijzonder voor wat betreft het definiëren en toeschrijven van oorlogshandelingen en de toepasselijkheid van het internationale recht in de context van cyberoorlogvoering? Zo niet, waarom niet?

Antwoord

(9 juli 2013)

Het handboek van Tallinn is door onafhankelijke internationale deskundigen opgesteld op verzoek van het Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence van de NAVO. Het handboek, dat geen officiële status heeft en evenmin de standpunten van de NAVO weerspiegelt, behelst een analyse door deskundigen van de toepasselijkheid van het bestaande internationale recht inzake cyber‐oorlogvoering.

Geen enkele EU-instelling is betrokken of geraadpleegd bij de opstelling van het handboek van Tallinn.

In het kader van het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid (GVDB) heeft het Europees Defensieagentschap (EDA) een projectteam voor cyberverdediging ingesteld, dat bestaat uit EDA‐personeel en vertegenwoordigers uit de deelnemende lidstaten, en dat als taak heeft om in verband met het GVDB vermogens op het gebied van cyberverdediging te ontwikkelen. Daarnaast heeft het Militair Comité van de EU in 2012 zijn goedkeuring gehecht aan een „EU-concept voor cyber‐verdediging voor door de EU geleide operaties”.

In de gezamenlijke mededeling van de HV en de Commissie van 7 februari 2013 over de EU‐strategie inzake cyberbeveiliging: een open, veilige en beveiligde cyberspace, wordt nader ingegaan op de vraag hoe er kan worden gezorgd voor een veilige digitale omgeving waarbij de grondrechten worden geëerbiedigd en bevorderd en de vrijheden in de digitale wereld worden beschermd. De Raad beraadt zich momenteel op basis van die mededeling op de problematiek van cyberbeveiliging, en kan de vragen van het geachte Parlementslid dan ook niet beantwoorden zolang de besprekingen niet zijn afgerond.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003334/13

to the Council

Marietje Schaake (ALDE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

On 21 March 2013 the website ‘The Verge’ reported (223) on a new NATO document on cyber defence, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (224). The Tallinn Manual identifies the international law applicable to cyber warfare and includes recommendations for retaliatory conduct, including the use of traditional weapons, and attacks against hackers who have perpetrated attacks. On 7 February 2013 the Commission presented the Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union (225), a joint effort by the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, the Commissioner for Home Affairs and the Vice-President/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In sharp contrast to the Tallinn Manual, the Cybersecurity Strategy does not include any concrete proposals concerning the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy or the development of offensive cyber defence capabilities or of rules of engagement for cyber warfare. Can the Council answer the following questions?

‘killing hackers in cyber warfare is justified’?

Reply

(9 July 2013)

The Tallinn Manual has been prepared by independent international experts at the invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. This manual, which has no official status and does not represent NATO's views, constitutes an expert analysis of the applicability of existing international law to cyber warfare.

No EU institution was involved or consulted in the process of drafting the Tallinn Manual.

Within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the European Defence Agency (EDA) has set up a Cyber Defence Project Team which includes EDA staff and representatives of participating Member States and aims to develop cyber defence capabilities related to CSDP. In addition, in 2012 the EU Military Committee approved an ‘EU Concept for Cyber Defence for EU-led military operations’.

The joint HR/Commission Communication on the EU Strategy on Cybersecurity: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace, adopted on 7 February 2013, addresses the issue of how to ensure a secure digital environment while respecting and promoting fundamental rights and the protection of freedoms online. The Council is currently discussing the issue of Cybersecurity on the basis of this communication, and cannot therefore respond to the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question until these discussions have been concluded.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003335/13

aan de Commissie

Marietje Schaake (ALDE)

(25 maart 2013)

Betreft: NAVO-handboek inzake cyberoorlogvoering en de EU-strategie inzake cyberveiligheid

Op 21 maart 2013 werd er op de website „The Verge” melding gemaakt (226) van een nieuw document van de NAVO over cyberdefensie, namelijk het „Handboek van Tallinn over het internationale recht toepasselijk op cyberoorlogvoering” (227) (het handboek van Tallinn). Hierin wordt het internationale recht vermeld dat van toepassing is op cyberoorlogvoering en worden aanbevelingen gedaan voor vergeldingsacties — onder meer met gebruik van traditionele wapens — en aanvallen tegen hackers die pogingen hebben gedaan om in computernetwerken in te breken. Op 7 februari 2013 stelde de Commissie de cyberveiligheidsstrategie van de Europese Unie (de cyberstrategie) (228) voor, opgesteld door de commissaris voor de digitale agenda, de commissaris voor binnenlandse zaken en de vicevoorzitter van de Commissie/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en veiligheidsbeleid. In scherpe tegenstelling met het handboek van Tallinn omvat de cyberstrategie geen enkel concreet voorstel met betrekking tot het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid van de EU noch betreffende de ontwikkeling van offensieve cyberverdedigingscapaciteiten of regels inzake het in de aanval gaan in het kader van cyberoorlogvoering. Kan de Commissie antwoord geven op de volgende vragen?

„het doden van hackers in de context van cyberoorlogvoering gerechtvaardigd is”?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(11 juni 2013)

Het Handboek van Tallinn is door onafhankelijke deskundigen opgesteld op verzoek van het Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence van de Noord-Atlantische Verdragsorganisatie (NAVO). Dit handboek heeft geen officiële status en bevat een academische analyse van de toepasselijkheid van het bestaande internationale humanitaire recht op cyberoorlogsvoering.

Bij de opstelling van het Handboek van Tallinn werd geen EU-instelling betrokken of geraadpleegd. De definities van de begrippen „gebruik van geweld” en „jurisdictie in de cyberruimte” worden in de lidstaten door deskundigen op het gebied van internationaal recht geanalyseerd. Indien de lidstaten daarom verzoeken en indien zij een mandaat krijgen van de Raad, kunnen de Commissie en de Europese Dienst voor extern optreden (EDEO) in de toekomst aan dergelijke discussies deelnemen.

Binnen het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid (GVDB) heeft het Europees Defensieagentschap een cyberdefensieteam samengesteld dat wordt voorgezeten door en bestaat uit de lidstaten en dat is gericht op de ontwikkeling van capaciteit inzake cyberverdediging met betrekking tot het GVDB. 

In het Handboek van Tallinn staat niet het probleem van hackers centraal, maar wordt onder meer de behandeling van strijders tijdens gewapende conflicten overeenkomstig de beginselen van het internationale humanitaire recht besproken.

De gezamenlijke mededeling van de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter en de Commissie over de „Strategie inzake cyberbeveiliging van de Europese Unie: Een open, veilige en beveiligde cyberspace” (229) die op 7 februari 2013 is aangenomen, is gericht op het waarborgen van een veilige digitale omgeving waarin de grondrechten en de bescherming van de vrijheden online worden gerespecteerd en bevorderd. Het grondrechtenaspect wordt eveneens in de GVDB-gerelateerde activiteiten op de voet gevolgd.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003335/13

to the Commission

Marietje Schaake (ALDE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

On 21 March 2013 the website ‘The Verge’ reported (230) on a new NATO document on cyber defence, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (231). The Tallinn Manual identifies the international law applicable to cyber warfare and includes recommendations for retaliatory conduct, including the use of traditional weapons, and attacks against hackers who have perpetrated attacks. On 7 February 2013 the Commission presented the Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union (232), a joint effort by the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, the Commissioner for Home Affairs and the Vice-President/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In sharp contrast to the Tallinn Manual, the Cybersecurity Strategy does not include any concrete proposals concerning the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy or the development of offensive cyber defence capabilities or of rules of engagement for cyber warfare. Can the Commission answer the following questions?

‘killing hackers in cyber warfare is justified’?

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

(11 June 2013)

The Tallinn Manual has been prepared by independent international experts at the invitation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. This manual, which has no official status, represents an academic analysis on the applicability of existing international humanitarian law to cyber warfare.

No EU institution was involved or consulted in the drafting process of the Tallinn Manual. The definitions of use of force and jurisdiction in cyberspace are analysed by international law experts in Member States. If asked by the Member States and given the mandate by the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) could participate in such discussions in the future.

Within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) the European Defence Agency has composed a Cyber Defence Project Team that is chaired by and consists of the Member States and aims to develop cyber defence capabilities related to CSDP.

Tallinn Manual does not concentrate on the issue of hackers, but discusses among other issues the treatment of combatants during armed conflicts according to the principles established by International Humanitarian Law.

The joint HRVP/Commission Communication on the EU Strategy on Cybersecurity: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace (233), adopted on 7 February 2013, aims at ensuring a secure digital environment while respecting and promoting fundamental rights and the protection of freedoms online. The fundamental rights aspect is also closely followed in the CSDP-related activities.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003336/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Projet d'accord bilatéral UE/États-Unis

La Commission européenne étudie actuellement un traité de libre-échange entre les États‐Unis et l'UE. Cet accord de libre‐échange va transformer en profondeur la politique commerciale de l'UE, qui sera couverte en majorité par des accords bilatéraux. Or, l'UE avait toujours investi dans des négociations multilatérales dans le cadre de l'OMC. À l'heure où les négociations du cycle de Doha sont au point mort, ce changement de cap en faveur du bilatéralisme pose question.

La Commission pourrait-elle expliquer pourquoi elle a modifié son approche en faveur du bilatéralisme pour les négociations de sa politique commerciale?

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

(3 mai 2013)

L'Union européenne a déjà négocié et continue à négocier des accords de libre-échange avec plusieurs partenaires; elle considère qu'ils sont complémentaires de son engagement ferme en faveur du multilatéralisme et non en contradiction avec celui-ci. Les négociations avec les États-Unis n'affaibliraient en aucun cas l'engagement de l'UE vis-à-vis de l'OMC et du cycle de Doha. Une initiative bilatérale ambitieuse témoignerait incontestablement de la volonté commune de l'UE et des États-Unis d'ouvrir les marchés des biens et services et de s'attaquer à des questions de réglementation complexes, et pourrait également donner un nouveau souffle aux négociations à Genève. L'UE continue à assurer, comme dans le passé, le même rôle moteur dans les enceintes internationales. Dans cette optique, la Commission participe actuellement à la préparation de la 9e conférence ministérielle de l'OMC, prévue en décembre 2013. Elle estime qu'un résultat positif lors de cette conférence est nécessaire pour ouvrir la voie à un accord multilatéral global. Au-delà de cet objectif, la Commission reste résolument déterminée à faire avancer les négociations sur les derniers éléments du programme de Doha pour le développement, en vue de conclure le cycle dans son ensemble. Le commissaire au commerce s'est récemment exprimé en détail sur le rapport entre les négociations bilatérales avec les États-Unis et le programme multilatéral plus large (234).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003336/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Draft EU-US bilateral agreement

The Commission is currently considering a free trade deal between the United States and the European Union. This free trade agreement will result in a radical change in the EU’s trade policy, which will be covered mainly by bilateral agreements. Historically, however, the EU has always participated in multilateral negotiations within the framework of the WTO. As the Doha Round is now stalled, this change of direction towards bilateralism raises certain questions.

Could the Commission explain why it now favours a bilateral approach to trade policy negotiations?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2013)

The EU has been and continues to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with several partners, and considers these as complementary and not contradictory to our firm multilateral commitment. Negotiations with the US would in no way weaken the EU commitment to the WTO or the Doha Round. An ambitious bilateral initiative would be a clear signal of EU/US joint willingness to open markets on goods and services as well as tackling complex regulatory issues, and may also have the potential to re-energise negotiations in Geneva. The EU continues to show the same degree of leadership in the multilateral fora as it has done in the past. To that end, the Commission is currently active in the preparations for the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9), scheduled for December 2013. The Commission believes that a successful outcome at MC9 is needed to pave the way to an overall multilateral agreement. Looking forward and beyond the successful MC9, the Commission remains fully committed to furthering negotiations on the remaining elements of the DDA with a view to concluding the entire round. The Commissioner for Trade recently spoke in detail about the relationship between the bilateral negotiations with the US and the broader multilateral agenda (235) .

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003337/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Exportabilité des allocations de sécurité sociale dans les pays européens

Le règlement (CE) no 883/2004 vise à la coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale des États membres. Une allocation d'invalidité, de retraite (ou autre) devrait donc pouvoir continuer à s'appliquer en cas de déplacement de la personne dans un autre État membre, ce dernier prenant le relai du versement de l'aide.

Il s'avère pourtant que ce n'est pas le cas, plusieurs pétitions parvenues à la commission des pétitions du Parlement européen montrent que les États refusent de payer les allocations des ressortissants d'autres pays qui viennent s'installer sur leur territoire. Cette situation empêche donc les bénéficiaires de se déplacer librement dans l'UE sous peine de voir leur assistance financière prendre fin.

La Commission estime-t-elle que la non-exportabilité des allocations entre les États membres est une entrave à la libre circulation des personnes?

Dans le nouveau rapport sur la citoyenneté de l'Union prévu pour fin 2013, la Commission compte-t-elle discuter de ce sujet?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(8 mai 2013)

La règle générale en matière de coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale édictée à l'article 7 du règlement (CE) no 883/2004 dispose que le paiement de prestations en espèces, telles que les allocations de retraite et d'invalidité mentionnées par l'Honorable Parlementaire, ne saurait être supprimé ou réduit du fait que le bénéficiaire ou les membres de sa famille résident dans un État membre autre que celui où se trouve l'institution débitrice. La responsabilité de l'État membre débiteur ne cesse pas simplement parce que le bénéficiaire de prestations se rend dans un autre État membre.

Un nombre limité de prestations spéciales en espèces à caractère non contributif ne sont pas dues en dehors de l'État membre compétent pour le versement des prestations. Néanmoins, elles doivent être fournies sur une base égale aux personnes résidant dans l'État membre en question. La non-exportabilité de ces prestations n'influe pas dans un sens défavorable sur la libre circulation des personnes, étant donné que ces prestations spéciales — qui sont soit des prestations de subsistance minimale complétant une prestation de sécurité sociale, soit des prestations destinées à encourager l'indépendance ou l'intégration sociale des personnes handicapées — sont étroitement liées à la situation socio-économique dans l'État membre compétent pour le versement des prestations. La Cour a confirmé la légalité de ces dispositions à plusieurs reprises.

Comme les années précédentes, le rapport 2013 sur la citoyenneté de l'Union examinera les moyens d'améliorer les droits en matière de sécurité sociale des citoyens de l'UE qui se rendent dans un autre État membre.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003337/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Exportability of social security benefits across EU Member States

The purpose of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is to coordinate the social security systems of Member States. Entitlement to disability allowances, pensions and other benefits should therefore remain valid if a person moves to another Member State, which would then become responsible for paying the benefit.

It has emerged, however, that this is not the case. Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has received a number of petitions indicating that Member States are refusing to pay benefits to foreign nationals who have relocated to their territory. Beneficiaries cannot therefore move freely within the EU without losing their financial support.

Does the Commission consider that the non-exportability of benefits across Member States represents an obstacle to the free movement of persons?

Does the Commission intend to deal with this matter in the new EU Citizenship Report due at the end of 2013?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

The general rule on social security coordination in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is that payment of cash benefits, such as the old age and invalidity pensions mentioned by the Honourable Member, cannot be withdrawn or reduced because the beneficiary or their family members reside in a Member State other than that of the institution responsible for paying the benefits. The Member State responsible for payment does not stop being responsible simply because the recipient moves to another Member State.

A limited number of special, non-contributory cash benefits are not payable outside the Member State responsible for payment. They must, however, be provided on an equal basis to people residing within that Member State. The non-exportability of such benefits does not adversely affect the free movement of persons, because such special benefits, which are either minimum subsistence benefits supplementing a social security benefit or benefits to promote the social independence or social integration of disabled persons, are closely linked to the socioeconomic situation in the Member State responsible for payment. The Court has confirmed the legality of these provisions on a number of occasions.

As in previous years, the 2013 Citizenship Report will consider ways in which the social security rights of EU citizens who move to another Member State can be improved.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003338/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Chargeur universel pour téléphones mobiles

Chaque marque de téléphone mobile est caractérisée par une forme et un embout de chargeur différent afin d'obliger le consommateur qui veut changer de téléphone mobile à changer de la même façon le chargeur. Ces différents modèles entraînent de ce fait des contraintes supplémentaires (difficulté de trouver un chargeur à emprunter de la même marque lorsque le téléphone est déchargé), des frais supplémentaires à l'achat d'un nouveau téléphone et des déchets supplémentaires puisqu'il n'utilisera plus l'ancien chargeur.

Un chargeur universel permettrait ainsi de répondre aux attentes des consommateurs, mais aussi des associations pour l'environnement.

La Commission envisage-t-elle d'encourager le projet de chargeur universel sur toutes les marques de téléphone mobile afin de faciliter la vie du consommateur et d'éviter les déchets inutiles?

Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission

(15 mai 2013)

À la demande de la Commission, les principaux producteurs de téléphones portables ont accepté de signer un protocole d'accord en vue d'harmoniser les chargeurs des téléphones portables informatisés vendus dans l'UE. Ce protocole d'accord a été approuvé par le commissaire chargé des entreprises et de l'industrie lors d'une conférence de presse en juin 2009.

Un récent rapport d'avancement fourni par les signataires du protocole d'accord a montré qu'ils avaient rempli leurs obligations au titre de ce dernier. Il est estimé actuellement que 90 % des nouveaux appareils mis sur le marché par les signataires du protocole d'accord et les autres fabricants à la fin de 2012 sont compatibles avec le chargeur universel, ce qui donne à penser que l'accord volontaire a été profitable aux citoyens.

La Commission est convaincue que les consommateurs et les fabricants peuvent profiter d'une extension de l'initiative d'harmonisation des chargeurs à de nouvelles catégories de produits, telles que la nouvelle génération de téléphones portables, tout en prenant en considération les innovations technologiques et d'autres petits appareils électroniques portables tels que les appareils photo numériques, les tablettes et les baladeurs. La Commission prépare donc le lancement d'une étude évaluant les résultats obtenus par le protocole d'accord et envisagera des options pour un suivi approprié comportant un accord volontaire et des mesures législatives.

La Commission invite également l'Honorable Parlementaire à se reporter aux réponses qu'elle a données aux questions écrites E-001685/2013 de Mme Olga Sehnalová et E-002977/2013 de M. Tadeusz Zwiefka.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003338/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Standard charger for mobile phones

The shape and charger connectors of each brand of mobile phone are different. This means that consumers who want to replace their mobile phone also have to replace their charger. The variety of models leads to further inconvenience. It can be difficult to borrow the right brand of charger when a phone has run out of battery; there is additional expense when purchasing a new phone and extra waste if the old charger can no longer be used.

A standard charger would meet the requirements of both consumers and environmental groups.

Does the Commission intend to support the plans to introduce standard chargers for all mobile telephone brands, so as to make life easier for consumers and avoid needless waste?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2013)

Following a request from the Commission, major producers of mobile phones agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to harmonise chargers for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. The MoU was endorsed by the Commissioner responsible for Enterprise and Industry at a press conference in June 2009.

A recent progress report provided by the MoU signatories has shown that they have met their obligations under the MoU. It is now estimated that 90% of the new devices put on the market by the MoU signatories and other manufacturers by the end of 2012 support the common charging capability. This indicates that the voluntary agreement has been successful in delivering benefits for citizens.

The Commission is convinced that consumers and manufacturers can benefit from an extension of the initiative on harmonisation of chargers to new categories of products such as the new generation of mobile phones while taking into account technological innovations and other small portable electronic devices, such as digital cameras, tablets and music players. Therefore the Commission is preparing the launch of a study evaluating the results achieved with the MoU, and will consider options for appropriate follow-up including a voluntary agreement and legislation.

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-001685/2013 by Ms Olga Sehnalová and E-002977/2013 by Mr Tadeusz Zwiefka.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003339/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Des sanctions pour la non-récupération des déchets électriques et électroniques par les magasins

La directive européenne 2002/96/CE a pour objectif prioritaire la prévention, la réutilisation, le recyclage et la valorisation des déchets électriques et électroniques. Le principe est que le distributeur de ces produits doit être en mesure d'en assurer la récupération, afin qu'ils puissent être correctement recyclés.

Au vu de récentes enquêtes sur la récupération des ampoules basses consommation dans les supermarchés en France (source: association de consommateurs «UFC que choisir»), force est de constater que sur 3 155 magasins visités en France, 44 % sont hors la loi et n'ont rien mis en place pour la récupération des ampoules basse consommation usagées.

La Commission envisagerait-elle de durcir les sanctions vis-à-vis des États membres qui ne veillent pas suffisamment à la bonne application de la directive européenne?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(16 mai 2013)

La directive 2002/96/CE relative aux déchets d’équipements électriques et électroniques (DEEE) (236) prévoit la collecte, la valorisation et le recyclage des DEEE, y compris de matériel d'éclairage tel que les ampoules basse consommation. Elle impose également aux distributeurs, lorsqu'ils fournissent un nouveau produit, de faire en sorte que ces déchets puissent leur être remis par les ménages gratuitement et sur une base de un pour un, pour autant que l'équipement soit de type équivalent. Le résumé de l'enquête mentionnée par l'honorable parlementaire ne fait pas apparaître clairement si, en l'occurrence, cette exigence particulière est enfreinte.

La refonte récente de la directive DEEE (directive 2012/19/UE (237)) renforce les obligations imposées aux distributeurs de reprendre les DEEE: elle exige en effet que, dans les magasins de détail disposant d'une grande surface de vente, les distributeurs assurent la collecte des DEEE de très petite dimension (dont toutes les dimensions extérieures sont inférieures ou égales à 25 cm) gratuitement pour les utilisateurs finals et sans obligation d'acheter des EEE de type équivalent.

Le délai de transposition de la directive 2012/19/CE expire le 14 février 2014. La Commission vérifiera que les mesures nationales de transposition soient conformes aux exigences posées par la directive.

Selon le dernier rapport transmis par la France au sujet des taux de collecte des DEEE, les objectifs actuels de collecte au niveau national ont été atteints.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003339/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Penalties for outlets that fail to recover waste electrical and electronic equipment

The main aim of European Directive 2002/96/EC is the prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery of electrical and electronic waste. The principle is that distributors of such products must be able to ensure that they are recovered so that they can be properly recycled.

In light of recent research into the recovery of energy saving light bulbs in French supermarkets (source: ‘UFC que choisir’ consumers’ association), it is clear that 44% the 3 155 outlets visited in France are breaking the law and do not have procedures in place to recover used energy saving light bulbs.

Is the Commission planning to introduce tougher penalties against Member States that are not doing enough to ensure that the European Directive is properly applied?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2013)

Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (238) provides for the collection, recovery and recycling of WEEE, including lighting equipment, such as energy saving light bulbs. It also requires that distributors when supplying new equipment, shall be responsible for ensuring that such waste from private households can be returned free of charge on a one-to-one basis as long as the equipment is of an equivalent type. From the summary of the study mentioned by the Honorable Member, it is unclear whether in this case this specific requirement is breached.

A recent recast of the WEEE Directive (Directive 2012/19/EU (239)) strengthens the obligations on distributors to take back WEEE as it requires distributors at retail shops with large sales area to provide for the collection of very small WEEE (no external dimension more than 25cm) free of charge to end-users and with no obligation to buy EEE of an equivalent type.

The deadline for transposing Directive 2012/19/EU expires on 14 February 2014. The Commission will check that the national transposition measures are in line with the directive's requirements.

According to the last report on WEEE collection rates submitted by France, the national collection target in force has been achieved.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003341/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Législation européenne sur une distance minimale entre les sièges d'avion

L'Agence Européenne de Sécurité Aérienne (AESA) certifie chaque avion lors de son immatriculation, appliquant les normes européennes de fabrication et de sécurité. Mais il n'existe aucune norme réglementant la distance minimale entre les sièges d'avion, ce qui conduit les compagnies aériennes à diminuer toujours plus l'espace entre les rangées de sièges pour augmenter leur nombre et donc augmenter leurs profits. Et ce, au détriment de la santé des usagers puisque le manque d'espace bloque la circulation sanguine.

La Commission envisagerait-elle d'étudier la mise en place d'une réglementation instaurant une distance minimale entre les sièges d'avion afin de préserver le confort et la santé des usagers?

Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission

(14 mai 2013)

Pour ce qui est de la législation de l'Union européenne, les spécifications de certification ne définissent aucune donnée contraignante pour la distance minimale entre les sièges. La seule disposition existant à l'heure actuelle dans le droit de l'Union est une norme de sécurité selon laquelle la configuration de chaque cabine doit être approuvée par l'Agence européenne de la sécurité aérienne (AESA) sur la base du règlement (UE) n° 748/2012 (240) et être conforme aux normes de sécurité applicables, qui exigent que l'appareil puisse être évacué en 90 secondes.

La Commission est consciente du nombre croissant de passagers se plaignant de ce que la distance entre les rangées de sièges semble avoir diminué mais, du point de vue de la sécurité, des démonstrations d'évacuation d'urgence ont prouvé que l'agencement approuvé permet une évacuation en 90 secondes. Chaque configuration en sièges fait l'objet d'une approbation et les transporteurs aériens sont conscients de leurs responsabilités en matière de respect des exigences applicables.

Il convient enfin de noter que, sur un marché concurrentiel, les transporteurs aériens sont libres de proposer différents niveaux de services et de leur associer différents prix; la disponibilité d'espace supplémentaire est l'un des éléments qui contribuent à établir une distinction entre les classes d'un vol.

La Commission est d'avis que les informations dont elle dispose actuellement ne suffisent pas à justifier l'adoption de nouvelles mesures législatives sur l'espacement entre sièges à l'échelle de l'UE. La Commission et l'AESA continuent toutefois de suivre cette question de près afin de veiller à ce que toute action relevant de leur compétence qui s'avérerait nécessaire soit prise en temps voulu et de manière adéquate.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003341/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: European legislation to establish a minimum distance between aeroplane seats

The European Aviation Safety Agency certifies all aircraft at registration in accordance with European manufacturing and safety standards. Those standards do not, however, specify a minimum distance between seats. This has allowed aviation companies to shorten the distance between seat rows time and time again, so as to add more rows and thus increase profits. This has been to the detriment of passenger health, since a lack of space between seats can result in blood circulation problems.

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce rules establishing a minimum distance between aeroplane seats in order to safeguard the comfort and health of passengers?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2013)

As far as European Union (EU) legislation is concerned, there is no prescriptive data in the certification specifications for the minimum distance between seats. The only provision at present existing in Union law is a safety related rule according to which each cabin configuration must be approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 (241), and must comply with the applicable safety requirements which include standards for emergency evacuation within 90 seconds.

The Commission is aware that an increasing number of passengers complain that the distance between rows seems to have decreased but from a safety perspective, emergency evacuation demonstrations have evidenced that the approved cabin design allow for evacuation within 90 seconds. Each seating configuration is approved and operators are aware of their responsibilities in complying with applicable requirements.

Finally it is worth noting that in a competitive market, air carriers are free to offer different levels of services and to charge different fees for them; extra space is one of the features that contribute to differentiation between different classes on a flight.

The Commission is of the opinion that the data presently at its disposal is not sufficient to justify any legislative measure on seat pitch at EU level. However, the Commission and EASA continue to monitor carefully this issue in order to ensure timely and appropriate actions under its remit which could be necessary.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003343/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Mention des marges sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires préemballées

Avec le scandale de la viande de cheval, le public a pris conscience du nombre élevé d'intermédiaires, de négociants qui gagnent de l'argent sur des produits de consommation courante. Avec la crise du lait, les citoyens ont été informés du faible revenu des producteurs de lait et de la marge des distributeurs.

Les règles en matière d'étiquetage sur les produits préemballés ont été harmonisées au niveau européen. Cependant, il n'est pas fait mention sur l'étiquette des différentes marges opérées sur le produit. Le consommateur n'a à aucun moment connaissance des marges dégagées par les différents intermédiaires entre le producteur et le vendeur final. Correctement informé, le consommateur pourrait modifier son comportement, ce qui remettrait en cause la pratique des marges excessives dans l'industrie agroalimentaire.

La Commission envisagerait-elle d'imposer sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires préemballées le prix d'achat au premier fabricant et les marges des intermédiaires en plus du prix final?

Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission

(6 juin 2013)

La Commission considère qu'il ne serait pas utile de faire figurer les éléments constitutifs du prix d'achat au premier fabricant ou les marges des intermédiaires, en plus du prix final, sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires préemballées, notamment du fait que ni les coûts supportés à chaque niveau de la chaîne d'approvisionnement ni les stratégies commerciales des divers acteurs de cette chaîne ne seraient pris en compte. En outre, la plupart des matières premières agricoles, telles que le lait, sont transformées en plusieurs coproduits qui sont ensuite associés à d'autres ingrédients pour entrer dans la composition des produits finals.

Par ailleurs, l'établissement d'un cadre européen à caractère contraignant alourdirait considérablement la charge administrative pesant sur la chaîne d'approvisionnement, mènerait à une fragmentation encore plus importante du marché intérieur et entraînerait potentiellement une hausse des prix pour les consommateurs, ainsi qu'une éventuelle augmentation des marges des intermédiaires. Dès lors, la Commission n'envisage pas de telle initiative.

Dans le même temps, la Commission et les autorités nationales chargées de la concurrence sont disposées à examiner avec soin tout comportement anticoncurrentiel présumé qui pourrait provoquer, à terme, des hausses de prix pour les consommateurs européens. Comme le montre le rapport sur l'application du droit de la concurrence (242), les autorités concernées ont déjà examiné plusieurs cas de ce genre au cours des dernières années.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003343/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Reference to mark-ups on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs

Through the horsemeat scandal, the public has become aware of the convoluted network of intermediaries who earn money from the trade in consumer goods. Through the milk crisis, the public learned just how little dairy producers earn and just how high the profit margins are that distributors enjoy.

Although the rules governing the labelling of pre-packaged products have been harmonised at EU level, labels make no reference to the mark-ups applied to a given product. At no point are consumers made aware of the profits enjoyed by intermediaries in the supply chain between the producer and the end retailer. If correctly informed, consumers might well change their purchasing habits, which might in turn prompt the agri-foodstuffs industry to reconsider the practice of applying excessive mark-ups.

Would the Commission consider including details of the price paid to the initial producer and the mark-ups applied by intermediaries, along with the final price, on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2013)

The Commission considers that the inclusion of details of the price paid to the initial producer and the mark-ups applied by intermediaries, along with the final price, on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs would not be meaningful, notably because it does not take into account the costs incurred by each level in the chain or the marketing strategies of the various actors in the supply chain. In addition, most agricultural raw materials, such as milk, are processed into several co-products which in turn are used together with other ingredients in final products.

Furthermore, a compulsory EU framework would lead to a considerable administrative burden for the supply chain, to a further fragmentation of the internal market and potentially to higher prices for consumers and possibly to higher margins for intermediaries. Therefore, the Commission does not envisage such an initiative.

At the same time, the Commision and the national competition authorities stand ready to carefully investigate any alleged anti-competitive behaviour which would ulitmately lead to price increases for the European consumers. As shown in the report on competition law enforcement (243), the competition authorities have done so in a number of instances in the past few years.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003344/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Uniformisation des prises électriques en Europe

L'un des objectifs de l'Union européenne est de faciliter au maximum la circulation des personnes entre les États membres. Cependant, les différentes formes de prise électrique dans les États obligent les citoyens européens à investir dans des adaptateurs universels pour pouvoir brancher les équipements provenant d'un État membre utilisant une forme de prise électrique différente. Ces contraintes techniques compliquent de ce fait les déplacements entre États membres.

La Commission estime-t-elle utile d'harmoniser les prises de courant dans l'Union européenne pour faciliter le déplacement des citoyens?

Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission

(8 mai 2013)

L'harmonisation des fiches et prises de courant domestiques pourrait faciliter l'utilisation d'appareils électriques dans l'UE, mais il ne serait pas proportionné d'imposer cette harmonisation, pour les motifs exposés dans les réponses de la Commission aux questions écrites E-1731/05, E‐0182/09, E-4123/09, E-5846/09 et E-5088/11.

En outre, il n'est pas démontré que l'utilisation de différentes fiches et prises de courant peut présenter un danger pour la santé et la sécurité des utilisateurs de petits appareils électriques portatifs (utilisés en voyage).

Dès lors, il serait préférable que toute solution à ce problème procède d'accords ou de normes adoptés sur une base volontaire. Dans la pratique, la plupart des États membres utilisent une fiche commune (la fiche européenne).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003344/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Standardising electrical plugs and sockets in Europe

One of the EU’s objectives is to facilitate the movement of people between Member States to the greatest possible extent. The design of electrical plugs and sockets varies from one Member State to another, however, forcing people to buy universal adapters if they want to use electrical equipment when travelling. These technical constraints are making it more difficult for people to move freely between Member States.

Does the Commission think it would make sense to standardise electrical plugs and sockets in the EU in order to facilitate the movement of people?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2013)

Harmonisation of domestic plugs and sockets might facilitate the use of electrical products in the EU, however it would not be proportionate to force harmonisation, for the reasons given in the Commission’s replies to written questions E-1731/2005, E-0182/09, E-4123/09, E-5846/09 and E-5088/11.

In addition, there is no evidence showing that the use of different plugs and sockets can endanger the health and safety of the users of small and mobile electrical equipment (used when travelling).

Thus, any solution for this issue can better be based on voluntary agreements or standards. In practice, most Member States use a common plug (the Europlug).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003345/13

à la Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 mars 2013)

Objet: Avenir du Royaume-Uni dans l'Europe

Devant la question du référendum pour ou contre le maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l'Europe, quelle est la part de citoyens britanniques travaillant au sein de la Commission?

Au cas où le Royaume-Uni sortirait de l'Union européenne, comment est envisagée la situation des fonctionnaires britanniques, qui ne seraient plus ressortissants européens?

Quelles mesures transitoires seraient mises en place pour les remplacer?

Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission

(13 mai 2013)

Les chiffres relatifs aux effectifs de la Commission européenne sont disponibles sur le site internet Europa, sous l'onglet «Qui sommes-nous?», sur la page suivante :

http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_fr.htm.

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à prendre connaissance de sa réponse à la question n° E-000232/2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003345/13

to the Commission

Philippe Boulland (PPE)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Future of the United Kingdom in Europe

We know that the UK intends to hold a referendum on its future in the EU. With this in mind, can the Commission say what proportion of its officials are UK nationals?

If the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, what would happen to officials who are UK nationals, given that they would no longer be EU citizens?

What transitional measures would the Commission consider taking in order to replace them?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

Staff figures of the European Commission are available on the Europa website under the item ‘About us’ at the following link:

http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_en.htm.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Question E-000232/2013.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003347/13

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Problema dell'esposizione a campi elettromagnetici nei paesi europei: quali misure?

L'esposizione a campi elettromagnetici dovuti alla presenza di antenne telefoniche, telefoni cellulari, WLAN, wi-fi, laptop e altre sorgenti tipiche dell'era in cui viviamo è un grave pericolo per la salute. I pazienti affetti da sensibilità multipla (SCM) sono vulnerabili all'inquinamento ambientale e i pazienti affetti da ipersensibilità elettromagnetica (EHS) alle radiazioni elettromagnetiche: l'esposizione ad aria e radiazioni comporta gravi rischi per la loro salute. I primi sintomi sono infatti nausea, bruciori, difficoltà a prendere sonno e a concentrarsi, dolori alla testa, alterazioni del ritmo cardiaco, del metabolismo e dei processi enzimatici e, nei casi più gravi, danneggiamenti delle proteine e delle membrane cellulari. Ad oggi non ci sono cure che permettano di affrontare questa malattia, ma è importante tutelare coloro che ne soffrono e riconoscerli come tali, nonché predisporre misure di sicurezza per i potenziali malati futuri.

Il Piano europeo per l'ambiente e la salute 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)) prevedeva una maggiore tutela di ambienti quali scuole, asili, case di riposo e istituti sanitari, ovvero luoghi con un alto tasso di frequentazione da parte di soggetti particolarmente vulnerabili (bambini e anziani). Oggigiorno in Italia i valori limite per l'esposizione ai campi elettromagnetici sono di 6 volt/metro per le alte frequenze e di 10 e 3 microtesla per frequenze più basse e recenti studi dimostrano che valori pari a 0,4 per le basse e 0,2 per le alte sono già molto pericolosi.

Le disparità sanitarie tra i vari Stati membri dovrebbero essere eliminate. In Svezia, ad esempio, la malattia dell'elettrosensibilità viene riconosciuta come una disabilità e coloro che ne sono affetti hanno diritto a un sostegno previdenziale. È importante che tutti gli Stati membri includano la SCM e l'EHS come malattie riconosciute dai sistemi sanitari nazionali.

Alla luce di quanto sopra può la Commissione far sapere se:

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(23 maggio 2013)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003347/13

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: Exposure to electromagnetic fields in European countries — what measures should be taken?

Exposure to electromagnetic fields due to the presence of phone masts, mobile phones, WLAN, Wi-Fi, laptops and other sources typical of the era in which we live, is a serious health hazard. Patients with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) are vulnerable to environmental pollution and patients suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) to electromagnetic radiation: exposure to air and radiation poses serious risks to their health; in fact, the initial symptoms are nausea, tingling sensations, difficulty sleeping or concentrating, headaches, changes in heart rate, in the metabolism and in enzymatic processes and, in the most severe cases, damage to proteins and cell membranes. To date, there are no treatments to deal with this disease, but it is important to protect those who are suffering from it and to recognise their suffering, as well as to develop safety measures for potential future sufferers.

The mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252 (INI)) provided greater protection for environments such as schools, kindergartens, nursing homes and healthcare institutions, i.e. places regularly attended by particularly vulnerable persons (such as children and the elderly). At present, in Italy, the limit values for exposure to electromagnetic fields are of 6 volts/metre for high frequencies and

10-3 microtesla for lower frequencies, while recent studies have shown that values of 0.4 for low frequencies and 0.2 for high frequencies are already very dangerous.

Health inequalities between Member States should be eliminated. In Sweden, for example, the illness of electrical hypersensitivity is recognised as a disability and those who suffer from it are entitled to social security support. It is important for all Member States to include MCS and EHS as diseases that are recognised by national health systems.

Can the Commission therefore say whether:

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2013)

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003348/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Italia e India: scontro diplomatico — posizione dell'UE nella vicenda dei marò italiani e tutela giuridica da parte dell'UE nel rispetto della Convenzione di Vienna

Il caso del mancato rientro a New Delhi dei due marò italiani e della conseguente ingiustificata perdita dell'immunità diplomatica dell'ambasciatore italiano trattenuto in India ormai non è più solo una questione di politica estera nazionale, ma riveste i caratteri di una controversia internazionale, cui l'UE non può sottrarsi dal momento che l'Italia ne è Stato membro fondatore dal 1952 ed è stato uno dei primi paesi firmatari del trattato di Schengen del 1985. Il problema originario della vicenda — costituito dall'individuazione di quale Stato, l'Italia o l'India, avesse giurisdizione sull'incidente avvenuto a 20,5 miglia marine dalla costa indiana — va evidentemente risolto con il coinvolgimento della rappresentanza diplomatica europea nelle trattative e nella risoluzione della controversia.

In virtù della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare, a cui sia l'India sia l'Italia aderiscono, i poteri sovrani dello Stato costiero si estendono solo sulle acque territoriali, ossia, fino a 12 miglia marine come limite massimo. Sulla zona economica esclusiva lo Stato costiero ha solo poteri funzionali alla conservazione e allo sfruttamento delle risorse naturali e non gode del potere di esercitare la sua giurisdizione penale. Sotto questo profilo, dopo le 12 miglia si entra in acque internazionali e la giurisdizione è esercitata in via esclusiva dallo Stato di bandiera della nave. Inoltre, sempre secondo il diritto internazionale consuetudinario, uno Stato non può esercitare la sua giurisdizione nei confronti degli organi di un altro Stato. Questo in virtù del principio che tra «pari», ossia tra enti egualmente sovrani, non ci si giudica. Ugualmente chiara è la lettura della Convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle relazioni diplomatiche, firmata sia dall'Italia che dall'India, per cui gli agenti diplomatici beneficiano d'immunità dalla giurisdizione dei giudici interni — dunque anche quella della Corte suprema. Inoltre, hanno pieno diritto di circolare liberamente nel paese e, se lo desiderano, di lasciarlo. Infatti, questi privilegi riguardano l'essenza stessa della funzione del diplomatico che è quella di assicurare, nella maniera più libera e completa, la rappresentanza e gli interessi dello Stato che lo invia nello Stato che lo riceve.

Chiedo pertanto all'Alto Rappresentante, la Baronessa Ashton, quale posizione assuma l'UE nel merito della vicenda e nel rispetto del diritto internazionale, nonché di riferire chiaramente sulle azioni legali che verranno intraprese dall'UE.

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

(30 maggio 2013)

L'Unione europea ha costantemente partecipato agli sforzi per risolvere lo spiacevole caso dei due marò detenuti in India. Si è astenuta dal fare commenti sugli aspetti legali del caso perché il procedimento giudiziario è in corso. L'UE ha espresso l'auspicio che la controversia possa essere risolta in conformità con il diritto internazionale.

Nella dichiarazione del 19 marzo 2013 (A 147/13), il portavoce dell'AR ha manifestato la preoccupazione dell'AR relativamente ai provvedimenti del 14 e del 18 marzo 2013 emessi dalla Corte suprema dell'India nei confronti dell'ambasciatore italiano. La Convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle relazioni diplomatiche è una base imprescindibile dell'ordinamento giuridico internazionale che deve essere rispettato in ogni momento.

Con il ritorno dei due marò in India, avvenuto il 23 marzo 2013, i provvedimenti sono stati revocati. Occorre trovare una soluzione accettabile per tutti attraverso il dialogo e nel rispetto del diritto internazionale.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003348/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Diplomatic clash between Italy and India — EU position in the case of the Italian marines and legal protection from the EU with regard to compliance with the Vienna Convention

The case of the failure of the two Italian marines to return to New Delhi and the consequent unjustified loss of diplomatic immunity of the Italian Ambassador being held in India is now no longer simply a matter of national foreign policy, but has become an international dispute, which the EU cannot ignore given that Italy has been a founding Member State since 1952 and was one of the first signatories of the 1985 Schengen Treaty. The original problem — that of identifying which state, Italy or India, had jurisdiction over the incident which took place at 20.5 nautical miles from the coast of India — should clearly be solved with the involvement of EU diplomats in the negotiations to resolve the dispute.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), to which both India and Italy are party, the national sovereignty of the coastal state extends only over territorial waters, i.e. up to 12 nautical miles at the most. Regarding the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state only has powers that relate to the conservation and exploitation of natural resources and does not have the power to exercise criminal jurisdiction. In this respect, after 12 miles, a ship enters international waters and jurisdiction is exercised exclusively by the ship's flag nation. Furthermore, under customary international law, a state may not exercise its jurisdiction over the bodies of another state, by virtue of the principle that ‘sovereign equals’, i.e. entities that are equally sovereign, do not judge each other.

The interpretation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, signed by both Italy and India, is equally clear: diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of domestic courts — and therefore also from that of the Supreme Court. In addition, they are fully entitled to move freely around the country and, if they wish, to leave it. Indeed, these privileges concern the very essence of the role of diplomats, which is that of ensuring that they represent, as freely and fully as possible, the interests of the state which is sending them to the receiving state.

Can the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, therefore say what the EU's position is on the merits of the case and on compliance with international law, and can she clearly state what legal action will be taken by the EU?

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

(30 May 2013)

The European Union has systematically been associated with efforts to resolve the unfortunate case of the two marines detained in India. It has refrained from commenting on the legal merits of the case as these are the subject of judicial proceedings. The EU has expressed the hope that the dispute will be resolved in accordance with international law.

In the statement of 19 March 2013 (A 147/13) the spokesperson of the HR has expressed the concern of the HR with regard to the orders of 14 and 18 March 2013 of the Supreme Court of India to the Ambassador of Italy. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a cornerstone of the international legal order that needs to be respected at all times.

With the return of the two marines to India on 23 March 2013, the orders are superseded. A mutually acceptable solution should be found through dialogue and in respect of international law.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003349/13

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Nuove dipendenze e salute mentale in tempi di crisi: quali misure a livello europeo?

Quando si parla di salute mentale, si intende uno stato di benessere che permette a ciascun individuo di sfruttare al meglio le proprie potenzialità, affrontare le difficoltà della vita quotidiana, rendere dal punto di vista lavorativo e dare un contributo significativo alla comunità. La crisi economica e la crescente incertezza che ne deriva hanno avuto un impatto notevole sulla qualità di vita e sulla salute mentale delle persone. La depressione sembra essere uno dei principali elementi responsabili del carico globale di malattie, seguito da attacchi di panico, consumo di alcool, droghe e gioco d'azzardo. Grazie ai sistemi di monitoraggio delle prescrizioni mediche si stima che, tra il 2000 e il 2011, l'utilizzo di psicofarmaci sia aumentato del 340 %. Nei casi più gravi, l'indebitamento e la costante preoccupazione di non riuscire a far fronte al mantenimento economico della propria famiglia possono portare al suicidio: nel 2012 in Italia sono stati registrati 3048 suicidi, di cui 1412 per malattia, 324 per cause affettive e 187 per motivi economici.

Considerato che:

può dire la Commissione se non ritenga necessario:

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(23 maggio 2013)

L'elaborazione e il riesame delle linee guida per il trattamento dei disturbi mentali e del gioco d'azzardo patologico non rientrano tra le responsabilità della Commissione, ma sono di competenza degli Stati membri e delle organizzazioni dei professionisti sanitari.

Il sostegno agli Stati membri affinché i sistemi sanitari nazionali offrano un supporto alle persone che soffrono di problemi di salute mentale, siano in grado di prevenire questo tipo di disturbi e promuovano la buona salute mentale è l'obiettivo dell'azione congiunta sulla salute e sul benessere mentale, lanciata nel febbraio 2013, nell'ambito del programma dell'UE per la salute. Tale azione, che avrà una durata di tre anni, coinvolge 24 Stati membri e tre paesi associati e intende, fra l'altro, definire un quadro comune d'azione in materia di salute mentale.

La Commissione finanzia inoltre attività di progetto per sostenere gli interventi delle regioni contro la depressione e i suicidi. Tra queste figurano il progetto Euregenas — European regions enforcing actions against suicide  (246) (Interventi delle regioni europee contro i suicidi) nell'ambito del programma dell'UE per la salute e il progetto del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca OSPI-Europe — Optimising Suicide Prevention Programs and their Implementation in Europe  (247) (Ottimizzazione dei programmi di prevenzione dei suicidi e loro attuazione in Europa).

Gli Stati membri, secondo la giurisprudenza pertinente della Corte di giustizia dell'UE, stabiliscono il quadro normativo per l'offerta di servizi di gioco d'azzardo e definiscono gli obiettivi della propria politica in materia di gioco d'azzardo come pure il livello di tutela perseguito nell'interesse generale. Pertanto, spetta innanzitutto alle autorità nazionali valutare il potenziale di dipendenza dei vari giochi d'azzardo. Sono tuttavia necessarie ulteriori ricerche in questo settore per una migliore comprensione dei termini utilizzati, dei comportamenti, dei fattori e delle cause collegate. Il progetto «ALICE-RAP» studia il fenomeno delle dipendenze in Europa, tra cui la dipendenza dal gioco d'azzardo (248).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003349/13

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: New addictions and mental health at times of crisis — what measures are being taken at EU level?

Mental health means a state of well-being that allows each individual to make the most of their potential, to cope with the difficulties of daily life, to perform well at work and to make a significant contribution to the community. The economic crisis and the growing uncertainty arising from it have had a significant impact on people's quality of life and mental health. Depression seems to be one of the main overall diseases, followed by panic attacks, consumption of alcohol, drugs and gambling. Thanks to the system of prescription monitoring it is estimated that between 2000 and 2011, the use of psychotropic drugs increased by 340%. In the most severe cases, debt problems and the constant worry of not being able to support one's family can lead to suicide. In 2012, 3 048 suicides were recorded in Italy, 1 412 of which due to illness, 324 for emotional reasons and 187 for economic reasons.

Given that:

can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2013)

The development or review of guidelines for the treatment of mental disorders and of pathological gambling does not fall under the responsibility of the Commission, but under that of Member States and health professionals' organisations.

Supporting Member States in enabling their health systems to provide support to people with mental health problems, to prevent them and to promote good mental health, is the aim of a Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being under the EU-Health Programme which was launched in February 2013. It involves 24 Member States and three associated countries and will run over three years. One of its objectives is to develop a common framework of action on mental health.

In addition, the Commission is funding project activities which support regions in acting against depression and suicides. These include the projects ‘European regions enforcing actions against suicide (Euregenas)’ (249) under the EU-Health Programme as well as the Research Framework Programme 7-project ‘Optimising Suicide Prevention Programs and their Implementation in Europe (OSPI-Europe)’ (250) .

Member States, in accordance with the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, establish the regulatory framework for the offering of gambling services, and set the objectives of their gambling policy and the level of protection sought in the public interest. The assessment of the potential for addiction of different games of chance is thus primarily the responsibility of national authorities. However, further research in this area is required for a better understanding of the terms used, the behavioural attitudes and the factors and causes linked to this. ‘ALICE-RAP’ is studying the phenomenon of addiction in Europe, including gambling (251).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003350/13

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: Quale futuro per la realizzazione e applicazione di retine artificiali?

Recentemente in Italia la collaborazione tra due all'avanguardia nello studio di nuove tecnologie ha portato alla realizzazione della prima retina artificiale fatta con materiali organici e dunque biocompatibili. Il suo funzionamento assomiglia a quello di una minuscola cella solare. Contrariamente a quanto accadeva in passato questa innovativa retina è realizzata senza semiconduttori inorganici quali il silicio. Le persone con retine diventate poco sensibili alla luce — a causa di malattie quali la retinite pigmentosa che possono comportare anche la cecità totale — trarrebbero un enorme vantaggio da questa scoperta. Di fatto, il materiale organico utilizzato, un polimero semiconduttore, si è rivelato di estrema importanza in quanto possiede una proteina simile a quella sensibile alla luce nella nostra retina. I ricercatori hanno posto una retina di ratto con organelli danneggiati su un substrato di vetro rivestito da un metallo trasparente, vale a dire l'ossido d'indio-stagno, e dal polimero organico. Quest'ultimo, stimolato dalla luce, ha stimolato a sua volta i neuroni della retina.

Considerato che:

può dire la Commissione:

Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione

(17 maggio 2013)

L’esecuzione di studi «in vivo» sarebbe effettivamente decisiva per trasformare in potenziale cura la scoperta fatta dagli scienziati in Italia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-003350/13

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (EFD)

(25 March 2013)

Subject: What does the future hold for producing and using artificial retinas?

Recently in Italy, cooperation between two scientists in the forefront of research into new technologies has resulted in producing the first artificial retina made from organic and, therefore, biocompatible materials. It operates in a similar manner to a tiny solar cell. Unlike the retinas produced in the past, this innovative retina has been made without using inorganic semiconductors such as silicon. This discovery would be hugely beneficial to people whose retinas have developed a low sensitivity to light due to conditions such as retinitis pigmentosa, which can also lead to total blindness. In actual fact, the organic material used, a semiconductor polymer, has turned out to be extremely important as it has a protein similar to the protein in our retina that is sensitive to light. The researchers placed a retina from a rat with damaged organelles on a glass substrate coated with a transparent metal, indium tin oxide, and the organic polymer. The latter, stimulated by light, stimulated in turn the retina’s neurons.

Given that:

can the Commission state:

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

(17 May 2013)

is very important. The development of an artificial retina would be a milestone in this effort.

The performance of in vivo studies will indeed be critical for the translation of the finding by the scientists in Italy to a potential treatment.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003351/13

aan de Commissie

Bastiaan Belder (EFD)

(25 maart 2013)

Betreft: Aanpak oneerlijke handelspraktijken in de voedingsmiddelenketen

Stakeholders vertegenwoordigd in het deskundigenplatform van het „Forum op hoog niveau over een beter functionerende voedselvoorzieningsketen" bereikten consensus over beginselen inzake goede praktijken, maar werden het niet eens over het raamwerk voor handhaving van die beginselen.

Denkt de Commissie dat oneerlijke handelspraktijken aangepakt kunnen worden tot tevredenheid van alle partijen, terwijl over het raamwerk voor handhaving geen consensus mogelijk bleek?

In het raamwerk voor handhaving (versie 25 januari) is een anonieme klacht slechts mogelijk voor geaggregeerde gebundelde klachten over een oneerlijke handelspraktijk of voor indviduele klachten over procesmatige zaken. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie het feit dat in het raamwerk geen mogelijkheid is opgenomen om anoniem een individuele klacht in te dienen over een oneerlijke handelspraktijk?

Antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie

(3 juni 2013)

1 — 3. De Commissie onderzoekt momenteel verschillende opties om oneerlijke handelspraktijken tussen ondernemingen aan te pakken en verricht daartoe een effectbeoordeling. In dit verband zal de Commissie onder andere de kwestie van sancties en anonieme individuele klachten onderzoeken en nagaan of die opties geïntroduceerd zouden moeten worden in een raamwerk voor handhaving dat oneerlijke handelspraktijken tussen de betrokkenen in alle schakels van de voedselketen aanpakt. In dit stadium onthoudt de Commissie zich van een definitief oordeel over de effectiviteit van de vrijwillige gedragscode waarnaar het geachte Parlementslid verwijst.

De Commissie wenst een ruimere overeenkomst tussen belanghebbenden uit de voedingsmiddelenketen en heeft de partners in de voedingsmiddelenketen gevraagd om in deze richting verder te werken. Zij verwelkomt echter elk initiatief dat in een deelakkoord voorziet dat gericht is op het verbeteren van de relaties tussen ondernemingen. De Commissie zal de resultaten van dit vrijwillige initiatief nauwlettend in de gaten houden  terwijl zij de effectbeoordeling verricht.

De effectieve realisatie van dit initiatief zou een aanwijzing moeten vormen voor de resultaten die de sector ervan verwacht. Het aantal ondernemingen dat zich in de komende maanden zal aansluiten, zal daarvoor een eerste beoordelingscriterium zijn.